Scdrc Court May 2014 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Manjeet Singh Parmar Vs. M/S. S.S. Traders and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-06-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Present complaint has been filed, seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties:- a) AB-10 excavator back Hoe with Engine No.4H321600001200011 chassis No.AB 10 CHB 00130005 be replaced, as the present Excavator is having inherent defects and frequent break downs. b) complainant be compensated to the tune of Rs.28 lacs for loss of business due to frequent break down and consequential idle period of the excavator. c) Compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- be awarded due to non-issue of cash memo., resulting in non-registration of excavator. d) Compensation of Rs.1.00 lac be awarded for mental torture, anxiety and harassment. e) Opposite parties be directed to pay money equivalent to the amount of interest paid by the complainant to the bank, on the loan raised for purchase of the excavator. f) Litigation charges and counsel fee of Rs.20,000/- be also ordered to be paid. g) Any other relief to which the complainant may be f...
Javed Khan Ismail Khan Vs. Managing Director, Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Lt ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the order dated 13/05/2011 passed in consumer complaint No. 131/2011 by the District Forum, Akola by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The complainant had field the said complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondent Nos.1and2 herein seeking appropriate directions to the respondents herein. The District Forum below heard the learned Advocate of the complainant on the point of admission of complaint and dismissed the complaint at the stage of admission holding that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(i)(d) of consumer Protection Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the complainant has preferred this appeal, who is herein after referred to as appellant and the original opposite party Nos. 1and2 are herein after are referred to as respondent Nos. 1and2 respectively. 3. We have heard learned Advocates of both parties and peru...
Rahul JaIn Vs. Country Club (India) Limited
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-06-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against order dated 1.8.2012 passed by District Forum-VII (South-West) in complaint case No.638/2009. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that appellant filed a consumer complaint before the aforesaid District Forum alleging that he paid Rs.2,25,000/- towards membership fees to the respondent and was promised a plot of 2000 sq.ft. willbe allotted to him at the earliest. 3. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant received a letter from respondent demanding Rs.30,000/- towards documents charges, stamp paper fee etc. for purposes of allotment of the said plot to the appellant was dis-satisfied with the demand and filed a consumer complaint alleging commitment of the fraud by respondents. The appellant requested refund of the membership fees alongwithinterest and compensation and cost etc. In reply to notice respondents appeared before the Ld. District Forum and pleaded that as per terms a...
College of Engineering Roorkee Vs. Ajay Kumar Ross
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: May-06-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 19.02.2013 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 158 of 2011, has been preferred with a delay of 87 days. 2. For condonation of 87 days delay in filing the appeal, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay (Paper Nos. 34 to 35) supported with an affidavit of Sh. Ajay Sharma, Administrative Officer of the appellant “ College (Paper No. 36), but in the affidavit, the contents of the application for condonation of delay have been verified and no averment has been made by the appellant in the affidavit regarding delay in filing the appeal. 3. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that for the first time on 27.05.2013, the appellant came to know about the impugned order on making contact from their counsel; that thereupon the appellant asked their counsel to obtain the certified copy of the imp...
Arun Ganpat Nawarkar Vs. Mangle Shantaram Patil and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-06-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Shri. Arun Ganpat Nawarkar appellant in both these appeals, original respondent No.3 challenges in the appeals the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Dhule passed on 18.09.2009 while deciding complaint cases Nos.1093/2008 and 1094/2008. Both these appeals are related to common subject matter, so we are deciding both appeals by common judgment and order. 2. Complainant Mangal Shantaram Patil and Shantaram Dayaram Patil both had kept certain amounts in Fixed Deposits. Said fixed deposits were matured therefore complainants demanded the maturity amounts. Said amounts were not paid by the respondent No.1 Dhule Shahar Kirana Va Bhusar Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dhule and its office bearers. Therefore complainant approached to Forum by demanding maturity amount of Rs.1,61,500/- with interest and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for cost. 3. Notices were issued to the respondent by District Forum. All the respondents were appeared before the...
Vinay Bhagnal Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-06-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 10.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited, has been dismissed, with the finding that the insured vehicle, in respect of which, claim had been made, was transferred by the insured, in favour of the appellant, about eight months, prior to the occurrence of accident and no intimation of such transfer was given to the respondent, as per requirement of GR-17. 2. Bus No.HP-64-8097, which was insured with the respondent, in the name of one Smt. Neelam Bhagnal, for the period from 09.07.2008 to 08.07.2009, with the respondent, was transferred in the name of the appellant, on 06.09.2008, per registration certificate, copy Annexure- C/2C. Vehicle met with an accident on 04.05.2009 and was extensively damaged. Intimation of a...
Sunil Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-06-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appeal is directed against the order dated 31st August, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the finding that the insured vehicle was a goods carriage, i.e. to say, a transport vehicle, while the person, who was driving the said vehicle, at the time of the accident, held a licence to drive a non-transport light motor vehicle. 2. Admitted facts are that appellant owned a Mahindra Max Pickup vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.1, for the period from 14.04.2008 to 13.04.2009. Vehicle met with an accident on 05.09.2008 and was damaged. Report was lodged with the Police. Intimation of the accident was given to respondent No.1 also. A surveyor was deputed, who assessed the loss at Rs.3,08,532/-, but at the same time he reported that the loss being margin...
M/S. Vidyut Metallics Ltd. Vs. the Divisional Manager
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-2014
Naredra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant company is engaged in manufacturing of safety razors and surgical blades and availed Floater Fidelity Guarantee Group Insurance Policy bearing no.46/110900/9356 to provide insurance cover to the contingency resulting in loss due to infidel nature of the companys employees. One S.K.Das, Regional Sales Manager of the Companys office at Indore allegedly breached the trust and defrauded the complainant company by accepting the cheques which were bounced against the delivery of the consumer products to M/s.Abhishek Corporation located at Indore, one of the agents of the company. Police complaint was filed against S.K.Das. It is alleged that said Das has put the complainant company to loss by his willful breach of written rules in connivance with sale proprietor of M/s.Abhishek Corporation to the tune of Rs.7,31,000/-. The complainant intimated this incident resulting into loss to the opponent insurer. Surveyor was appointed. However, claim payable und...
Javed Khan Ismail Khan Vs. Managing Director, Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Lt ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-06-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the order dated 13/05/2011 passed in consumer complaint No. 131/2011 by the District Forum, Akola by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The complainant had field the said complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondent Nos.1and2 herein seeking appropriate directions to the respondents herein. The District Forum below heard the learned Advocate of the complainant on the point of admission of complaint and dismissed the complaint at the stage of admission holding that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(i)(d) of consumer Protection Act. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the complainant has preferred this appeal, who is herein after referred to as appellant and the original opposite party Nos. 1and2 are herein after are referred to as respondent Nos. 1and2 respectively. 3. We have heard learned Advocates of both parties and peru...
The Hatmag Mahamandal Viners Karmachari Shakari Griha Nirman Sanstha L ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-06-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original opposite party (for short O.P.) against order dtd.10.06.2008 passed by District Forum, Nagpur in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/08/275 (new) [CC/04/312 (old)] by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that the O.P. is a Co-operative Housing Society and an owner of the land of Kh.No.93/1, admeasuring 4.4 hectare of village Besa, Dist. Nagpur. It demarcated the said land and made the plots. It entered in to agreement of sale on 01.07.1998 with the complainant to sell plot No.79 of that land for consideration of Rs.40,470/-. The complainant paid in instalments, total Rs.40,000/- to the O.P. He also obtained possession of the said plot from O.P. on 01.10.1998 as per the possession receipt (Kabja Patra). The O.P. did not execute the sale-deed as agreed, though complainant requested it to execute the same. Therefore, the complainant filed the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »