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.
M/S. Dsg Papers Private Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-05-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant is a Private Limited Company formed by its members for earning livelihood by means of self employment. It was stated that the complainant opened one cash credit limit account bearing No.0087008700047036 with the Opposite Party Bank. It was further stated that the complainant engaged Fakir Badshah Carriers, G.T. Road, Sirhind Road, Mandi Gobindgarh, for sending goods from one place to another. It was further stated that the said transporter used to raise bills and the complainant, accordingly, either used to pay the charges through cash or cheque. It was further stated that the complainant gave a cheque to said Fakir Badshah Carriers bearing No.589479...
Superintending Engineer and Another Vs. Suresh Baburao Umate
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2014
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent No.1 and 2 who are the officers of MSEDCL, against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Latur in C.C.No.145/2008 whereby complaint is partly allowed by holding appellant/opponent to have given deficient service to the complainant. Respondent is original complainant. For better understanding appellants are jointly hereinafter termed as opponent MSEDCL and respondent as complainant. 2. The factual aspects of this case are that, complainant is a farmer having land admeasuring 6 acres 18 gunthas from Gut No.158/A from village Killari, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. That, he had planted sugarcane crop in his said land admeasuring 6 acres 60 gunthas in the agriculture year 2007-08. That, the said sugarcane was also recorded by Killari sugar factory. It was contended that on 18.3.2008 at about 12.00 noon, electric line passing through his said land over sugarcane crop had brushed each other and the...
Tata Aig Life Insurance Co. and Others Vs. Mast Ram Sharma
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-05-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellants have assailed the order dated 21st October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solan, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent-Mast Ram Sharma, has been allowed and a direction given to them to refund the amount of premium paid by the respondent, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money, and also to play Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost of litigation. 2. Respondent-Mast Ram Sharma, filed a complaint alleging that on 20th March, 2007, he wanted to purchase a Ulip Insurance Policy from the appellants, for which he paid a sum of Rs.14,143/-, as premium for the first year, and that he was supposed to pay the premium at the aforesaid rate for ten years. He paid premium for three more years. He alleged that policy papers were not issued t...
Digambar Vs. the Branch Manager, Auto-tieup Branch, New India Assuranc ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.115/2014. We heard Shri. P.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant and we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of hearing before admission. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the œcomplainant? and the respondent as the œopponent insurance company?) 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, complainant Shri. Digambar was the owner of vehicle i.e. Tata Safari Jeep bearing No.MH.22-H-4590. It was insured with the opponent insurance company. On 10.10.2009 the insured vehicle is stolen away and thereafter immediately the complainant informed the incident to the police as well as opponent insurance company. The police made investigation but the vehicle was not found. Therefore the complainant submitted insurance claim with the opponent ins...
M/S. Alliance Nirman Ltd. and Another Vs. Deepa Gupta and Another
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-05-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the complainant of the case No.1084/2008 is directed against the order dated 7.5.2012 of the CDRF-VI, M Block, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi vide which OP was directed to refund Rs.2,36,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of booking till date of payment along with compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards harassment including litigation charges. 2. The appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the appellant himself there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Pranav, Counsel for the Appellant and Shri R.N.Gupta, Counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 4. It is admitted by the applicant in its applications that there is a delay of 240 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant/OP is that appellant company shifted from Narian Manzil to Barakhamba Road. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonati...
M/S. Satluj Motors Vs. M/S. Ess Kay Woolen Industry and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-05-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Respondent, M/s. Ess Kay Woolen Industry, which is a sole proprietorship concern of Gagan Malhan, wanted to purchase a Nano car, for which it sought a quotation from appellant, M/s. Satluj Motors, Lunapani, District Mandi, on 11.04.2012. Quotation, which is available at page-33 of the record of learned District Forum, was issued, in which price was quoted at Rs.1,49,617/- for the car, insurance, extended warranty, TRC and logistic. On 11.04.2012, respondent/complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/-, on account of booking money in cash, against receipt, available at pages-34. On 13.04.2012, respondent/ complainant gave a bank draft for a sum of Rs.1,22,617/- to the appellant, through a letter, available at page-35. Copy of bank draft, submitted with the said application, is available at page-36. A sum of Rs.27,000/- was adjusted towards the value of old scooter, which was given to the appellant by the respondent/complainant. Car was deli...
Subrao Bhimrao Kolekar Vs. National Seeds Corporation Ltd., Through It ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-05-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad dismissing consumer complaint No.15/09. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- On 20.8.2008 complainant Shri.Subbarao Kolekar who is farmer had purchased sunflower seeds from opponent No.2 M/s Krushi Vastu Bhandar, Osmanabad. Same seeds were manufactured by opponent No.1 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. After purchasing sunflower seeds the complainant sown the seeds in his field by cultivating the field properly. However, according to complainant there was no proper germination. It is submitted that there was only 12% germination. Therefore he made complaint with Tahasildar, Osmanabad and also with the District Agriculture Officer. On receiving his complaint, the village Talathi as well as District Seeds Grieva...
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Through Its Branch Manager Vs. Ra ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opposite party (for short O.P.) against the order dated 30/12/2006 passed in consumer complaint bearing No. CC 158/2006 by the District Consumer Forum, Akola by which complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he invested total amount Rs.50,000/- on 19/08/2005 with the O.P. (LIC) under future Plus (Plan 172) plan. The O.P. had assured that it would furnish the bonds/certificates about units very shortly. However, they were not furnished to him, though the requests were made orally and in writing from time to time by the complainant to it. Lastly on 20/06/2006 the complainant was asked by the O.P. either to accept the units at the rate of the date 20/06/2006 or to take back his aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore the complainant under protest accepted cheque for Rs.50,000/-from the O.P. He claimed from the O.P. Rs.35,000/- towards the loss...
M/S. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., R/by Its Divisional Manager Vs. ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-05-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.156/11 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 22, 2012 directing the opposite party/Insurance Company to pay to the complainant Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment expenses incurred by him. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant was a holder of Nagarik Suraksha Policy, Ext.B1 issued by the opposite party, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Under the conditions of the policy complainant is eligible for Rs.1,00,000/- towards hospital expenses. Complainant met with a motor accident on August 01, 2010 while he was riding his motor cycle. He underwent treatment at Carmal Hospital Aluva, Lissie Hospital, Ernakulam and Sree Sudheendra Hospital, Ernakulam and spent about Rs.3.lakhs for treatment expenses. His claim was repudiated by the opposite party/Insurance Company stating that he was under the influence...
General Manager Vs. Kanta Rajhanse Mohod
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum Amravati dated 31/08/2001 in CC No. 207/2000 granting the complaint and directing that the i. The bill given by the O.P. for the period from 01/07/1999 to 31/08/1999 be cancelled. ii. The O.P. shall recover Rs.2500/- from Rs.5000/- deposited by the complainant and return the remaining Rs.2500/- to the complainant. iii. The O.P. shall pay Rs.2000/- as compensation towards physical and mental harassment and Rs.2000/- as cost of the complaint. iv. The O.P shall restore the telephone connection No. 665984 in 15 days and if the number is not available it would provide another number. v. The O.P. shall execute the order in the span of 45 days and if failed it would pay an interest at rate of 18 percent p.a. till the final payment to the complainant. 2. The brief facts leading to above complaint are that the complainant Kanta Rajhans Mohad, a nurse by profession got telephone conne...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »