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.
A.C.C. Ltd. and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar Kanaujia, Haridwar and Anothe ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: May-05-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 373 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and directed them to pay to the complainant the cost of 90 bags of A.C.C. cement and Rs. 1,500/- towards the cost of litigation within a month from the date of the order. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the complainant - Sh. Suresh Kumar Kanaujia started construction of his house on 28.03.2007 in which he used A.C.C. cement purchased from M/s Shree Balaji Trading Company, Laksar, District Haridwar “ opposite party No. 3. Opposite party No. 3 is the dealer of M/s A.C.C. Cement Ltd., Area Office, Dehradun “ opposite party No. 1. The cement is distributed to the dealers through District Distribution Officer, A.C.C. cement, Haridwar “ opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that when the painter ...
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Through Its Branch Manager Vs. Pankaj Shan ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-05-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short OP) against the order dated 31/5/2008 passed in consumer complaint, bearing CC No.03/2008 by the District Forum, Wardha by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he had obtained loan from a bank namely Wardha Nagari Sahakari Adhikosh, Arvi. The said Bank obtained insurance policy from the OP by paying premium, which was debited to the loan account of the complainant. The said policy covered the risk of the premises of complainant due to fire. The period of that policy was from 13/4/1999 to 12/4/2000 and the sum assured was Rs.14 lac. The said insured premises accidentally caught fire on 9/5/1999 at 5 a.m.and damaged. The said fire was extinguished thereafter, with the help of fire brigade. The incident was reported to police as well as to the OP by the complainant. The OP appointed surveyor who inspected ...
DakshIn Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Through the Sub Divisional ...
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-05-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated March 18th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Palwal. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œThere is nothing on record to prove that the meter in question was running slow due to lapse on the part of the complainant. Since there was no fault of complainant so the question of imposing penalty upon him does not rise. Complainant cannot be burdened with the penalty due to fault on the part of the opposite party itself. This amount to unfair trade practice. Hence complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to withdraw the impugned bill for the period from 3.7.2009 to 3.9.2009 amounting to Rs.57,808/- in respect of electricity connection immediately and to issue a fresh bill as per actual consumption charges as well as to receive payment of the same besides not to claim the alleged amount of Rs.57,808/- from the complainant. ...
Deputy Ex. Engg. O and M Division Vs. Yakub Tar Mohamad Isani and Othe ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-03-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 8/6/2004 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No.186/2003 by the District Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he obtained electric connection from the Opposite Party (for short OP) Nos.1,2 and 3 to his Ice Factory. On 12/4/2003, the members of flying squad of the OPs paid visit to his factory and inspected the power meter, but found no fault, but the OPs served bill for Rs.6,19,675/- to the complainant which was to be paid till 30/4/2002. The OPs also disconnected his electric supply on 19/4/2002 alleging that the complainant committed theft of electricity for last three yeaRs.The complainant paid thereafter, provisional bills of Rs.1,49,400/- on 18/2/2003 and then again Rs.1,26,142.50 on 30/4/2003. However, thereafter, the OPs served bills for Rs.4,12,730/- to him. Therefore he filed appeal on 19/...
Arun Namdeorao Akare Vs. Devrao Mahadeorao Maski and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-03-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This application is made by the appellant for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. The respondent No.1 opposed this application by filing reply. The respondent No.2 is proceeded exparte as it remained absent though duly served with notice. 2. We have heard Mr C P Wani, the learned advocate appearing for appellant and Mr S A Kale, the learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the papers placed before us by both sides. 3. The facts in brief giving rise to this application in brief are that the respondent No.1 herein had filed a Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/09/593 against original O.P. / the respondent No.2 Gas Suvidha Petrochemicals (India) Ltd., alleging in brief that though he (respondent No.1 herein) paid Rs.2,00,125/- to the said respondent No.2 herein and completed all formalities, for supplying him the articles, facilities and LPG (gas) supply, it did not supply the same to him even though it (respondent No.2) allotte...
Abhilashi Education Society and Another Vs. Geeta Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the opposite parties against the order dated 17.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against them by respondent-Geeta Devi, has been allowed and they have been directed to refund an amount of Rs.34,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of complaint, to the date of its payment, and have also been directed to pay Rs.4000/-, as compensation, and a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs. 2. Respondent-Geeta Devi, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants alleging that she had taken admission at an Educational Institution run by the appellants, on 19.07.2012, by depositing a sum of Rs.35,000/-, against receipt, Annexure C-1, on informing the appellants that she was on the wai...
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kisanrao Mahadeorao Kapse and Ano ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-03-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 16/03/2011 passed in consumer complaint No. 450/2010 by the District Forum Nagpur by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is brief is that the original opposite party (for short O.P.) No.1 is a manufacturer of the car namely Chevrolet and the O.P. No.2 is its dealer and O.P. No.3 is the insurance company. The complainant purchased the car from the O.P. No.2 which was manufactured by the O.P. No.1 and then he insured that car with the O.P. No.3 for the period from 29/12/2009 to 29/12/2010 and sum assured was Rs.3,12,000/-. The said car met with an accident and it was badly damaged and therefore, the complainant gave its intimation to the O.P. No3 and took that car to the workshop of the O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 gave estimate of Rs.4,75,678/- on 09/03/2010 for repairing of that car. It was advised by the O.P. No.2 to change the body shell o...
Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., Through Authorized Signatory Vs ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-03-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in CC.218/09 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, September 30, 2011 directing the first opposite party to revive Exts.A1 and A2 insurance policies accepting the premium and to refund the entire amount received by the complainant in excess of the premium. 2. The case of the complainants as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- On 17.03.2003 complainant availed a life insurance policy from the first opposite party and on 12.03.2003 the wife of the complainant availed another policy. Both the policies were for the period of 10 years with 6% guarantee return. Complainant and his wife paid six years premium regularly. The complainant and his wife agreed to switch over the said policies to a new scheme as suggested by 3rd and 4th opposite parties. On 8.8.2008 complainant had sig...
Anil Shrivas Vs. Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limite ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-03-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.11.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Janjgir “ Champa (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.22/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the complaint filed before the District Forum are : that the appellant (complainant) is registered owner of the Xylo car bearing registration No.P.B. 29-B-2021 and the vehicle was insured with the respondents (O.P.). On 25.08.2011, the health of the house owner of the appellant (complainant) was not well, therefore, he had taken the vehicle to Apollo Hospital, and while returning from the Hospital, near Samrat Dhaba, the vehicle met with accident resulting which mudguard, bonnet and front part of the vehicle was damaged. The intimation regarding the incident was given by the driver of the vehicle to Police Station, ...
The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.P. Josep ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-03-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the 1st opposite party in CC.296/12 on the file of CDRF, Idukki under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated, April 29, 2013. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in his complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant was a member of Ksheera Karshaka Suraksha Padhathi and his son is a member of 2nd opposite party Ksheerolpadaka Sahakarana Sangam, Thodupuzha. The 2nd opposite party and the Apex Society jointly launched an Insurance Scheme in which complainant was a beneficiary. As per the insurance scheme the first opposite party agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- for one person towards treatment expenses. Complainant was treated for urine block from September 12, 2011 to September 20, 2011 in MOSC Medical College Hospital, Kolencherry. The treatment expenses came to Rs.19,541/-. The claim of the complainant was repudiated by the first opposite party stating that complainant develope...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »