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.
Mangal Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-03-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 09.12.2013, 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 respondents, has been dismissed, with the finding that intimation of the theft of insured vehicle had been given to the Police, as also the respondents (insurer), long after the alleged theft of insured vehicle. 2. Appellant owned a truck bearing registration No.HP-12A-6827. The same was insured with the respondents. During the currency of the insurance agreement, truck was allegedly stolen on the night intervening 6th/7th January, 2012, at a place called Jagatkhana. Driver of the truck, namely Manpreet Singh, informed the appellant about the theft on the morning of 07.01.2012, when he noticed that the truck was missing from the site, where he had parked it, on the previous night. Report was lodged with the Police on 11...
V.K. Gupta Vs. M/S. Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Thro ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-02-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.01.2014, 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 being an Engineer and Contractor by profession, got a contract from the Public Works Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh, to construct an Inter-State Link Bridge between Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh State)/Karnal (Haryana State), over Yamuna River, under the Central Government Scheme. It was stated that, with a purpose to carry out the said work, the complainant purchased a transit mixture, in June, 2010, from M/s Ashoka Leyland Ltd., for the aforesaid purpose. The said vehicle was registered vide Regd. No.CH-01-TA-9498, and was got was insured with the Opposite Parties, as Private Carrier, vide Insurance Policy, Annexure C-1, val...
Jagan Nath Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-02-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This application for additional evidence by way of placing on record Annexure A1 to A-21, was moved by the appellant, during the pendency of appeal, stating therein that it (appeal) was remanded back by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi vide order dated 24.2.2014. It was further stated that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, observed in the order dated 24.2.2014 that the State Commission did not decide the application, for taking on record these documents. It was further stated that though the documents, aforesaid, were annexed with the appeal, yet, no separate application was moved by the appellant, for placing the same on record. It was further stated that the appellant, in para No.9 of the appeal mentioned that the documents were shown to the District Forum, at the time of arguments, but it failed to appreciate the same. It was further stated that the complainant being a layman was not aware...
Arya Hybrid Seeds Ltd. Vs. Kishan Vishwanath Abadar and Another
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-02-2014
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Arya Hybrid Seeds Ltd., Aurangabad challenges in this appeal judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded on 16.3.2009 partly allowing consumer complaint No.333/2008. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. Complainant Kishan S/o Vishwanath Abadar, resident of Sawargaon, Tq.Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded is an agriculturist. Complainant is owner of land gut No.37 and 42 admeasuring 1 hector 78R and 77R. Complainant had purchased three bags of Soyabin seeds of Arya 33 variety each of 25 Kg. Said seeds were sown in his respective fields on 15.6.2008. It is revealed by complainant that there was bearing of pods but it was found that there is no grain in the said pods and pods dried suddenly. Therefore complainant approached to seed company but they did not respond. Therefore he made application to Taluka Krishi Adhikari. Accordingly, on 19.9.2008 Quality Control Inspector, Panchayat Samiti, Ardhapur visited the field and conducted the panchanama...
Pritam Singh Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Its B ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-02-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the complainant, is directed against the order dated 22.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirmour at Nahan, whereby his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondent, has been dismissed, with the finding that the insured vehicle at the time, when it met with an accident, was being driven by a person, who did not hold an effective driving licence, to drive a transport vehicle. 2. Appellant owned a Mahindra Pick-up Van, which was registered as a goods carriage. Vehicle was insured with the respondent, for the period from 14.03.2009 to 13.03.2010, in the sum of Rs.2,90,000/-. It met with an accident on 27th March, 2009 and was completely damaged. Intimation of accident was given to the respondent. Claim was also lodged. Respondent, however, repudiated the claim, on the ground t...
Dilshad Gill Vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-02-2014
Dev Raj, Member: 1. In brief, the facts of the case, are that as the complainant wanted to move into a residential house, in the area of Tri-City, and, for that purpose, was lured by the advertisements of the Opposite Parties. It was stated that there were some individuals, who were willing to transfer their units by entering into an independent agreement with the approval of the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant was told that the one Sh. Jagmohan Marwaha, owner of the unit bearing NoTVM J1-F05-501, was interested in transferring his unit alongwith all the amount he had already deposited with the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the complainant entered into an independent agreement with Sh. Jagmohan Marwaha and paid the amount, which he had paid to the Opposite Parties and, thereafter, the complainant was nominated as the owner of the said unit vide letter dated 26.11.2011, Annexure C-1 by the Opposite Parties. The price of the unit was Rs.51,42,7...
Aeroflot Airlines, Through Its Commercial Manager Vs. Anil Kumar Bhai ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-02-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.11.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œAs the deficiency by Opposite Party No.1 is proved, we allow this complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.50,000/- Complainant for the harassment caused to him and his wife. The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation. However, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is dismissed, as no allegation of deficiency in service or harassment by them has either been alleged or proved. This order be complied with by the Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified cop...
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Roshni Devi
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: May-02-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 73 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs.10,23,000/- to the respondent together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment; Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,500/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of JCB machine bearing registration No. HR-55-F-0916, which was insured with the appellant “ National Insurance Company Limited for the period from 06.02.2009 to 05.02.2010 at an IDV of Rs.14,00,000/-. During the validity of insurance policy, the said vehicle met with an accident on 19.07.2009 and got completely damaged. The FIR of ...
M/S. Tvs Motor Company Ltd. Vs. Haneesh T. Ram and Another
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-02-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in OP.95/03 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikkode challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 25, 2004 directing the opposite parties to repair the two wheeler of the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this: The complainant purchased a TVS Victor Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KL.11.P-9795 from the 1st opposite party on August 02, 2002 for Rs.40,818/-. On that day itself the vehicle had starting trouble and was skidding while applying break. On 13.08.2002 itself he approached first opposite party is service centre and got it repaired. Thereafter on several times it showed defects and was getting only 50 to 55 kmpl as mileage. Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. First opposite party is the Manager, Gem Motors, Kozhikkode and 2nd opposite party is its Managing Dir...
S.B.i. Life, Through Its Senior Manager and Others Vs. Santosh Kumari ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-02-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant-State Bank of India Life Insurance Company, through its Senior Manager, General Manager, and Unit Manager has assailed the order dated 09.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharmshala, whereby they have been directed to adjust the amounts of premium for the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, paid by respondent No.1-complainant Santosh Kumari, to its agents, impleaded as opposite parties No. 4 and 5, in the complaint in the insurance policy account of the said respondent No.1. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of appeal may be noticed. Respondent No.1- Santosh Kumari, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, purchased an insurance policy from the appellant, through its agent named Gubaksh Singh Goraya, impleaded as opposite parties No.4 in the complaint and respondent No.2, herein. Policy was purchased in the year 2005. In terms of the insurance agreement, premium at the rate of Rs.29,30...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »