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.
Swipe Telecom Llp Vs. Kapish Kumar and Others
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 14.03.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it parlty accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent No.1) and directed the Opposite Parties (now one of which is the appellant, and the other two are respondents No.2 and 3), as under:- œAfter going through the facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the record, we are of the opinion that non-providing of proper and timely services by the OPs inspite of said tablet within the warranty period, definitely caused physical and mental harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the complaint stands partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed as under:- i) To get the Tablet of the complainant repaired, free of charge, and handover the same to him i...
Dilshad Gill Vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Court: SCDRC
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...
Kamaljit Singh Anand Vs. M/S. Emaar Mgf Land Private Ltd., Through Its ...
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that, according to the complainant, the Opposite Parties made a number of assurances, through various newspapers, marketing emails and telemarketing, with regard to launching of their integrated residential township, under the name and style of Mohali Hills, Mohali, in Sectors 105, 108 and 109, Punjab, having salient features. It was also assured by the Opposite Parties, that since the development activity, at the site was in full swing, and near completion, on booking the plot, in the said project, possession thereof, complete in all respects, would be handed over to the purchasers/investors, within a period of 3 years, of clearing all the formalities and procedures, as prescribed by them (Opposite Parties). On such assurances, the complainant and his wife applied to the Opposite Parties, vide Advance Registration of Expression of Interest/Application No.MH/2135, for the allotment of a residential plot, measuring 500 square y...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. Trikuta Flowers, Through Its ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-01-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company, which was impleaded as opposite party in a complaint filed by the respondent-M/s. Trikuta Flowers, is directed against the order dated 03.11.2013, of leaned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, it has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,96,632/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum per annum, from the date of institution of the complaint, to the date of its payment, and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Admitted facts are that M/s. Trikuta Flowers, respondent herein, had insured its green house with the appellant in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, for the period from 09.06.2009 to 08.06.2010. The structure of the green house was insured in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, and plant and machinery in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is alleged that on 04.06.2010, due to storm, green house (structure) was extensi...
Rajesh Jaiswal Vs. Branch Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General Insuranc ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-01-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 14.02.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.126/2012. 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) purchased a vehicle Tata (Ace) with the help of finance provided by the respondents (OPs). The appellant (complainant) is registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with the respondents (OPs) under Insurance Policy No.3379/00490099/000/00 for the period from 26.10.2010 to 25.10.2011. The Insured Declared Value of the vehicle was Rs.2,90,000/-. On 15.12.2010, the said vehicle met with an accident o and extensively damaged. The matter was reported at Police Station, Balrampur on 16.12.2010 at about 16.10 P.M. by driver D...
Lajwanti Vs. Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited and Another
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-01-2014
Padma Pandey, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.03.2014, 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. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased Volkswagen Vento Car (Top Model) Petrol Engine, bearing Regd. No.PB-65-N-2852, in May, 2011 from the Opposite Parties by paying full cost of Rs.8,25,750/- (Ann.C-1 and C-2). It is stated that the complainant alongwith her newly wedded son and his wife went to Kasuali, Himachal Pradesh on 31.8.2013 and on return from Kasuali, at around 5.00 P.M. at Kalka Express Highway, they met with a major accident, wherein, her car which was driven by her son was hit from the back side, leading to loss of control and the front of the car hit the divider on the road, then tumbled on to the road twice and dashed against another car standing o...
Kavita and Another Vs. S.M.V. Agencies Private Limited
Court: Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC UT Chandigarh
Decided on: May-01-2014
Sham Sunder (Retd.), President: 1. The facts, in brief, are that the Opposite Party, launched a project, called Jaipuria`s Sunrise Greens, to construct apartments/flats, at VIP Road, Zirakpur. Since, the complainants, who are husband and wife, were in need of a house, for their residence, they applied for booking a residential apartment/flat, to the Opposite Party, vide application dated 06.07.2011. The complainants were shown the model flat, by the Opposite Party. In lieu of the presentation given to the complainants, by the Opposite Party, they (complainants), agreed to purchase one 3BHK apartment/flat, in its residential project, and paid the booking amount, to the tune of Rs.4,95,000/-, to it (Opposite Party), on 06.07.2011. Receipt No.2199 dated 06.07.2011 Annexure C-1, in respect of the said amount, was issued by the Opposite Party. The net basic sale price of the apartment/flat was fixed as Rs.33 lacs. The complainants were allotted three bedroom apartment/flat bearing no.M-103,...
icici Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. Sanjya Sachdev
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-01-2014
Salma Noor, Member: 1. This appeal by the OP of the case No. 170/2010 is directed against the order dated 09.04.2013 of the CDRF (Central District), Kashmere Gate, Delhi whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 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 207 days in filing the appeal. 3. We have heard Sh. Hemant Gupta, Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Sumit Kumar, 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 207 days in filing the appeal. The only reason given by the appellant is that the impugned order dt. 09.04.2013 was never served upon him. Copy of the order was not received by the appellant from the Honble Forum as per prescribed rules. This reason does not provide any justified ground for condonation of such a long delay in filing the appeal. The Law of limitation ...
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. Trikuta Flowers, Through Its ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-01-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company, which was impleaded as opposite party in a complaint filed by the respondent-M/s. Trikuta Flowers, is directed against the order dated 03.11.2013, of leaned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, it has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,96,632/-, on account of insurance money, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum per annum, from the date of institution of the complaint, to the date of its payment, and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. Admitted facts are that M/s. Trikuta Flowers, respondent herein, had insured its green house with the appellant in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, for the period from 09.06.2009 to 08.06.2010. The structure of the green house was insured in the sum of Rs.7,50,000/-, and plant and machinery in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. It is alleged that on 04.06.2010, due to storm, green house (structure) was extensi...
United India Insurance Company Limited Through Manager Vs. Sharda Asso ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: May-01-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 189 of 2009, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs.13,50,000/- 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.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The District Forum has directed the respondent to surrender the registration certificate of the machine with the appellant, so that the same can be legally cancelled. The appellant was given liberty to use the machine after recovering it from the ditch at their expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant “ Sharda Associates was the registered owner of JCB Excavator Machine bearing registra...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »