Scdrc Court May 2014 Judgments
Royal Omaniya Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Antony
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-27-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite party in CC.575/10 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 28, 2013 allowing the complaint. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant and his wife arranged a European Tour to the countries including Rom, Italy, Vatican and France conducted by the respondent Tour Company. Rs.50,000/- was paid on 10.3.2010 and balance amount of Rs.1,48,000/- on 13.5.2010. On the previous day of the proposed tour he was informed that they could not make the tour. Opposite party returned only Rs.1,82,000/- and retained Rs.16,000/-. Complainant filed the complaint for realizing that amount. 3. Though notice was received by the opposite party they remained absent before the Forum. Therefore complainant filed the proof affidavit which was accepted by the Forum and marked Exts.P1 and P2 and allowed the complaint. Opposite party has come u...
Tag this Judgment!The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Thankam Menon ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-27-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali: President This is an appeal filed by the first opposite party in CC.27/04 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated, May 16, 2012 directing the first opposite party to pay Rs.33,350/- with a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-. 2. Complainants are the legal heirs of deceased Mani Menon who was the original complainant. The case of the deceased complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The car of the complainant was insured with the first opposite party/Oriental Insurance Company for the period from August 29, 2002 to August 28, 2003. The car met with an accident on August 17, 2003 and was heavily damaged. Complainant has spent Rs.61784/- to repair the vehicle. The claim put forward by the complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground that driving license of the driver was fake. Therefore deceased complainant filed the complaint before the Forum claiming the repair charges...
Tag this Judgment!Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Satheesh Mathew Zac ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-26-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in CC.251/11 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum dated, June 20, 2012 directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22,380/- with interest. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- The complainant had joined in a medi claim policy issued by the opposite parties, Reliance General Insurance Company. The policy amount was Rs.1,00,000/- and the premium was Rs.6,139/-. The complainant met with a motor accident on January 02, 2011 and was under going treatment in Carithas Hospital, Kottayam till January 07, 2011. The claim put forward by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite parties on the ground that there was delay of 93 days in submitting the claim. Therefore complainant filed the complaint for recovery of Rs.22,380/- being the treatment expenses incurred by him. 3. First ...
Tag this Judgment!Jyoti Sharma Vs. Kunal Khanna
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-26-2014
N.P. Kaushik, Member (Judicial): 1.This appeal by the OP of case No. 66 of 2012 titled as Kunal Khanna vs. Jyoti Sharma is directed against the order dated 23rdOct., 2013 passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmiri Gate vide which the OP was directed to pay Rs.29,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of Rs.22,000/- i.e. 10.6.2011 till realization. The OP was also directed to pay to complainant Rs.15,000/- for harassment, pain and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation . 2. In brief the complainant who happened to be a student of 20 years of age approached the OP Ms. Jyoti Sharma for career development after being allured by an advertisement given by her. Ms. Jyoti Sharma was running a training institute in the name of Sunrise Training Institute at House No.51/20, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. A job, after requisite training, was also assured. 30% of the salary from his job was to be paid to the OP till the complainant remains in job. 3. Admittedly the com...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupender Singh and Another Vs. Swaroopa Rani @ Susan Charles and Othe ...
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-23-2014
Oral Order : ( R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 in both the C.Cs are the appellants. Both appeals arise from the same set of facts and similar circumstances and the question of law in the appeals being the same, both appeals are disposed of by common order. F.A.No. 63 of 2012 is taken as lead case. 2. The Appellants No. 1 and 2 are owners and possessors of open plots bearing nos. 92 and 93 admeasuring 974 sq. yards comprised in survey no. 191 and situate at JJ Nagar colony Alwal, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellant no. 2 entered into development agreement with the appellants for construction of residential cum commercial complex over the land to be shared at the rate of 44% : 60% of the built up area. The second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with the first respondent to sell Flat No. 104 in the first floor with built up area of 1305 sq. feet for consideration of Rs.13,64,750/-. 3. The first respondent paid a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Motukuri Venkata Nagendra Krishna Vs. M/S. Bharati Estates and Others
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-23-2014
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. Complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, complaining deficiency in service against the opposite parties no.1 to 9 and seeking for direction to the opposite parties to take steps to complete construction of the duplex house or alternatively pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards value of the unfinished work, to provide the amenities such as club house, swimming pool etc and for direction for payment of damages and compensation of Rs.50,000/- per month from August, 2010 till completion of the duplex hose, and for direction to the opposite party no. 10 to sell the mortgaged plot bearing nos. 11,12,13,14 and 15 and for payment of costs . 2. The first opposite party and the second opposite party entered into development cum general power of attorney in favour of the opposite party no. 9 on 05.03.2007 and 14.11.2007 for development of their land measuring Ac.9-00gts in sy.no. 332 situate at Nizampet village of Qutubu...
Tag this Judgment!irugurala Laxmi Vs. M/S. Shakti Farm Machinery and Another
Court: Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided on: May-23-2014
R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member 1. All the eight complaints involve similar question of fact and law and as such they are disposed of by common order. Complaint in CC No. 109/2012 is taken as lead case. 2. The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.Rs.21,75,000/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 15-12-2009 till the date of realization, to reimburse the insurance premium of Rs.24,000/-, to pay Rs.24,00,000/- towards loss of earning due to non functioning of the harvester, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and costs of Rs.50,000/-. 3. The averments of the complaint are that opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of Kubota Combine DC-68G Harvesters and the opposite party No.1 is the dealer of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 gave vide publicity through brochures representing that it is a 100% subsidiary manufacturer of agricultural machinery and market leader in Europe and that Kubota has been making combine harvesters in ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Baby Mathew and Ot ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-22-2014
P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the first and second opposite parties in CC 162/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act challenging the order of the Forum dated April 16, 2013. 2. The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in complaint before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant is a small farmer and an agricultural labourer. Complainant had 2 cows aged 6 and 3 years respectively which were insured with opposite parties 1 and 2 for Rs.30,000/- each by a valid policy for the period from 17/10/2011 to 16/10/2012. Complainant had paid the premium of Rs.1000/- to 2nd opposite party. The two cows were provided with ear tag numbers 420009/305516 and 420009/305700. On 26/11/2011 the cow with ear tag number 305700 died. At the time of death the cow was pregnant for 4 months after second delivery. Postmortem was conducted by Dr.Ramaswamy. The claim of complainant was repudi...
Tag this Judgment!The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Gurmukh Bhirani
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-22-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 28.01.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.1089/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.1,92,905/- to the respondent (complainant) within a period of one month from the date of order as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 28.12.2011 till date of payment. The District Forum has further directed the appellant (O.P.) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as advocate fees and cost of the litigation to the respondent (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are : that the respondent (complainant) has purchased the vehicle bearing registratio...
Tag this Judgment!Hans P.Thomas, Ittimapadathu Karroor and Others Vs. C.P. John
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-22-2014
V.V. Jose : Member The opposite party ie M/s.CVP Realtors (P) Ltd, doing business of building construction entered into an agreement with the complainants for constructing a residential space with super built up area of 1474 sq.ft on the V floor numbered as V/A in the proposed multistoried building complex named CVP Parliament Square Annex B as per the plan prepared by the opposite party for a total consideration of Rs.14,74,000/- which the complainants paid to the opposite party on the execution of the agreement itself ie; 07.11.05.But the opposite party never handed over the flat as agreed to the complainant. The opposite party is keeping away from the office at Thiruvalla. As the opposite party did not completed the construction and hand over the flat, he is liable to pay Rs.14,74,000/- with 12% interest and cost. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party is unfair trade practice . On 01.11.2012, when approached the office of the opposite party, it was known that he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »