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.
The Proprietor, Smart Chef Traders and Another Vs. Thomas Varghese
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-22-2014
P.Q. Barkathali: President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.316/12 on the file of CDRF, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated, March 25, 2013. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:- Complainant is the proprietor of Hotel, M/s Regent Hotel at Muthalakkodam in Thjodupuzha. Second opposite party is the agent of first opposite party. They installed a bio-gas plant in the property of the complainant which cost about Rs.57,500/-. But after implementing the plant it did not work properly. Therefore complainant claimed compensation. 3. Though notices were issued to the opposite parties they remained absent before the Forum. Therefore Exts.P1 and P2 were marked on the side of the complainant. The Forum allowed the complaint. The opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum. 4. In this appeal the appellants/opposite parties contended that they have not received any notic...
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Praveen Dubey and Others
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 30.01.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.26/2009. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1 (complainant) and directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.2,95,188.00/- to the respondent No.1 (complainant) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant (O.P.No.1) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the respondent No.2 (complainant) and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. It is not in dispute that a Bolaro vehicle having registration No.C.G.15-B-2973, was purchased by the respondent No.1 (complainant) ant and was insured with appellant (O.P. No.1) Insurance Company for ...
Dr. Shailesh Ahuja Vs. Samsung India Electronics Limited and Others
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 04.05.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum") in Complaint Case No.159/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated the facts of complaint are : that the appellant (complainant) had gone to Thailand with friend Satyavrat Sadani in the year 2011 as a tourist where he purchased a L.E.D. at a price of Rs.50,000/- from Indra Sound and Video Limited and he had also paid a sum of Rs.16,223/- as customs duty. The said T.V. worked properly only 1-2 months and thereafter it started creating problem. The appellant (complainant) contacted to the Bilaspur office, Raipur office and Delhi office of the respondents (OPs) from where mechanics came and repaired the T.V. but thereafter again it was having problem and the employees and officers of the Company were demanding a sum ...
Ved Kumari Dhawan Vs. M/S. Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-21-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Complainant MRs.Ved Kumari Dhawan filed this complaint against the OP M/s Parsvnath Developers under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called the Act) for refund of Rs.28,38,737/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and cost of litigation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant booked a flat on 30.04.2006 in upcoming residential project of the OP in the name and style of œParsavnath Privilege? at Greater Noida-UP, and made an initial payment of Rs.10 Lac vide cheque No. 817414 dt. 30.04.2006 drawn on ICICI Bank, Noida. She further made payment of Rs.3,21,687.50/- through cheque No. 504280 dt. 20.03.2007, Rs.5,76,905/- through cheque No. 504292 dt. 21.11.2007, Rs.4,70072.50/- through cheque No. 227928 dt. 27.05.2008 and Rs.4,70,072/- through cheque No. 724683 dt. 08.10.2008 totalling to Rs.28,38,737/- (Rs.Twenty Eight Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Seven Only) (payment receipt...
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Peringottukara K.S.E.B., Perin ...
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-20-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member The judgment dated 26th April 2012 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in case CC.No.304/09 filed on 24.04.2009, allowing the complaint and 1st and 2nd respondents in the Lower Forum is challenging the order as specified below in the present appeal. 2. The respondent is a consumer vides number 4082 with Appellants since 11/98 as per the records submitted. It is stated that respondent had given a request to Agricultural Officer for exemption of electricity charges as any electricity connection obtained or used for agricultural purpose shall be for free. However the appellants had issued a notice on 02.03.2009 to the respondent stating that there have been arrears since 11/98 for his electricity connection and it is demanded to make the payment immediately for which any default the connection shall be disconnected. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Anthikkad, Thrissur who was the 3rd respondent in the Lower Forum supported the...
Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Peringottukara K.S.E.B., Perin ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-20-2014
Santhamma Thomas : Member The judgment dated 26th April 2012 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in case CC.No.304/09 filed on 24.04.2009, allowing the complaint and 1st and 2nd respondents in the Lower Forum is challenging the order as specified below in the present appeal. 2. The respondent is a consumer vides number 4082 with Appellants since 11/98 as per the records submitted. It is stated that respondent had given a request to Agricultural Officer for exemption of electricity charges as any electricity connection obtained or used for agricultural purpose shall be for free. However the appellants had issued a notice on 02.03.2009 to the respondent stating that there have been arrears since 11/98 for his electricity connection and it is demanded to make the payment immediately for which any default the connection shall be disconnected. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Anthikkad, Thrissur who was the 3rd respondent in the Lower Forum supported the...
The Hamirpur Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. and Another Vs. G ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-20-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. By this common order, we proceed to dispose of two appeals, i.e. F.A. No. 89/2014 and F.A. No.90/2014, as both of these are directed against the same order, i.e. order dated 23.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. Respondent No.1-Gian Chand, in both the appeals, (hereinafter called complainant) being a Member of Hamirpur Cooperative House Building Society, appellant in F.A. No.89/2014, (hereinafter referred to as opposite party No.1) was issued a letter of allotment of a flat that was to be constructed by opposite party No.1. Despite complainant having paid the substantial amount of money towards the cost of construction of flat, possession of the flat was not delivered to him. He, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to opposite party No.1 to allot the flat. Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Hous...
United India Insurance Company, Through Its Senior Divisional Manager ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-19-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. This is an appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 21.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by the respondent, against the appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to it (the appellant), to pay a sum of Rs.61,329/-, on account of insurance claim, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation and Rs.3,000/-, as costs. 2. Respondent owned a vehicle, which was insured with the appellant from 05.10.2011 to 04.10.2012. On 01.05.2012, the vehicle met with an accident and was damaged. According to the respondent, she spent Rs.78,988/- on repair of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.10,000/-, on towing the vehicle from the site of the accident to the workshop. 3. Claim was lodged by the respondent with the appellant, but the same was rep...
Branch Manager, Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. and Other ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-19-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. This is an opposite parties appeal against the order dated 21.10.2013, 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-Baldev Singh, has been allowed and they have been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8.93 lacs, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of insurance claim, and also to pay Rs.5,000/-, as compensation. 2. Respondent-Baldev Singh owned a truck, which was insured with the appellants, in the sum of Rs.8.93 lacs, for the period from 17.07.2007 to 16.07.2008. On the night intervening 5th and 6th March, 2008, the truck was parked outside the residence of the respondent-Baldev Singh, by the driver engaged by him (the respondent-complainant). Ignition key of the vehicle was not removed. However, the cabin was locked. On the next morning, i.e. on 06.03.2008, truck was found missing. Report of theft was...
Delhi Jal Board Vs. Uma Rani
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-19-2014
S.C. Jain, Member: 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.5.2012 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressalforum-VII, ShekhSarai, New Delhi in complaint case No.254/2010 titled Smt. UmaRaniVs. Executive Engineer (South-West-II), Delhi JalBoard. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is a registered consumer of the appellant having water connection No.2058 installed at her house bearing No.157, Village Post Office Dhansa, NewDelhi. The respondent/complainant alleged in her complaint filed before the Distt. Forum that the Lineman of the appellant/OP removed the cap and joined the two lines from the bore well No.8 located near her house which is situated at a greater height than the road passing near her house. It has been further stated by the respondent/complainant that the supplied water was blocked by putting the cap from flowing downward with the help of the said cap and when the line man started removing that cap she objected for t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »