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.
Bidhi Chand Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. an ...
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-17-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the findings that the vehicle, in question, was being used as a goods carrier vehicle, without there being a route permit and also on the ground that there was one unauthorized person on board the vehicle (tractor), when the accident took place. 2. Appellant owned a tractor, which was registered as a light goods vehicle, per registration certificate, copy Annexure-A. The tractor was insured with the respondents, for the period from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010, in the sum of Rs.3,49,600/-. On 07.06.2009, tractor met with an accident. Report, copy Annexure-C, was lodged with the Police. At the time of the accident, the tractor was carrying earth, as per ...
Bidhi Chand Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. an ...
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-17-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the findings that the vehicle, in question, was being used as a goods carrier vehicle, without there being a route permit and also on the ground that there was one unauthorized person on board the vehicle (tractor), when the accident took place. 2. Appellant owned a tractor, which was registered as a light goods vehicle, per registration certificate, copy Annexure-A. The tractor was insured with the respondents, for the period from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010, in the sum of Rs.3,49,600/-. On 07.06.2009, tractor met with an accident. Report, copy Annexure-C, was lodged with the Police. At the time of the accident, the tractor was carrying earth, as per ...
Prasad P. Vishwasrao Vs. Jaisingh Gopal Rane
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Complainant booked a flat with the opponent on 03/04/1999. Possession was to be handed over on 31/03/2000. Complainant has paid the different amounts from time to time. Opponent denied to give possession of the flat. Complainant then insisted for the possession of the flat or new property as per the market value of the said flat. On consistent request from the complainant, opponent mortgaged flat no.201 admeasuring 770 sq.ft. at opponents proposed construction titled as Rane Towers at Saraswat Colony, Dombivali (East) till the amount is refunded. Lastly, opponent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter to be referred to as MOU) and agreed to pay the amounts on different dates. On 16/08/2002, opponent agreed to pay total amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant. As the opponent has not paid the said amount, complainant has filed this consumer complaint demanding the said amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. [2] Opponent resisted the cla...
Sks Ispat and Power Limited Vs. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Head O ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-16-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for seeking direction to the opposite parties : (a) to indemnify complainant's loss of the insured item to the extent of Rs.62,32,950/- (Rupees Sixty Two Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Only) (b) to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the above amount from the date of loss to the date of payment (c) to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) towards mental, physical and financial loss (d) saddle the cost of litigation expenses, lawyer's fees on the opposite parties for instituting the instant complaint and approaching before this Commission and (e) grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the complaint as per the complainant are : that the complainant is a public limited company having its regis...
M/S. Competent Automobiles Company Limited Vs. Rita Devi
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-16-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby, a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-Rita Devi, through her Special Power of Attorney- Rahul Kumar against the appellant, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellant to refund the amount of Rs.54,388/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which was charged, on account of price of fuel injector and also to pay Rs.10,000/-, as compensation and another sum of Rs.3,000/-, as costs. 2. Respondent-complainant purchased a new Swift Diesel Car, in October, 2011, with extended warranty upto October, 2014. According to the respondent-complainant, in the month of July, 2012, vehicle was taken to the workshop of the appellant, who is the Authorised Service provider appointed by the manufacturer of the vehicle and the same was returned after servi...
Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. the Additional Director
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2014
S.A. Siddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1) Sh. Jadish Sindh Chauhan, complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against order dt. 17.08.2011 passed in Complaint No. 430/2000 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (Central) Maharana Pratap Bus Terminal, Kashmiri Gate. 2) Relevant Facts relating to this appeal are noted below:- The complainant is Retd. Government Servant and claimed himself to be a consumer in connection with the medical facilities to be provided to him under CGHS Scheme. The Ld. District Forum through its impugned order dt. 17.08.2011 declined to hold him to be a consumer and dismissed the compliant. The Ld. State Commission was also of the opinion that the appeal had no merit and dismissed the same in limine on 19.04.2012. The appellant/complainant felt dissatisfied and preferred a revision petition before the Honble National Commission. Honble National Commission vide its order dt. 09.05.2013 set aside the order of the State Commission and remanded back the appeal t...
Roshanlal Pannalal Jain/Pagaria Vs. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-16-2014
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainant is carrying on his business as a jeweler and valuable ornaments from his shop “ M/s. Ambika Jewellers, having its address at Rajnarayan Dube Chawl, Golibar Road, Jawahar Nagar, Santacruz, Mumbai “ 400055. The Complainant had taken an insurance policy from the Opponent “ The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity) from time to time. Risk was covered for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. On 23/11/1998, the Complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5,95,530/- due to theft/robbery in the shop of the Complainant when the shop was closed. A police complaint was lodged about the incident with the Nirmal Nagar Police Station and accordingly a FIR was registered, which is filed on record. The incident occurred during the policy period. Hence, the Complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company on 25/11/1998. Insurance Company appointed one M/s. Garg and ...
M/S. Apex Machine Tools Through Partner Vs. M/S. Lucky Engineering Thr ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-16-2014
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal is against the order of Additional D.C.D.R.F., Nagpur passed in CC No. 39/2010 dated 03/12/2010 granting the complaint and ordering as below. i.The opposite party (for short O.P.) shall take away the defective lathe machine of 12 feet KMT Panjab Make from the complainant and shall provide him a new machine of the same make. ii.If not possible, the O.P. shall return Rs.1,75,000/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of acceptance of money and shall also return the ten cheques given by the complainant. iii.O.P. shall pay Rs.15,000/- as agony compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost to the complainant. The O.P. shall comply with the order in the span of 30 days. 2. The brief background facts are that the complainant-Gour Kishor alies Kishorbhai Govindchand Raut owner of M/s. Lucky Engineering , Nagpur made a complaint that he works as a turner in the above proprietary firm which he runs for his livelihood at Nagpur....
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Singh and Anot ...
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on: May-16-2014
S.A. Saddiqui, Member (Judicial): 1. Appellant/OP M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under Section 15 of C.P.Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.7.2011 passed by DCDRF-VI, K.G.Marg, New Delhi under Complaint case No.1620/09. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No.1 Shri Abhishek Singh is the owner of Bolero Car bearing No.UP14 AN 0044. This vehicle was duly insured with OP/appellant for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the period 19.9.2008 to 18.9.2009. It was ensured as a private vehicle. During the intervening night of 2-3.2.2009 this vehicle was stolen from outside of complainants NOIDA office for sometime he tried to search the vehicle but could not find it. He immediately informed the local police. Intimation was also sent to Insurance Company on 3rdFebruary itself through mobile phone of Mr. Parveen and also through Fax (Exhibit Cw1/I). The vehicle could not be traced by the police. The complainant, therefore, preferred the...
Chhattisgarh State Seed and Agriculture Development Corporation Limite ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-16-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.88/2012. By the impugned order the complaint filed by the respondent No.1 (complainant) has been allowed against the appellant (O.P.No.2) and the District Forum has directed the appellant (O.P.No.2) to pay the respondent No.1 (complainant) the cost of 26.17 qtls. Swarna Dhan, which is the quantity of less production in the year as notified by the Government of Chhattisgarh as compensation within two months along with interest @ 6% p.a. from 09.08.2011 till date of payment, within two months from date of payment, otherwise the interest @ 09% would be payable, but the interest on interest would not be payable and the amount of interest would not be more than the principal amount. The District Forum, has further directed the appellant (O.P.No.2) to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the respo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »