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.
M S E B Through Chairman and Another Vs. Shamsundar S. Jaipuriya
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-13-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short OP) Nos.1 and 2, against the order dated 19/01/2002 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No.77/2001by the District Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he has taken electric connection from the OP Nos.1 and 2 to run his proprietary concern under the name and style as œM/s Sati Oil Mill?. The OP issued excess bill of the month of December,1998 for Rs.9066/- and, therefore, it was returned by the complainant to OP for correction. The OP again sent excess bill of the month of January,1999 for Rs.9207.55/-. Then the OP issued another excess bill of the month of February,99 dated 10/3/1999 for Rs.32,113/-. The said bill for Rs.32,113/- was to be paid till 30/4/1999 with delayed payment charges (DPC). Therefore, the OP had no authority to disconnect electric supply till 30/4/1999 f...
New India Assurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Rekha and Another
Court: Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panchkula
Decided on: May-13-2014
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. Delay of 11 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. 2. This appeal has been filed by The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party (for short Assurance Company) against the order dated February 21st, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Gurgaon. 3. Randhir, aged about 27 years son of Rekha-complainant (respondent No.1) died in a road accident on February 25th, 2005. The First Information Report No.26 (Exhibit C-2) was immediately recorded in Police Station, Pataudi District Gurgaon. Postmortem Examination of the deceased was conducted vide report Exhibit C-3. The deceased left behind the complainant, that is, his wife aged about 24 years and a minor daughter aged about three months and fifteen days. His widow Rekha filed an application before the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Haryana to grant her Rs.1.00 lac as per œCh. Devi Lal Jan Suraksha Bima Yojna? popularly known as &o...
Kalpana Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Branch Manager ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Decided on: May-13-2014
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of five months which was caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2013 dismissing consumer complaint No.236/2013. 2. We have perused the application under order and also the copies of impugned judgment and order. However we have had no opportunity to hear the applicant as the applicants as well as her counsel remained absent. We heard Shri. Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 3. On perusal of the application under order it reflects that the applicant was not aware about the date of impugned judgment and order and therefore she could not file the appeal in time. It is contended that on hearing the parties finally the date of judgment was not given and after a long gap; the judgment was passed on 26.09.2013. It is further contended that the applicant resides at a remote place at village Kurha-Kakoda Tal. Muktainagar Dist. Jalgaon and therefore she was...
J. Sasikumar Vs. Rekha Radhakrishnan
Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Decided on: May-12-2014
A. Radha : Member Appellant is the opposite party before the Forum Below, Thrissur in C.C.No.178/11 wherein the Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to return Rs.1,30,000/-with interest @ 18% p.a and cost of Rs.2,500/-. 2. The complaint is with regard to the failure in completion of the construction work of complainants house. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the opposite parties and the finished work was only for Rs.76,415/- as per the report of the expert appointed by the Forum Below. In this case the opposite party was exparte and the Forum Below proceeded with the case and allowed the complaint. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party that though the notice was served on the opposite party the case entrusted to the Advocate could not defend the case. The Forum Below based on the pleadings in the complaint and even in the absence of evidence in support of the pleadings allowed the com...
M/S. Satluj Motors Vs. Tara Chand Sharma and Others
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-12-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondents No.2 and 3 by respondent No.1- Tara Chand Sharma, has been allowed only against the present appellant and direction given to it to refund a sum of Rs.55,642/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint, to the date of refund of the said amount of money and also to pay Rs.1.00 lac on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension and Rs.3,000/-, as litigation expenses. 2. Respondent-Tara Chand Sharma, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that on 05.04.2012, under a scheme for exchange of old car, he purchased a Tata Indigo GLX car from the present appellant and paid a sum of Rs.5,16,500/-. It was stated that his old ca...
Vijay Bendre Vs. I.C.i.C.i. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Oth ...
Court: Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided on: May-12-2014
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.563/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are : the appellant (complainant) is owner of a goods carrying vehicle Pick Up Van bearing registration No.C.G.04/J.B. 6841 and its chassis no. is 91K60998 and engine no. is GA91K27480. The said vehicle was purchased with the financial help of respondent No.3 (O.P.No.3). The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and 2 (O.P.Nos.1 and 2) (Insurance Company). The policy number is 3003/57951968/00/00 and the policy was effective for the period from 27.10.2009 to 26.10.2010. On 23.07.2010, when driver of the appellant (complainant) Pradeep Naktore after delivery of goods returning back to Raipur and when he reached ...
M/S. Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Digambar B. Dhande
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-2014
Narendra Kawde, Presiding Member: 1. Aggrieved with the order dated 08/01/2014 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/13/100 (in the matter of Mr.Digambar B.Dhande v/s. M/s.Eureka Forbes Ltd.) by Central Mumbai District Forum, the present appellants/original opponents have preferred this appeal challenging the said order. 2. District Forum while holding deficiency of service against the appellants allowed the consumer complaint and directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,690/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.05/06/2013. District Forum also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony. Aggrieved thereby, original opponents/present appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the impugned order was made ex-parte as at no point of time copy of the complaint and other compilation thereto were served on the opponents. Since the appellants had no opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the respondent/org.complainant, the ...
Plasti Surge Industries (P) Limited Vs. the Divisional Manager the New ...
Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Decided on: May-12-2014
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite party (for short O.P.) insurance company to pay to the complainant “ company Rs.44,68,300/- with interest @ 18% p.a. form the date of complaint till its realisation. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that it is a private limited company and it is the business partner of another company namely Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceutical Ltd (for short KAPL) It was entrusted with the job of procuring material on behalf of said KAPL and to comply with the orders placed on them including transportation and insurance arrangement. The complainant received an order from KAPL, indented by the Director of Health Services, Manipur for the total value of Rs.75.00 Lacs approx. The complainant procured the said ordered material from various sources and stored the same at Delhi for further dispatch to Manipur. The complainant insured the said accumulated stock at Delhi ...
J. Sasikumar Vs. Rekha Radhakrishnan
Court: SCDRC
Decided on: May-12-2014
A. Radha : Member Appellant is the opposite party before the Forum Below, Thrissur in C.C.No.178/11 wherein the Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to return Rs.1,30,000/-with interest @ 18% p.a and cost of Rs.2,500/-. 2. The complaint is with regard to the failure in completion of the construction work of complainants house. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the opposite parties and the finished work was only for Rs.76,415/- as per the report of the expert appointed by the Forum Below. In this case the opposite party was exparte and the Forum Below proceeded with the case and allowed the complaint. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party that though the notice was served on the opposite party the case entrusted to the Advocate could not defend the case. The Forum Below based on the pleadings in the complaint and even in the absence of evidence in support of the pleadings allowed the com...
M/S. Amritsar Cloth House Vs. Narvada Thakur
Court: Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shimla
Decided on: May-12-2014
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 30th October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it by respondent-Narvada Thakur, has been allowed and a direction given to it, to refund the price of suit length, to pay money equivalent to the stitching charges and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- and litigation expenses quantified at Rs.1,000/-. 2. Respondent filed a complaint against the appellant alleging that she had purchased a designer suit for Rs.950/- from the appellant, on 24.09.2010, and spent a sum of Rs.250/- on stitching charges and another sum of Rs.200/- for lining. She wore the suit only for a few hours on 30th September, 2010, in connection with a school function of her child and within that period of wearing, pilling appeared and some loose threads were also spotted. On the very next day, i.e. on 01.10.201...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »