Uttaranchal Court May 2012 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. Noble Motors and Another Vs. Virendra Goel
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: May-21-2012
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 06.06.2007 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 61 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has partly allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties appellants to pay jointly or severally a sum of Rs. 34,745/- to the complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is a timber merchant. On 19.10.2005, the complainant had purchased a Chevrolet Tavera car from the opposite party No. 1. The said car was financed by Bank of Baroda. The complainant had given a demand draft for sum of Rs. 8,91,109/- dated 20.10.2005 towards cost of the vehicle to the opposite parties. The vehicle was delivered on 23.10.2005. It is alleged ...
Diwan Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: May-08-2012
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Criminal Law was set into motion at the instance of Kishan Singh s/o Kheem Singh, resident of village Chamali Pattti Chamali, district Pithoragarh in the instant case. He (Kishan Singh) wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) on 02.08.1999 enumerating the facts therein that his daughter Neela Devi was married to Hanuman Singh son of Diwan Singh resident of village Chhanaula about 4-5 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. Informant Kishan Singh who was unfortunate father of the victim, was serving in a private organization in Delhi. On 25.07.1999 he received a telephonic call that his daughter was dead. His son-in-law Hanuman Singh was also serving in New Delhi. When father and husband of deceased came back, they first went to the matrimonial house of the deceased (husband’s house). When enquired from victim’s in-laws they gave casual reply regarding the death of victim. Thereafter the informant went back to his home. He came to know that his daughter was ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›