Uttaranchal Court March 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 Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Vs. Birendra Pras ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 05.06.2012 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 20 of 2008, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant “ opposite party to pay sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @6% p.a. from 05.10.2006 till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. UA-09-5354, which was insured with The Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 27.02.2006 to 26.02.2007. On 14.07.2006, the said vehicle met with an accident at a place about 2 kms. from Devprayag. The complainant submitted an estimate of repairs to the tune of Rs. 3,23,709/-. However, the claim lodged by the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter...
M/S. Commercial Motors (Dehradun) Private Limited Vs. Veer Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the District Forum, Tehri Garhwal in consumer complaint No. 23 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has ex-parte allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant “ opposite party and directed the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 1,63,465/- to the respondent “ complainant under different heads within a period of two months, failing which the above amount was directed to carry interest @12% p.a. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck No. UA09 / 6034. In May, 2009, the engine of the truck went defective and a new engine was fitted in the vehicle on 28.05.2009. The guarantee of the new engine was upto 28.05.2010. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 85,000/- towards expenses of fitting of new engine. Inspite of new engine, the ...
Bay India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai Vs. Ajay Kumar
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral): 1. This is an application filed by the applicant for reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.02.2014 passed by this Commission in First Appeal No. 213 of 2013; eBay India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Ajay Kumar. 2. The facts of the case are that the opposite party “ Sh. Ajay Kumar filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar against eBay India Pvt. Ltd., stating therein that he had purchased 4GB Sd card amounting to Rs. 132/- from eBay India Pvt. Ltd. According to the opposite party “ complainant, the card was not supplied to him and, therefore, he sent an e-mail to the company for refunding his amount. The company rejected the complainants request for refund of the amount. Hence the consumer complaint was filed. 3. The District Forum, Haridwar through judgment and order dated 26.06.2013, allowed the consumer complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 23,135/- as compensation to the complainant. Aggrieved by the said order, eBay India Pvt. L...
Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balraj Singh
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-13-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 210 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,14,700/- to the respondent “ complainant; Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses, within a period of 30 days from the date of the order. It was also directed that in case the above amount is not paid within a period of 30 days, then the respondent shall also be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant was the registered owner of truck No. RJ-13GA-0096. The said truck was insured with the appellant “ HDFC ERGO General Insurance...
M/S. Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. New Delhi Vs. the Oriental Insurance C ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
C.C. Pant, Member: 1. This consumer complaint, under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by M/s Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. having its registered office at 4654/21, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-2 (hereinafter referred as œcompany/complainant?) against The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. having its Branch Office at Sethi Motor Works Building, Ram Nagar, Kashipur, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred as œOpposite Party/Insurance Company?) alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. 2. As stated by the complainant in its consumer complaint, the complainant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It had set up a factory at Kashipur, Ram Nagar Road, District Nainital for manufacturing of sewing thread and cotton yarn and had hired a godown from M/s Kumaon Thread and Rewinders Pvt. Ltd. (in short œKTRPL) for keeping the stock. Since the State Bank of India, Kashipur, District Nainital had provi...
Rampal and Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
1. Appellants Rampal, Moni Sharma, Satis and Somdutt have assailed the judgment and order of conviction dated 2.7.2002 rendered against them by the Additional Sessions Judge/Ist F.T.C., Roorkee in Sessions Trial No. 284/95, State v. Rampal and 3 Others. The said trial pertains to Police Station Gangnahar, Crime No. 113/95. All these accused persons were tried for the offences of Section 452, 307, 323, 324, 504 IPC. Trial culminated into their conviction for the offences of Section 452 and 307/34 IPC. They have been appropriately sentenced by the Trial Judge. 2. The backdrop of the prosecution version as disclosed in the FIR is that Rampal Kashyap, resident of Nayi Basti, Shyam Nagar, Roorkee intruded in the house of injured Mulkraj along with his some companions. They started to beat Mulkraj. Seeing the occurrence, his daughter Ms. Geeta Saini (informant) and his father raised alarm. Meanwhile, Rampal Kashyap stabbed the knife blow in the abdomen of her father while his other companion...
Pancham Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Mar-12-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) 1. The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 24.02.2014 and summoning order dated 15.12.2008, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1641 of 2008, State of Uttarakhand vs Pancham Das, under Sections 9, 49B, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (I class), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun. 2) A charge-sheet is submitted against the present applicant under Sections 9, 49B, 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Cognizance was taken on said charge-sheet and the accused was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed. 3) The first and foremost argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance ought to have been taken only on the complaint filed by any of the officer of the Wild Life Department. Section 55 of t...
The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others Vs. Manvar Singh As ...
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 18.08.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 355 of 2007, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.59,796/- to the respondent “ complainant together with interest @9% p.a. pendente lite and future and litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/-. However, the learned President of the District Forum vide his dissenting order of the even date, dismissed the consumer complaint. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant is the registered owner of truck bearing registration No. UA-12-2282. The said truck is being driven by the complainant. Along with the complainant, Sh. Bhim Singh Bisht also remains in the truck as Assistant Driver. Both the said persons have driving licence in thei...
Sumer Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Court: Uttaranchal
Decided on: Mar-11-2014
U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) 1. Applicant Sumer Singh, who is in jail in connection with FIR No. 623 of 2013, relating to offence punishable under Section 386 of IPC, Police Station “ Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application. 3. A first information report was lodged against unknown person, who was the owner of a mobile phone no. 9927933856, under Section 386 of IPC. Threatening calls were received by the wife of the complainant from such mobile number. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the matter has been settled amicably outside the Court. Such a fact is also mentioned in the affidavit of Sugandh Kumar Singh, which has been filed along with Urgency Application. Applicant is in jail since 04.01.2004 and he has no previous criminal history. 5. Considering the fact that the parties have settled their dispute ami...
M/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Bhawesh Narula
Court: Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Dehradun
Decided on: Mar-10-2014
B.C. Kandpal, President: 1. This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 27.05.2011 passed by the District Forum, Nainital in consumer complaint No. 116 of 2010. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants “ opposite parties to pay, jointly or severally, to the respondent “ complainant the cost of Skoda Fabia 1.4 PDTDI (Classic) Diesel car with accessories amounting to Rs.6,84,950/-, together with interest @6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses. It was also directed that on the date of compliance of the order, the respondent shall submit the ownership documents of the vehicle / letter of subrogation with the appellants. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on 14.10.2009, the complainant had purchased Skoda Fabia 1.4 PDTDI (Classic) Diesel car from the opposite party ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »