Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: karnataka state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc bangalore Page 1 of about 31 results (0.309 seconds)

Aug 08 2012 (TRI)

The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President 1. These three appeals have arisen out of the same order passed by the DF, Hassan in Complaint No.6/2009 dated 24.09.2009 whereby the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants in Appeal No. 235/2010 came to be allowed in part directing the appellants in Appeal Nos. 3780/2009 and 4022/2010 to pay a sum Rs. 4,04,000/- within two months, failing which the said amount carries interest at 10% p.a till the date of payment. Further OP 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Appeal No. 3780/2009 s filed by OP 2, the Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., whereas the Appeal No. 4022/2010 is filed by OP 1, the proprietor of M/s Vinayaka Gas Agencies to set aside the order passed by the DF and Appeal No. 235/2010 is filed by the complainants seeking enhancement of the compensation on various grounds. 3. Since all these appeals arisen out of one and the same order passed by the DF, in order to avoid repetition of facts and law, they are taken up ...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2012 (TRI)

Ananth, Consulting Engineer, Uttara Kannada Dist. Vs. the Senior Manag ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President 1. This appeal is filed by the complainant under Section 15 of the C.P. Act challenging the order dated 05.08.2011 passed by the DF, Uttar Kannada, Karwar in Complaint No.139/2010 whereby the DF dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant. Hence, the appellant has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 47 days caused in filing this appeal supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. 3. After service of notice, though the respondents have been served, neither they appeared in person nor through Advocate. 4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. 5. The point for determination in this appeal to consider is; 1. Whether the appellant has shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 47 days in preferring this appeal? 2. Whether the DF is justified in dismissing the comp...

Tag this Judgment!

May 21 2012 (TRI)

Veerabhadragowda and Another Vs. the Manager Canara Bank, Bankapur Vil ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President 1. Both the appeals have been preferred by the respective appellants/complainants, challenging the correctness and legality of the order of dismissal of their complaints passed by the DF, Haveri in Complaint Nos. 267/2010 and 259/2010 connected with other cases vide order dated 07.09.2010 and 06.09.2010 respectively on various grounds. 2. That apart they have also filed I.A. I under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 95 and 105 days caused in preferring their appeals and I.A.II U/O 41 Rule 27 CPC seeking permission to produce the Record of Rights stated to be for the year 2003-04 in respect of their lands. In support of I.A. I and II they have also filed affidavit evidence explaining the cause for the delay in preferring the appeal and to permit them to produce the documents. 3. Though separate order has been passed by the DF in the aforesaid complaints of the appellants/complainants, the reasons assigned in dismissal of their complaints are o...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2012 (TRI)

G. Maruthi Vs. Met Life India Insurance Company Pvt. Ltd., (Met Life), ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President 1. This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the unsuccessful complainant to set aside the order dated 08.12.2011 passed by the III Addl., DF, Bangalore Complaint No.866/2011 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant came to be dismissed. Therefore, he has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 96 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by his affidavit explaining the delay. 3. In this appeal, we have heard the arguments of the LC for the appellants on admission and perused the records. 4. The point that arises for our consideration is: 1. Whether the appellant has shown sufficient and reasonable grounds to condone the delay of 96 days caused in preferring this appeal? 2. Whether there is any prima-facie case to entertain this appeal and to issue notice to respondent? 3. If so, what order? 5. Point No.1 and 2:- A...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 17 2012 (TRI)

The Branch Manager, the Pachhapur Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pachhapur Vs ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Opposite Party to set aside the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the DF, Belgaum in Complaint No.665/2009 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed in part directing this appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 11% p.a from the date of deposit i.e. 10-10-2001 till realization with litigation expenses of Rs. 1,000/- and directed to comply the said order within 30 days from the date of order. Assailing the same, it has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 86 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of Sri. U.B. Ullagaddi, General manager, Pachhapur Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Pachhapur, Taluk Hukkeri, Belgaum explaining the delay. 3. In spite of service of notice issued to the respondent, neither respondent appeared in p...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2012 (TRI)

Max New York Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. V. Narayana

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

K. Ramanna, President This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the Opposite Parties with a prayer to set aside the order dated 07.02.2011 passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban in Complaint No.2507/2009 whereby complaint filed by Respondent came to be allowed in part directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- towards settlement of the policy bearing No. 456578194 with interest at 9% p.a from 31.03.2009 till the date of payment and litigation expenses of Rs. 5,000/- and directed to comply the same within four weeks from the date of order. Assailing the same, appellants have come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 11 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of Sri. Syed Asif, Manager (Claims) explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring this appeal. 3. After service of notice, the respondent appeared through counsel and re...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 29 2012 (TRI)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ganesh Patil

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

Ramanna, President: This appeal is filed by the OP to set aside the order passed by the DF, Gulbarga on 22.3.2010 in complaint No.159/09 whereby complaint filed by the respondent herein came to be allowed directing this appellant / OP to pay Rs.1,15,917/- by way of damages caused to the vehicle in the accident together with interest at 9% per annum from 10.3.2009 and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the respondent towards compensation for mental agony and hardship and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Assailing the same, the OP has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 129 days supported by an affidavit of Chandrashekar M Hosamani, Deputy Manager (Claims) explaining the reasons for the delay. The appellant also filed IA-3 for production of additional documents. 3. After service of notice the respondent neither appeared through counsel nor in...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 27 2012 (TRI)

icici Pru Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Its Manager Legal Sreedar, ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

Ramanna, President This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the CP Act 1986 by the appellant / Opposite Party against the order dated 03.08.2010 passed by the DF, Chickmagalore in Complaint No. 203/2010 whereby his complaint filed by the respondent came to be allowed directing this appellant/Opposite Party to pay assured amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 2,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which 9% interest shall be paid on the said amount till its realization. Assailing the same it has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 10 days caused in preferring this appeal supported by an affidavit of its officer by name Sreedhar, working as a Customer Service Associate of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., explaining the reasons for the delay in preferring this appeal. 3. The ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 09 2012 (TRI)

Nandakumar Naidu Vs. Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

Ramanna, President 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant to set aside the order dated 8.1.2010 passed by the DF, Dharwad in Complaint No.347/09 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant came to be disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.1 to replace the computer system of same model to the appellant / complainant within 15 days. Therefore, he has come up with this appeal on various grounds. 2. After service of notice the respondent appeared through his counsel. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None represents on behalf of the respondent on the day when the matter was posted for final arguments. Hence argument of respondent is taken as closed. 3. We have perused the records. The point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the order passed by the District Forum is correct or not? 4. On perusal of the order under challenge and the grounds of appeal it could be stated that the appellant filed the complaint as against the Ops. ...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 08 2012 (TRI)

Ramachandra Bhat Proprietor:aparna Steel Industries Vs. Appaji Rao, Ka ...

Court : Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC

Ramanna, President The respondent herein, in the first instance has filed a complaint before the District Forum. The Then President of the District Forum Sri. Shama Bhat dismissed the Complaint No.472//01 on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable and the parties are relegated to the Civil Court to work out their remedies which order came to be challenged by the complainant before this Commission in Appeal No.641/2003. This Commission vide its order dated 11.7.2005 remanded the matter to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to the parties. 2. On remand, the District Forum, Dakshina Kannada vide its order dated 13.11.2006 allowed the complaint directed the Opposite Party to replace the defect free new unit with clear demonstration and thereafter the complainant is directed to return the defective unit supplied by the OP and the OP is further directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,500/- as compensation and costs. Therefore, the Opposite ...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //