Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: scdrc Page 3 of about 53 results (0.340 seconds)

Apr 30 2014 (TRI)

Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another Vs. Pookoya Th ...

Court : SCDRC

P.Q. Barkath Ali : President This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC 48/2012 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad of u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the order of the Forum directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,94,638/- with interest and a cost of Rs.1000/- being the insurance claim of the complainant for the damage caused to his Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555 in an accident. 2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint and as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum in brief is this: Complainant is the owner of the Toyota Innova car bearing Regn. No.KL-12C-5555. On May 30,2011 it met with an accident by dashing against a lorry. PW1, the complainant spent about Rs.3,06,715/- for repairing the car. The car was insured with the opposite party Reliance General Insurance Company by a valid policy during the relevant period. The claim put forwarded by the complainant was repudiated by the opposite par...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Malpro Silica (P) Ltd, Rep by Its Managing Director Thiru. K. Siv ...

Court : SCDRC

(The Appellants are the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the appellants / complainants filed this appeal praying to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.38/2007, dated 12.10.2010. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 19.03.2014, upon hearing the arguments on either side , perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member The unsuccessful complainants are the appellants. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the opposite parties claiming the amount of Rs.19,99,000/- including Rs.17,56,349/- under the peril policy for the goods destroyed due to flood and water cyclonic effects which was repudiated by the respondents / opposite parties on the ground that the claims were not proved in a proper manner a...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 30 2014 (TRI)

Sanjay Nayar, C.E.O., Citi Bank of India and Others Vs. A. Annadurai a ...

Court : SCDRC

(The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC. No.349/2007 dt.05.05.2009. This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 17.3.2014. Upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order in the open court:) A.K. Annamalai, Judicial Member 1. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are the appellants. 2. The complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties prayed for return of blank cheques and NOC and to refund collection of excess amount and also the compensation of 19,00,000/- with the cost for deficiency and mental agony. 3. The complainant availed the personal loan from the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 20.07.2003 for Rs.1,00,000/- an...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 2014 (TRI)

Gopal Dutt Sharma Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another

Court : SCDRC

Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) 1. Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 5th October, 2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby though, his complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been allowed, yet the amount of insurance money, ordered to be paid, according to him, does not fully indemnify him for the loss sustained by him. 2. Appellant owned a vehicle, known as Mahindra Logan DLE, which was registered in the month of May, 2008. The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 for the period from 18.06.2010 to 17.06.2011. It met with an accident on 06.03.2011 and was extensively damaged. Initial estimate of repair, which was submitted to respondent No.1 by the appellant, was for a sum of Rs.1,83,819/-. Then a supplementary estimate was submitted, which was for a sum of Rs.78,860/-. Ultimately, the repairer, impleaded as opposite party No.2/respondent No.2, demanded R...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2014 (TRI)

Carolina Fernandes Vs. M/S. F.X. Builders and Others

Court : SCDRC

N.A. Britto, President: 1. In this appeal filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the complainant seeks enhancement of interest to 15% or 18% per year as against 9% per year awarded to her by the Lr. District Forum, by order dated 29/11/13. 2. It is rather unfortunate that a complaint which was filed on 6/1/03 came to be disposed off more than a decade later, on 29/11/13, inspite of the fact that the C.P. Act mandates that the consumer complaint ought to be disposed off within three months or so. 3. Some bare facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 4. The complainant had entered into an agreement dated 18/6/1998 with the OPs for construction of a shop identified as shop No. 11 having an area of 12 sq.mts as per the plans in a building to be known as F. X. Towers, for a sum of Rs.4.8 lacs out of which a sum of Rs.3.42 lacs was paid to the OPs. 5. The complainant under the pretext that the complainant wanted to start the business of a hardware shop, took the key...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 2014 (TRI)

Shankar Lal Arora Vs. Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation L ...

Court : SCDRC

S.C. Jain, Member: 1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The facts of the case are that the Complainants father Late Sh. Jindu Ram Arora was running a small scale unit in the name and style of M/s Arora Traders for his and his family livelihood Government of NCR Delhi brought a policy according to which industries based in Delhi were ordered to the relocated from residential areas to newly developed industrial areas and the opposite party proposed to allot plots to industrial units under relocation scheme. 2) The complainants late father vide application No. 29626 applied for plot under relocation scheme with the opposite party and the opposite party allotted a plot bearing No. 52, Pocket D, Sector 4, Bawana Industrial Complex admeasuring 250 [email protected] Rs.4200/- per Sq. Mt. costing Rs.10,50,000/- vide allotment letter dt. 23.10.2000. 3) The complainants late father deposited Rs.2,14,500/- with opposite party agains...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 26 2014 (TRI)

The Branch Manager, the New India Assurance Company Limited and Anothe ...

Court : SCDRC

R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 02.03.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth District Forum) in Complaint Case No.128/2011. By the impugned order, the District Forum, has allowed the complaint filed by the respondent /complainant and directed the appellants/OPs/Insurance Company to pay within two months from the date of order a insurance benefit amount Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent/complainant along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 18.08.2011. The appellants/OPs have been further directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent/complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed before the District Forum case are : that the respondent / complainant had purchased an insurance policy no.452000/48/10/34/00000271 for his shop Manoj Cycle Stores for the period from 19.05....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2014 (TRI)

Dlf India Limited Now Dlf Universal Limited Vs. Nidhi Gupta and Others

Court : SCDRC

Dev Raj, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the common order dated 27.01.2014 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant and directed Opposite Party No.1 (now appellant), as under:- œWe accordingly allow this complaint and direct opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation. This order be complied with by opposite party No.1, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs. The complaint qua Ops No.2 and 3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.? However, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 was dismissed by the District Forum with no order as to costs. ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2014 (TRI)

Alok Narayan Vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma

Court : SCDRC

R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.06.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.180/2012. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) for calling report from the concerning engineer regarding the actual cost of the house. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint filed by the respondent (complainant) before the District Forum are that : the an agreement was executed between the parties for construction of house of the respondent (complainant) on the land situated at Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). According to the agreement executed between the parties, the appellant (O.P.), the appellant (O.P.) was required to construct the house of the respondent (complainant) at 1100 sq. ft. of land including material and labour charges and additional work was also included in the agreement. A s...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 24 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Sri Sidhartha Constructions (Represented by Its Managing Partner) ...

Court : SCDRC

Oral Order: (GopalaKrishna Tamada, President) This appeal is preferred by the opposite parties 1 to 3 against the order dated 21-1-2013 made in C.C.No.69/2012 on the file of District Forum, Ranga Reddy District whereby the complaint of the respondent No.2 herein i.e. complaint was allowed and the appellants/opposite parties were directed to complete the construction of flat No.G-3 in Sri Sidhartha Towers as per the specifications shown in the construction agreement dated 20-6-2008 and further directed the appellants to obtain permission from the concerned authorities, complete and handover the flat to the complainant within three months and also directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation. The complaint against opposite parties 4 and 5 is dismissed. The brief facts are that the complainant booked flat No.G-3 in Sri Sai Sidhartha Towers at Bachupally village of Ranga Reddy District and in that regard an agreement of sale was entered into between the parti...

Tag this Judgment!


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