Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member None present for the appellant. There is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. Reason given is that Legal officer In-charge of consumer matters was out of station on official tour and therefore could not examine the impugned order. Reason given is apparently quite unsatisfactory. There is no reason to condone the delay. Hence we pass following order:- Order: 1. Misc.application no.308/2009 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Consequently appeal stands dismissed. 3. Misc.application no.309/2009 for stay stands disposed of. 4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 07/05/2008 passed in consumer complaint No.105/2007 Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar V/s. Minchin Business Management thru Prop. Shri Abhijit Barde and Ors. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum (Forum below in short). It is the case of respondent/org. complainant Shri Vijay Vithal Kuchekar that appellant/org. O.P.No.1 represented him that he is the Agent of respondent/org. O.P.No.3/ICICI Bank Ltd. He further offered his services to procure a vehicle Tata Spacio at the cost about Rs.3,92,780/- for complainant/Shri Vijay Kuchekar and for that to obtain necessary loan from O.P.No.3/ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Bank for brevity). The vehicle was to be taken from O.P.No.2/Hyan Motors (hereinafter referred as Dealer for brevity). Accordingly on making down payment as well as registration and insurance charges, O.P.No.1 had taken complainant to O.P.No.2/deale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard appellant in person. Ms.Sunita Sonawane-Advocate for the respondent. Both the parties filed joint pursis stating that the matter is settled out of court and accordingly appellant does not want to proceed with the appeal. Cost is not pressed by the respondent. Hence the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands disposed of in terms of joint pursis i.e. minutes of order recording the settlement between the parties. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal is directed against the order/award dated 31/03/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 370/2003, Mr.Ramkrishna Vishnu Garud V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd by District Forum Pune (Forum below in short). There is delay of 216 days in filing the appeal. Therefore Misc.Application No.2185/2008 is moved on behalf of appellant to condone the delay. We heard Adv.Mr.Sanil for the appellant. Perused the record. The copy of the impugned order dated 31/03/2008 was received by the appellant on 15/04/2008. Thereafter, they sought the administrative approval to file the appeal. It is stated in the application for condonation of delay that they have noticed that original certified copy of the order was not available in the papers submitted for approval and therefore, on 11/11/2008 they have obtained the copy and then took further steps to file the appeal, which was filed on 08/12/2008. What happened at the regiona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B.Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.Sharad Bhatkar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.A.J.Chougule-Advocate as Amicus Curie for the respondent. Respondent is also present in person before us. There is delay of 92 days in filing the appeal. Delay is not deliberate or intentional. We are therefore inclined to condone the delay. Misc. application no.531/2007 is allowed. Delay is condoned. We carefully perused the judgement under challenge in the light of material placed on record. We are constrained to observe that the District Consumer Forum did not consider the documents filed on behalf of the appellant. District Consumer Forum also failed to consider facts disclosed in the affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. Without application of mind, District Consumer Forum has observed that the bank did not place on record best possible evidence in its possession. On the contrary, best possible evidence was placed on record by the bank. Bank disclosed all ne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President 1. Heard Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi-Advocate for the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). Mr. M.H. Oak-Advocate for the original complainants. Mr. S.S. Jinsiwale-Advocate for Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. ( M.S.E.D.Co.). 2. These two appeals arise out of judgement dated 15/7/2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum Satara. District Consumer Forum Satara directed Insurance Co. to pay Rs.12,969/- to the complainants. District Consumer Forum directed employer to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,031/- to the complainants. We propose to dispose of these two appeals by common order. District Consumer Forum did not at all consider the well settled legal position. We propose to refer decision of 1. Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking V/s. Basanti Devi AIR 2000 Supreme Court 43 = 1999 AIR SCW 416. 2. Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v/s. Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar (2005)6 SCC 188. 3. The de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Being aggrieved by dismissal of the complaint passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint no. 383/2004 decided on 21/08/2008 the original complainant has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of the award. Facts to the extent material may be stated as under: Complainant claimed Rs.21,08,080/- and refund of Rs.90,000/- with interest @18% p.a. and Rs.5 lakhs for mental torture besides cost of the proceedings. According to the complainant he took one BHK flat at Damodar Park, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai in 1984. He paid Rs.95,000/-. He paid Rs.45,000/- by cheque and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The cheque was issued towards booking amount of the flat in the name of opposite party/M/s.Bipin Construction. Possession of the flat was to be given within two years from the date of first payment. The complainant requested opposite party no.1 to execute the Agreement for Sale, but opposite party did not execute the agreement de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Justice Shri B.B. Vagyani, Honble President Heard Mr.Sanjay Gade-Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the respondent. We examined the correctness of the order. Appellant has not placed on record the documents to show that the damage was caused to the vehicle on account of flood. Insurance Co. appointed surveyor and surveyor examined the vehicle and submitted the report. It is stated in the survey report that due to mechanical defect the damage was caused to the vehicle and not by flood. Forum below therefore dismissed the complaint. Dismissal order does not suffer from any illegality. No interference is called for. In the result, we pass following order:- Order: Appeal stands summarily dismissed. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.Ajay Varma-Advocate for the appellant. By filing this misc.application appellant has informed that he has settled the matter with Mr. Anil Anandrao Dumre and Sau.Manisha Anil Dumre-original complainants. Consent terms are taken on record. As per consent terms, the parties have settled the dispute for which demand draft of Rs.45,000/- is given by the appellant to respondent no.1. Judgement and award passed by the District Consumer Forum in consumer case no.103/2004 is hereby stands quashed and set aside in terms of these consent terms as against present appellant/original O.P. no.2 only. Hence the following order:- Order 1. Appeal @ Misc.applications stands disposed of in terms of consent terms. 2. Pronounced and dictated in the open court. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. Amar Mishra-Advocate for the complainant. Mr. S.A. Gundecha-Advocate for the O.Ps. We heard both the counsels extensively on the point of admission only. We are finding that the customized car was booked by the complainant with O.P.nos.1, 2 and 3 and since as per terms and conditions of the said contract, the complainant had not made remaining amount of price, Car was not delivered and ultimately, complainant himself terminated the contract and he has simply filed this consumer complaint to get refund of Rs.66 lakhs paid earlier. There is no deficiency in service. He has terminated the contract and he has to recover Rs.66 lakhs from the O.Ps. For this purpose he cannot file consumer complaint. He has to approach Civil Court for getting decree passed against O.Ps. Hence we pass following order:- Order: 1. Complaint is rejected at the stage of admission itself. 2. Pronounced and dictated in the open court....
Tag this Judgment!