Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 01/01/2009 passed in consumer complaint no.183/2003, Mr.Sanjay Swarupchand Sawla v/s Mahindra Holidays and Resorts Ltd. by District Forum, Pune (Forum below in short). The appellant/complainant entered into an agreement accepting the membership of respondent/opposite party. Subsequently, thereafter complainant had grievance that the promised holidays were not available by the respondent. Consequently, on 04/12/2002 he had informed the respondent/opposite party for cancellation of his membership and for refund of money deposited by cheque and also refund of encashed post dated cheques. The request was repudiated by the respondent and feeling aggrieved thereby, consumer complaint filed inter-alia claiming reliefs as under: 1. declare that the opposite party is found deficient in rendering the services assured for consideration. 2. direct the opposite party to pay to the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal is preferred against the order dated 14/05/2009, whereby the consumer complaint was not entertained as barred by limitation. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the original complainant. Appellant and his Counsel are absent. Perused the record. In the instant case, the appellant was retired on 31/12/2004. He entered into correspondence disputing the calculation of his pension after sleeping over for more than two years. The consumer complaint was filed on 28/04/2009 i.e. almost 4 years after the retirement. There is no application made on behalf of the complainant to condone the delay. Taking into consideration all these aspects, Forum below rightly held accordingly that being barred by limitation, consumer complaint cannot be entertained. We find no reason to take a different view than the one view taken by the Forum below. Hence, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member It is alleged by the complainant that for the shooting at abroad location their unit boarded Opposite Partys flight No.AF-135 which was scheduled to travel from Mumbai to Zurich via Paris on 31st August 1998. At the destination station, one baggage which contained continuing costumes for actress Karishma Kapoor was found missing. The baggage was not found. Since continuing costumes of the actress were lost, the entire shooting schedule got disturbed. The complainant had to pack-up and returned back to India without any shooting. As a result of which it suffered heavy losses. Opposite Party tried to settle the alleged deficiency on their part on account of loss of baggage by offering sum of Rs.22,640/- equivalent to SDR 391 considering Special Drawing Rights 17 (SDR 17) which fixed the liability of O.P. as a carrier i.e. condition of carriage by airline. Consumer complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs.15 Lakhs and cost of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Both these complaints stand disposed of by this common order since they involved common questions of law and identical facts. We heard Mr. S.P. Kaushik, Advocate for the complainants. Perused the Complaints. In the instant cases, the dispute between Member of the Society and the Society itself, any how, is tried to be brought within the four corners of the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora but unsuccessfully. The Managing Committee of the Society has taken a decision to give permission to erect a Mobile tower on the roof of the Society building. This subject is also to be discussed in the Annual General Meeting of the Society as mentioned in the Complaint (scheduled on 12th July, 2008). Therefore, the decision relating to erection of the mobile tower was before the General Body Meeting also and the Complainants being members of the Society are expected to participate in it. The Managing Committee, if acted beyond their ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member We heard Mr. S.A. Pandit, Advocate h/f. Mr. Sandeep Kapote, Advocate for the complainant. Perused the Complaint. In the instant case relying upon the Clause 8 of the Insurance Policy, the claim made towards the loss of goods which was due to fire in the godown, stood repudiated and it is categorically mentioned that considering the report of Surveyor, Police Statement and Three Members Committee Report (Investigation Report), which was appointed by the insured itself, the loss caused to the stock was not an accidental one. Since, the repudiation is made on the basis of terms of Insurance Policy, apparently, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and, therefore, Consumer Complaint would not lie. Besides that the issue involved would be fraud committed or as to whether incident was of accident or something more than it. These issues involve leading evidence on these controversia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) This appeal filed by the Appellant/Org.Complainant is directed against the order dated 29/11/2008 in consumer complaint No.53/2008 Shri.Pandurang Laxman Ghadge v/s.M/s.Shreyas Builders and Developers, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Central Mumbai (Forum below in short). 2) In the instant cases Appellant/Org.Complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase flat, and paid Rs.25,000/- as earnest money on 21/03/2005. The dispute arose and therefore, this consumer complaint is filed. Forum below allowed the complaint and directed to Opponent to refund part of consideration of Rs.25,000/- along with interest and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service, and mental agony. In addition to it, Rs.5,000/- as cost were also awarded. Being not satisfied with the award passed this appeal is preferred by the Org. Complainant. 3) Appellant/Org.Complainant alleged that he has pai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 17/11/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.557/2007 Shri T.M.Baburajiv v/s. M/s.Hiranandani Properties Pvt.Ltd. by District Consumer Forum, Thane. 2. Heard Mr.Vishal Patil-Advocate for the appellant. Perused the record. 3. In the instant case, appellant has purchased a flat from respondent/O.P.no.1 M/s.Hiranandani Properties Pvt. Ltd. Respondent/org.O.P.no.2 is the Society of the flat purchasers. After purchase of the flat, appellant also purchased a stilt parking from O.P.no.1 and received possession thereof. Subsequently, a dispute arose and O.P.no.2 did not recognize the said sale of stilt parking in favour of the appellant. There is a resolution passed in the General Body meeting also. Consequently this consumer complaint is filed for refund of money paid for parking and also for injunction. Complaint stood dismissed. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr. D. Chaurasiya -Advocate for the appellant. He files withdrawal pursis. Taken on record. Hence the order:- Order: 1. Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. 2. Amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited under provisions of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 be refunded to the appellant. 3. Misc.application nos.907 and 908/2009 stands disposed of as infructuous. 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 Heard Mr.J.Muzumdar-Advocate h/f.Mr.Jani-Advocate for the revisionist. Directions issued by this Commission on 17/4/2009 are not at all followed and complied with. Revisionist is not vigilant to prosecute the revision petition. Hence the order. Order: 1. Revision petition stands dismissed for non compliance of the directions given earlier and for want of effectively prosecuting the revision petition. 2. Misc.application stands disposed of. 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 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19/1/2009 passed on application Exhibit J for amendment in consumer complaint no.171/2004 Pravin G. Joshi and others v/s. Smt. Sarojini Gandadhar Kulkarni and others. Amendment application was allowed and feeling aggrieved thereby, original O.P.no.1- Smt. Sarojini Gandadhar Kulkarni preferred this revision petition. 2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Datar-Advocate for the revisionist and Mr. Suhas Navale-Advocate for the opponent nos.1 to 4. Other opponents are absent. Perused the record. 3. In the instant case, original complainants were allowed to amend their pleadings. At this stage, we prefer not to go into the legality of the order passed or necessity of the amendment or whether the relief covering the amendment could be claimed as a consumer dispute. The law is well settled that in a consumer dispute, Consumer Fora cannot go beyond the four corners of section 14 o...
Tag this Judgment!