Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: None present for the appellant. Perused the record, particularly the application for condonation of delay. There is delay of 151 days in filing the appeal. The reason given is one line statement stating that the appellant had not received the copy of award, which was posted to him on 11/09/2008. The reason given is quite unsatisfactory, since the delay of 151 days is not sufficiently explained. The record shows that proceedings before the Forum below was prosecuted diligently by the appellant. He was aware of the date on which the award passed and was posted to him. Considering over all circumstances, his bear statement that he had not received the copy of the award passed does not inspire confidence. Delay is not satisfactorily explained. The application for condonation of delay deserves to be dismissed. We hold accordingly, and pass the following order:- Order: 1. Misc.Application No.114/2009 for condonation for de...
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 arises out of order/award dated 29/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.08/2008, Mr.Madhavrao S.Aaher V/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. District Forum , Nashik (Forum below in short). Appellant had taken insurance policy from respondent/opp.party and paid first premium of Rs.12,500/- through cheque no.010972 dated 22/03/2006 subject to realisation. The insurance cover was to be effective only on encashment of the cheque and thus, receiving amount of the first premium. It is the case of the complainant that he came to know about non-realization of the cheque, when second premium was due and had made inquiry with the respondent. The respondent also informed in writing about the dishonor of the said cheque and non receipt of the first premium accordingly to the complainant by its letter dated 03/09/2007. It is the contention of the complainant that when he made inquiry with his banker, he was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Mrs. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal filed by the appellant/org. complainant is directed against the order dated 21/02/2008 in consumer complaint No.20/2005 passed by the District Consumer Forum Pune. The Forum below dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the complainant herself has filed present appeal. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under:- The complainant is the bonafide member of the scheme to construct house for Railway Employees Welfare Organisation to get the constructed house/flat on obtaining the plot from Local Authority or the Government. The construction is carried out after engaging builder. The activity is carried out on No Loss No Profit basis. The appellant/complainant-Mrs.Rajashri Ingale in consumer complaint No.20/2005 allotted a bungalow bearing No.A-4A-18 and received possession in the month of June-July 2000. Certain deficiencies were noticed, which requires repairs. Inspection was carried out on 04/09/2001. The complain...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member These revision petitions are filed by the revisionist being dissatisfied by the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Thane, dated 04/12/2008 on application dated 19th September 2008 for setting aside ex-parte order (and to allow to file written statement) in consumer complaints bearing nos.15/2008 and 85/2008 Mr.Altaf A. Pirani v/s. Silver Park A Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. Since these revisions involves common question of law and facts, we are disposing of these revision petitions by this common order. We heard Revisionist in person and Mr.P.W.Adarkar-Advocate for opponent no.1. None for other opponents. After considering the documents placed before us and perusing the order dated 04/12/2007, we find that the Roznama dated 9/7/2008 shows that the matter was fixed for written arguments and adjourned to 14/8/2008. On 14/8/2008 the summary of events as per Roznama is blissfully silent as to whether any written arguments were filed or arguments were he...
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 Ms.Li Shu Fen, Advocate for the complainant. In the notice dated 25/09/2008 issued prior to filing of this consumer complaint, compensation claimed is quantified less than Rs.20 Lakhs. Now, while filing this complaint said claim is made on higher side. We find the claim is inflated just to attract jurisdiction of this Commission. Under the circumstances, we pass the following order:- Order: 1. Complaint is returned forthwith to the complainant with a direction to file the same before appropriate Forum after incorporating necessary corrections in respect of pecuniary jurisdiction, within 30 days from today....
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. Ajay Mishra, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.M. Saraogi, Advocate for the complainant. Perused the record. This consumer complaint is filed with a claim of Rs.99 Lakhs on the ground that Mercedes Benz vehicle purchased by the complainant which met with an accident when his wife was driving, had a manufacturing defect. The only summarization about manufacturing defect is that at the time of accident, safety device of air bags though came out were not inflated sufficiently. There is no other evidence produced on record to substantiate that the vehicle really has any manufacturing defect. Accident may be unfortunate, but certainly the complainant is not an expert to testify about manufacturing defect in the vehicle. His summarization since not based on any technical experts report or any valid ground, we find that the complainant failed to show any cause of action based upon manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Per Shri. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member 1) Perused the record. It is alleged by the Complainant that she has booked residential flat No.501, admeasuring 895 sq.ft. in area situated on the 5th floor of I wing of proposed Bhoomi Breeze building. She agreed to pay the price @ Rs.2,501/- per sq.ft. which comes around Rs.24,46,995/- inclusive of stamp duty, legal charges, society formation charges, 12 months maintenance charges, corpus fund, infrastructure charges, grill charges etc. She paid Rs.51,000/- as booking amount on 14/06/2005 by cheque. However, the project never comes up. There was exchange of correspondence/notices. Therefore, she filed this consumer complaint to claim relief of possession after receiving the balance consideration and alternatively claim Rs.23 lakhs as compensation. In addition to it she also claimed Rs.50,000/- as cost of the proceeding. 2) Admittedly, there is no written agreement had taken place. Since, the project was yet to start, the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order:- Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24/10/2008 passed in Recovery Application No.106/2007 in consumer complaint No.38/2000 Dr.Sachin Shah V/s. M/s.International Business Machine and Ors. by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum, whereby the request to stay the proceeding on the ground of filing of the appeal was rejected. The reason given for rejection is that no stay was given till that date by the State Commission. We heard Mr.S.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Perused the record. It is a well settled position of land that mere filing of the appeal ipso-facto does not operate as a stay to the impugned order/award. Therefore, when the Forum below observed that there being no stay, request to stay the proceeding cannot be granted, there being no illegality committed, Revision Petition itself deserves to be dismissed. There is no illegality of any kind committed by the Forum below. Tod...
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.B. Prabhawalkar, Advocate for the complainants. Perused the complaint. In the instant case, soon after the purchase of the vehicle, damaged right side front tyre and wheel disc was noticed. Matter was reported and damaged tyre and wheel disc was immediately replaced by the Company. Other problem was about milometer, which was showing faulty reading. Both these problems were attended as soon as the complaints were made. Since the milometer reading could not be calibrated or brought back to the position desired, the warranty period was extended suitably and the problem was attended accordingly. After going through these experiences, complainant becomes, perhaps, disgusted and filed this consumer complaint with a request for refund of entire price paid by him for this luxury vehicle. It is also alleged that there is manufacturing defect in the said car and therefore, vehicle be taken back and replaced the...
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 arises out of order/award dated 27/06/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.35/2008, Mr.Vir Bhan Sharma v/s. Mr.Vir Bhan Sharma by (Additional)District Consumer Forum, Thane (Forum below in short). According to respondent/org.complainant, he has preferred this claim as a Nominee under the policy taken for his wife, who unfortunately died on 17/05/2006 due to Jaundice. The claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 30/03/2007 and hence, this consumer complaint was filed. Forum below decreed the claim and feeling aggrieved thereby, insurance company preferred this appeal. We heard Adv. Shri A.S. Vidyarthi for the appellant and respondent in person. Perused the record. Insurance claim was repudiated on the ground of non-disclosure of the ailment. Whether repudiation is proper or not is the question before the Forum below. Appellant/Insurance Company had filed its written statement and was...
Tag this Judgment!