Mumbai Court May 2009 Judgments

The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 03/04/2008 passed in consumer complaint no. 344/2007, Mahalaxmi Sheti Vikas Kendra V/s. The United India Insurance Company Limited by District Forum, Kolhapur (Forum below in short). In the instant case for his stock and trade the complainant has taken insurance policy from appellant/opposite party. Insurance was taken since from the year 1995 and renewed each year. The complainant carries his business in gala no.3 and stock is stored in basement no.3 at Mahalaxmi Sheti Vikas Kendra, Kolhapur. He is not having other place for business other than this. The goods stored in the basement were damaged due to flood during the period from 05/08/2006 to 08/08/2006 and therefore, insurance claim is made. The same is repudiated though the surveyor verified the damage, on the ground that insurance policy mentioned gala no.2 basement no.2 and not 3. Therefore, consumer complaint was filed. Forum be...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Fort, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Chowgule Indust ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member:: This appeal arises out of order/award dated 18/08/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.248/2007, M/s. Chowgule Industries Ltd V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors, by District Forum, South Mumbai (Forum below in short). The facts which are not disputed are that the respondent no.1/org.complainant had taken a Workman Compensation Policy from the appellant/org.opp.party no.1/insurance company. It was for the period 13/11/2004 to 12/11/2005. On 02/11/2005 one of its workman-Shri Mohammed Mussa found dead. It is alleged that the said workman died during his employment and as such, covered under the policy, referred above. Accordingly, insurance claim was lodged with the opposite party/insurance company. Said claim was repudiated by the insurance company as per its letter dated 20/03/2006 on the ground that in an workman compensation case filed by legal heirs of the deceased insured i.e. org.complainant company had taken a st...

Smt. Geeta Jayant Thakur Vs. Shri Harivadan Maganlal Bhat and Another

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This complaint has been filed by the complainant-lady against two O.Ps. who agreed to give new flat in lieu of tenement surrendered by her in view of proposed development being carried out by O.P.Nos.1and2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under:- O.Ps. and complainant, her mother and sister entered into an Agreement of Sale whereby O.Ps. purchased a land having constructed portion on Survey No.26, Hissa No.2 at Dombivali admeasuring 1034.50 sq. mtrs. which was given in possession for Rs.1,50,000/-. Out of which, Rs.75,000/- payable in cash and in lieu of balance amount of Rs.75,000/-, builder was to give on first or second floor, two Room Kitchen residential flat, which would be liked by complainant, her mother and her sister. The said flat was being given in possession within 36 months from the date of approval of plan by the Local Municipal Corporation. If at all the possession is not given within 36 months ...

Prakash Malgaonkar, Re: Shri Rang Chs Ltd. and Another Vs. the Mahanag ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of complaint passed by District Consumer Forum Thane. By its impugned order passed in consumer complaint No.432/1996, the Forum below dismissed the complaint of the complainants against M.T.N.L. on the ground of no deficiency in service. The complainants had applied for telephone connection from O.P. on 22/09/1986. He had deposited Rs.1,000/- by demand draft with O.P. O.P. failed to install a telephone connection of the complainant till filing of the complaint i.e. 18/01/1997. According to the complainant, he made several inquiries with O.P. but, O.P. gave vague reply that application is not traceable. Therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum below for deficiency in service. O.Ps. filed their written statement and contested the claim of the complainant. They pleaded that the complainant was allotted a telephone on 10/02/1994 by Work Order, but the said Work Order cou...

Sabaji B. Sinde and Others Vs. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bandr ...

Court: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai

Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member In the instant appeals, same point of law with identical facts arises and hence these appeals heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. In all these three appeals, appellants No.1/org. complainants No.1 are the owner of the vehicles, which were insured with respondent/org. O.P.-Insurance Company. Those vehicles were hypothecated with appellant No.2/org. complainant No.2-City Corp Finance India Ltd. All of them have transferred the vehicles before the event i.e. event of theft. The insurance claim was repudiated in all these cases on the ground that since vehicles were transferred with parting of possession prior to the date of event, there was no insurable interest left with the insured/org. complainant No.1 from these matters. Forum below uphold the contention of the Insurance Company and holding that the repudiation was proper, complaints were not admitted by the impugned orders. Feeling aggrieved thereby, org. complai...

Smt. Zeitumbi Habib Mohamad Vs. Shri Thomas Roberto Gomes,

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR147; 2009(111)BomLR2108

R.S. Dalvi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 18.08.1997 in Eviction Appeal No. 27.1989 ordering eviction of the petitioner who was the tenant of the suit premises on the ground on bonafide requirement of the respondent, the owner/landlord of the suit premises.2. The respondent filed his initial application for eviction of the petitioner under Section 23 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (The Act). The application was filed in November 1976. The applicant averred that he was the landlord of the suit house bearing House No. 247 at Margao and that the respondent therein was his tenant who was tenanted the suit house on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-.3. In paragraph 6 of the application, the applicant stated that he was not residing in the house of his own in the city of Margao or that he had not obtained possession of a residential house of his own under Section 23 of the Act. He therefore, averred that he had no other house ...

Nandos Indage Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nando's Resources B.V. and Anr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(4)BomCR139

Anoop V. Mohta, J.1. The Petitioner has entered into a Master Franchise Agreement with Respondent No. 1 (the franchisor). Respondent No. 2 is a foreign origin company and the owner, who has granted the rights to respondent No. 1 to use the specialised experience and skill in the establishment and operation of distinctive fast food and the restaurant outlets each of which trades under the name and style as 'Nando's Chickenland' using the system and the trademarks. The necessary Clause (2) is reproduced as under: 2.1 The FRANCHISOR possesses in terms of a master license agreement with Nando's International Limited and has been granted the rights to use and grant others the right to use the specialised experience, knowhow and skill in the establishment and operation of distinctive fast food and restaurant outlets each of which trades under the name and style of 'Nando's Chickenland' using the system and the trademarks.2. Admittedly, this agreement in question is between the Petitioner and...

The Asstt. Engineer and the Government of Maharashtra Vs. Shri Dattatr ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR160

K.K. Tated, J.1. Heard Mr. Dharashive, learned A.G.P. for the Appellant and Mr. Shendurnikar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.2. Present First Appeal filed by original Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against the Judgment and award dated 27th January, 1994 passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Application No. 240 of 1990. The original claimants also preferred Cross Objection Stamp No. 6197 of 1996 for enhancement of compensation.3. In the present case the accident took place on 5th January, 1989 in which one Rajendra Kenge died. Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed Motor Accident Claim Application No. 240 of 1990 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The trial Court awarded a sum of Rs. 1,03,900/- to the original claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Application i.e. 10th July, 1989 till realisation of the amount.4. Learned A.G.P. submitted that t...

Madhukar Pandurang Gadade Vs. the State of Maharashtra Through Secreta ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR193; 2009(6)MhLj562

A.V. Potdar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ or directions that the order dated 12.11.2008 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad bearing O. No. 2008/Visha/ZP /Estt-1/Kavi/Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad Divisional Commissioner Office, Aurangabad, be quashed and set aside.3. The facts, disclosed by the petitioner, can be summarised as follows:a. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 are working in the Accounts Department of Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad. Initially, both of them were appointed as Junior Assistants and both of them were promoted to the post of Junior Accounts Officers (for short JAO) on 29.09.2003. It appears from the rules that to qualify for the promotion for the post of Assistant Accounts Officers, the candida...

Kanihyalal Hastimal Firodiya Vs. Vasantlal Hastimal Firodiya (Died) Th ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2009(5)BomCR397

P.R. Borkar, J.1. These appeals are filed by two defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the IInd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Special Civil Suit No. 164 of 1992, decided on 13.08.1997, as confirmed by the 4th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 314 of 2001, decided on 04.09.2004. The Trial Court has passed the decree of partition and separate possession and declared that the plaintiff is entitled to get 1/5th share by way of partition and possession in suit property Municipal House No. 7293, bearing C.T.S. No. 3575/15, admeasuring 77 sq.mtr., situated at Mahatma Gandhi Road, Ahmednagar. Enquiry regarding mesne profit was also directed under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Some of the facts giving rise to these appeals are not disputed at this stage and it is preferable to state them at the outset:The suit property which is described above is the subject matter of the dispute. One Hastimal ...