Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... be declared as terminated. the opponents tried to take a plea that case involves complicated questions of law and hence does not fall under the purview of the consumer protection act, 1986. on these grounds the opponents prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed as there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on their part. [10 ..... i-(1992)-cpj-47-(nc); observed that the reliefs which a consumer forum can grant are specified in section-14 of the consumer protection act, 1986. as per section-14(1)(d) of the said act it is for the consumer forum to award appropriate amount by way of compensation to a consumer for any loss or injury suffered ..... this point. the complainants further contended that the opponents have made alterations in the sanctioned plan and violated the provisions of section-7 of the maharashtra ownership flats act, 1963. the complainants contended that they were not in default of any of the installments as per the schedule of payment enumerated on internal page (07) of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... present complaint is not characterized by deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opponent as prescribed under section-2(1)(g) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the opponent further submitted that valuation of the complaint is unreasonable, arbitrary and not justified. the complainant only paid an amount of `1,50, ..... reserves the right to modify the insurance charges and the processing charge with prospective effect after giving a notice of three months to the policyholders. the proposer/life assured who does not agree with the modified charges shall be allowed to withdraw the units in the plans at the then prevailing unit value and terminate ..... balasaheb ramchandra gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as the complainant for the sake of brevity) has filed this consumer complaint on 7/1/2011 as against icici prudential life insurance company (hereinafter referred to as the opponent for the sake of brevity). complaint was registered as consumer complaint no.16 of 2011 and it was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... that such order was not challenged by the builder by preferring a revision before this commission. hence, that order achieved finality under section-24 of the consumer protection act, 1986. on perusal of the impugned order, it does appear to us that said order has been passed after taking into consideration the amended prayers of the ..... the impression that according to the district forum, there is no requirement of recording of the reasons while endorsing the finding as the cases under the consumer protection act, 1986 are required to be decided in a summary manner. it does not appear to us that the impugned order had been passed after due consideration ..... ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. this is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... the complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our jurisdiction under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the wife of the petitioner/complainant had taken two life insurance policies, one for rs.80,000/- and the other for rs.50,000/- on 15th of ..... resulting in the dismissal of the petitioners complaint. 3. aggrieved with the order disentitling him of the award passed by the state commission that the husband of the life assured has filed this revision petition. 4. we have heard shri d.b. ray, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and shri pankul nagpal, advocate, ..... thereafter died on the 12th of october, 2003. the petitioner/husband being the nominee of the deceased under the policies thereafter filed a claim before the respondent-life insurance corporation of india, which was repudiated by them on the ground of suppression of material facts, compelling the petitioner and his children to file a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... parties. this case involves medical negligence on the part of four doctors opposite parties. medical negligence cases can be well decided by consumer fora under consumer protection act in its summary jurisdiction. of-course, we give good amount of latitude to both the parties to file affidavits to interrogate witnesses and to elicit information ..... given were all postmortem and amounts to cheating. (21) the committee also mentioned that records created by him were not trustworthy as ecg showing evidence of life at millennium hospital is not forthcoming. as regards dr. kachres post mortem report committee found that cause of death was due to complications of operation was a ..... of the opposite parties that because of cardiac arrest patient died and patient died in chetna hospital where patient was referred in critical condition to save his life. it is possible that because of death of patient millennium hospitals doctors might not have taken any charges from the widow of the patient, but, then .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... of which shall be borne by the complainant. thereafter, upon giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence, as contemplated under section-13(4) of the consumer protection act, 1986 the dispute between the parties shall be settled at an earlier date preferably within a period of four months. both parties shall appear before the forum on 29th january .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... been caused by causes beyond his control and therefore the said delay if any should be condoned. this is not what is contemplated u/s 24-a of consumer protection act. under the said section, while filing the complaint, the complainant has to file separate application seeking condonation of delay supported by affidavit if complaint is being filed beyond ..... that if during debridement it was found that the infection has spread deep and upwards, it may be better of with cutting the leg (amputation) rather then losing the life. on march 13, 1997, the complainant refused to take treatment in the ward and decided to go home. hence, against medical advice he was permitted to go home ..... left foot on march 3, 1997 and was told that this was the last attempt to salvage his leg as any further spread of infection would otherwise endanger his life. he was further told categorically that due to his brittle diabetes, poor blood supply and non response to antibiotics he may be required to go in for an .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... have purchased this car from the opponent no.3 dealer for commercial purpose only and as such, in terms of explanation appended to section-2(1)(d) of the consumer protection act, 1986 the complainants cannot be permitted to file a consumer complaint. on this ground also, this complaint is liable to be rejected at the stage of admission itself. hence, we ..... stands rejected in limine. the complainants are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of rs. 10,000/- to each opponent in terms of section-26 of the consumer protection act, 1986 for filing a frivolous and vexatious complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. inform the parties accordingly.
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... back to forum below, which shall give proper opportunity to both the sides to raise appropriate pleadings and then to lead evidence as per provisions of section 13 of consumer protection act, 1986 and then settle the dispute according to law. 4. appellant to bear its own cost and pay rs.5,000/- as cost of this appeal to respondent no.1 ..... for the appellant. he does not want to press appeal against respondent nos.2and3. hence appeal stands dismissed as against respondent no.2/ the life line global ltd. and respondent no.3/ shri harish madan, managing director, the life line global ltd. appeal to proceed only against respondent no.1/m/s.krishna enterprises. order accordingly. this appeal arises out of order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
..... actually it was not so as mentioned in sec.2(1)(oo) of consumer protection act, 1986. therefore, the forum below rightly allowed the complaint and passed an award in favour of the complainant. we are finding no substance in the appeal preferred by the pepsico ..... rightly took cognizance of the complaint and held that it was defective drink offered for sale to the general public as mentioned in sec.2(1)(f) of consumer protection act, 1986. it was certainly a spurious goods claimed to be genuine but ..... goods which was hazardous to life and safety and which was being offered for sale to the general public in contravention of the standards relating to the safety of such goods under any law for the time being in force. so, there was contravention of clause 5 and 6 of sec.2(1)(c) of consumer protection act and therefore the forum below .....
Tag this Judgment!