Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. Consumer complaint filed by the Appellant/Complainant on 5/01/2007 against the Opposite Party, for compensation of Rs.1.74 lacs came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 29/10/13. Hence the present appeal. 2. Some bare facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The Complainant is the owner of a Tata Tipper truck manufactured in September 2003 and registered under no.GA-02/V-7512. The vehicle was duly insured with the OP. Complainant was using the said truck for carrying iron ore and on 31/03/05 while the said tipper truck was unloading the ore, its lift oil return pipe gave way and the iron loaded body fell on the chassis and sub chassis damaging the same. The OP appointed a duly licensed surveyor Shri R. R. Prabhu who submitted a report dated 18/04/05 and on the basis of the same the OP repudiated the claim made by the Complainant, by its letter dated 9/06/05. 4. The said surveyor Shri R. R. Prabhu in para 2 of his report dated 18/04/0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. In this appeal filed under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986, the complainant seeks enhancement of interest to 15% or 18% per year as against 9% per year awarded to her by the Lr. District Forum, by order dated 29/11/13. 2. It is rather unfortunate that a complaint which was filed on 6/1/03 came to be disposed off more than a decade later, on 29/11/13, inspite of the fact that the C.P. Act mandates that the consumer complaint ought to be disposed off within three months or so. 3. Some bare facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 4. The complainant had entered into an agreement dated 18/6/1998 with the OPs for construction of a shop identified as shop No. 11 having an area of 12 sq.mts as per the plans in a building to be known as F. X. Towers, for a sum of Rs.4.8 lacs out of which a sum of Rs.3.42 lacs was paid to the OPs. 5. The complainant under the pretext that the complainant wanted to start the business of a hardware shop, took the key...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. The applicant that is OP No. 1 in CC No. 5/13, by application filed on 4/4/14 seeks condonation of delay of about 9 days in filing the appeal against final order dated 20/02/14. 2. The Applicant/OP No. 1 collected the certified copy of the same on 21/2/14 and the applicant got free copy of the same on 23/2/14, and not on 24/2/14, as stated in the application. 3. Shri. P. P. Singh, the lr. advocate of the Applicant/OP No. 1 would submit that the said certified copy had to be sent to Pune to obtain instructions and further submits that the exact date as to when it was sent to Pune is not known. Shri. P.P. Singh further submits that the instructions to file an appeal were received on 30/3/14 and the application was filed soon thereafter, on 4/4/14. However, it may be observed, that these submissions are not borne out of the record. What is stated in the application is that steps were taken to send a hard copy of the order to the officers (of the applicant) and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Opposite Parties in CC No. 93/09, and, is directed against order dated 29/01/13 by which the consumer complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant on 10/08/09 is allowed, and, the OPs have been directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 4,24,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% from 8/3/09, as loss suffered by the complainant, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 20,000/- as costs. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The complainant is in private service. The OPs are brokers dealing in buying and selling of shares and derivatives. OP No. 2 is the branch office of OP No. 1 at Panaji. The OPs i.e. OP No. 1 is a member of National Stock Exchange and of Bombay Stock Exchange and is a Stock Broker with Securities and Exchange Board of India. 4. The complainant entered into what is known as a Member Constituent Agreement dated 23/3/06 with the OPs, as per the Rules and Bye-laws of the said Exchang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This is a Complainants appeal and is directed against order dated 18/02/2014 of the Lr. South Goa District Forum, by which the complaint filed by the Complainant on 03/02/2006 has been dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. 2. We have heard the Complainant in person, at length. 3. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 4. The Complainant purchased from the OP a semi automated Spectro photometer AE 600 made in Japan by ERMA Inc. for a sum of Rs.1.7 lacs. The said instrument was installed on 24/11/04 and had a warranty of one year, upto 23/11/05. After the instrument was installed, the Complainant signed an endorsement on the warranty card stating that the instrument was installed properly; its performance was within the specifications and that the Complainant was shown how to change the peristaltic pump tube, fuse and lamp. After the said endorsement was signed by the Complainant, the Complainant also scribbled a note below it, stating t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. By application filed on 11/03/2014, the Applicant/OP No.1 seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 01/10/2013. 2. We have heard Shri Rao, the lr. advocate of the Applicants and the authorized representative of the respondents. 3. We could proceed on the assumption that the period of 30 days to file the appeal is to be reckoned from 14/10/2013, as on this date the free copy was issued to Applicant/OP No.1 of the impugned order dated 01/10/2013, certified copy of which was otherwise ready on 7/10/2013 and delivered to the Applicant/OP No.1, on 14/10/2013. 4. We could also proceed on the assumption that Ms. Manjiri Shirodkar, Manager of Applicant/OP No.1 “ Air India/ National Aviation Co. of India Ltd., has authority to file the same as she is the Manager of Applicant/OP No.1. 5. However, what is lacking to support the application is an affidavit to support the very many averments in the application, particularly those of paras 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
Jagdish Prabhudesai, Member: 1. By this Order we shall dispose of the present application for condonation of delay filed by the Appellants herein at the time of presenting the Appeal before this Commission against the Orders dated 20.8.2013 and 4.7.2013 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa, at Margao in Complaint No. 9/2000. 2. At the outset, we make it clear that we are only concerned about the maintainability of the aforesaid application for condonation of delay and hence we refrain from passing any comments on merits of the case. 3. It is necessary to state some brief facts as under : I. It is stated in the application that the Appellants had filed a formal application dated 25.10.2012 in the Complaint No. 9/2000 before the Ld. District Forum at South Goa for bringing legal heirs of the deceased Complainant on record while the Complainant expired on 12.9.2010. The said application was dismissed by the Learned Forum and the said complaint was also dismissed on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. Heard Shri. A. Arsekar, the lr. aadvocate of the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner is the OP No. 2 in CC No. 35/13. Their application for condonation of delay of 37 days, in filing the written version, has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10/01/14 and this revision is directed against the said order. 3. The Petitioner as OP No. 2 was duly served with notice of the said complaint on 3/8/13, as stated by the complainant, though this date was not mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. On 4/9/13 the said notice was forwarded by the Petitioner Company to its centralized law firm informing that the next date of hearing was fixed on 18/9/13 for filing the written version. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner Company engaged a Counsel in South Goa and forwarded the necessary papers of the complaint and the wakalatnama to him, but, however due to ill health of the Counsel of the centralized law firm the written version could not be d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 20/02/2014 of the Lr. North Goa District Forum at Porvorim.2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The Appellant/OP in CC No. 74/10 is a builder carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Prabhu Constructions and has put up a project known as Prabhu Estates at Duler, Mapusa, consisting of about 90 flats. 4. The Respondent/Complainant has purchased from the Appellant/OP vide agreement dated 14/02/05 a flat No. 4 in building D-3 and the Respondent/Complainant was put in possession of the same on 28/03/05. It appears that no Society could be formed within a period of two years, of the flat owneRs.The complainant, therefore, filed the complaint against the OP on 5/8/10. Since then a sale deed has been executed in favour of the complainant by the OP and presumably after 12/09/12, and, therefore the first relief sought for by the complainant is rendered infructous. 5. The second ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Panaji
N.A. Britto, President: 1. This appeal has been filed by the OP in CC No. 109/2010, and, is directed against order dated 11/11/13 by which the OP has been directed to refund the sum of Rs.1 lac with interest at the rate of 9% from 18/11/10 till payment and the complainant has been directed to return the furniture, on refund being made. 2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose off this appeal. 3. The complainant is an M. Sc and holds a Ph.D. The complainant purchased a new flat in August 2010 and visited the establishment of the OP on 15/09/10 and saw 3 or 4 types of bedroom sets and chose what is known as Atessa double bed with storage, two Atessa bedside tables, one Atessa wardrobe, one Atessa dressing table and one mattress viceroy plus and paid a sum of Rs.1 lac. The furniture ordered by the complainant was based on the sample exhibited in the showroom of the OP. The furniture was delivered to the complainant on 18/9/10 alongwith some complementary items such as two pillow...
Tag this Judgment!