Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
Neeraja Singh, Member: 1. This appeal is by the complainant, dissatisfied by the order dated 26.09.07, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior, in deciding his complaint against the respondent [Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the insurance company)]. 2. The brief facts of the case, as depicted by the appellant, are that he had a policy for his Bajaj motorcycle with the respondent Insurance Company for the period 22.10.05 to 21.10.06. On the night of 30.03.06, some unknown persons snatched his motorcycle. The appellant immediately informed the police. He also informed the authorized agent at the call centre of the insurance company on 1.4.06, who had the claim form filled. An investigator, Upendra Singh Vaisha, was appointed, who recorded his statement. The appellant states that the insurance company informed him that the claim would be settled after he produces final report. He obtained the report on 18.9.06 and gave it at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
S.K. Kulshrestha, President: Oral: 1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 26.8.2010 passed by the District Forum, Bhopal in case No. 167/2009. The appeal No. 2338/2010 has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation while appeal No. 2468/2010 has been filed by the opposite parties for setting aside the compensation awarded by the District Forum. The facts are being taken from First Appeal No. 2338/2010 for convenience, unless stated otherwise. The matter arises from the loss of articles sent by parcel from United States to India. 2. According to the complainant, his son had on 31.5.2006 sent a parcel of three items from Kansas City, USA which was received by him from the Post Office, Ayodhya Nagar. There was doubt about the weight of the parcel as its weight was 750 grams as against the booked parcel weight of 1300 grams. The complainant made inquiry and learnt that the parcel from USA upto Bombay had come safely in the original weight but it was from B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
Neerja Singh, Member: 1. These two cross appeals, No. 1341/10 by the complainant and No. 1653/10 by the opposite party, arise from the order, dated 06.02.10, passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhopal. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts leading to the complainant are that the complainants entered into an agreement with the opposite party for purchase of a house to be constructed at plot no 127, Orchard Greens. As per the agreement, the complainants had to pay a total sum of Rs.10,21,000/- for the house, which was to be completed by April 2008. The complainants allege that though they have paid Rs.9,85,000/- and only Rs.36,000/- are remaining, the house has not been completed and they have not been given possession of the house, despite repeated requests. 3. The opposite party, Messrs Om construction and Builders, state that the complainants made a payment of Rs. 2,95,000/- through cheque. This cheque, No.494243 dated 6.2.07, was dishonoured. The complainant was info...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
S.K. Kulshrestha, President: Oral: 1. By this appeal the appellant (opposite party) assails the order dated 24.10.2909 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jabalpur passed in C.C. No. 53/2009 whereby the District Forum has directed reversal of the amount withdrawn by the bank from the account of respondent Athairam. 2. As per the facts narrated by learned Counsel, one Hem Singh Rajput had taken loan in the sum of Rs. 25,000 for construction of the house but did not pay a single instalment towards the payment thereof. His guarantor was Athairam (complainant) and the bank therefore exercising its lien withdrew the amount of instalment from the account of guarantor Athairam. The guarantor challenged the authority of the bank to withdraw amount from his account where his pension was deposited, as pension is not attachable; attachable under Section 60(1) (g) of the CPC. 3. Learned Counsel submits that once pension comes to the hand of the pensioner it loses its character as pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
S.K. Kulshrestha, President: 1. This appeal by the opposite party assails the order dated 30th October, 2007 passed by the District Forum, Indore in case No. 519/2007. By the said order the District Forum has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties, severally and collectively, to refund a sum of Rs. 2,822 charged in excess for rescheduling of the air ticket and to pay Rs. 15,000 for the mental agony suffered. A cum of Rs. 1,000 has been awarded as costs. 2. The respondent had brought the said complaint for recovery of the said amount Rs. 2,822 and for mental agony and harassment Rs. 20,000 on the premises that she was a resident of Indore but, she was in Delhi and she had to take the examination in March 2007 of M.A. (Final History) of Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Indore and, therefore, through her brother she got a ticket reserved on 28.12.2006 for 27.3.2007 at apex rate of promotional tariff for a sum of Rs. 1,177. An ticket was issued to her. However, when she real...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
S.K. Kulshrestha, President: Oral: 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 6.6.2005 passed in C.C.No.81/2005 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhopal. The appeal is six years one month and six days time barred. It is stated that on 9.3.2005 the notice sent by the District Forum was refused and on 1.4.2005 matter proceeded ex parte against the appellant. It is only when the notice of the execution was received that realization dawned upon the office bearer of the appellant society to challenge the ex parte order. 2. It is stated that on receiving the notice of execution on 12.11.2009, an application was filed as the original file was misplaced and another certified copy was received on 1.7.2011 and the appeal was filed. 3. We find that it is because of the supersession in the society that nobody appeared before the District Forum. The society and its Administrator were under a duty to look after the affairs of the society diligently. Under these circumstan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
S.K. Kulshrestha, President: 1. This appeal assails the order dated 18.12.1009 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Rewa in C.C. No. 224/2008 whereby for non -delivery of a postal article, the District Forum has directed to refund charged Rs. 25 and has awarded compensation for mental agony a sum of Rs. 25,000. A sum of Rs. 1,000 has been awarded as costs and the judgment directs that if within 30 days amount is not paid, 8% p.a. interest would be chargeable. 2. In short, the facts of the case are that on 16.10.2007 a speed post envelope containing two drafts of the value of Rs. 1,60,000 were entrusted to the post office speed post. This envelope was not delivered and when enquiry was made, it revealed that the envelope was not sent at all and it was returned to the sender on 31.10.2007. It was in this backdrop that the claim for compensation was made. 3. The Post office has denied any liability for non delivery of the postal article and referred to the exemption g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Bhopal
S.K. Kulshrestha, President: Oral: 1. This is an appeal against the order dated 30 June, 2010 of the District Forum, Rewa in case No. 387/2009 whereby the Forum has awarded damages to the vehicle of the respondent and Rs. 5,000 for monetary loss. Cost of Rs. 1,000 has also been awarded. 2. It is not disputed that the vehicle was insured for the period commencing 20.10.2005 and ending 19.10.2006. The vehicle met with an accident on 24.6.2006 of which report was made to the Insurance Company. The Surveyor was appointed who surveyed the loss in the sum of Rs. 22,125 but, finding that as on the date of the accident the truck did not have any fitness certificate as reflected by Exs. D/7, 8 and 9, the Insurance Company repudiated their liability to pay the damages. 3. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for necessity for permits and Sub-section (1) lays down as under: 66. Necessity for Permits(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a tran...
Tag this Judgment!