Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Uma Bora, Presiding Member: 1. Shri. Vilas Nagappa Giram appellant herein original complainant challenges in this appeal dismissal of complaint case No. 30/2003 by Dist. Consumer Forum Osmanabad on 25/03/2010. 2. Facts in nutshell are as under : Father of the complainant Shri. Nagappa Giram was member of the co-operative society and for all the membeRs.of the society State Government had obtained Janta Personal Accident Policy through Dist.Bank. All the membeRs.were insured for sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Said policy was for the period of 10 yeaRs.Said policies started in the year 1998. On 08/02/2000 Nagappa went to attend natures call in the early morning that time his spectacle was fallen from his hand and while he was searching his spectacle the rear part of his turben fallen on the kerosin light and it has caught fire. Therefore he sustain sever injury of 46 %. He was immediately admitted in Civil Hospital, Osmanabad, and on same day at 4 p.m. he died. Accidental death was registered at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Shri.Santosh Umakant Jawadwar resident of Nanded appellant herein/org.complainant challenges in this appeal dismissal of complaint case No.403/2008 on 22.7.2009 by District Consumer Forum, Nanded. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant had obtained group personal accident policy in the name of his wife Kalpana bearing No.100300/47/01/9600022/03/96/30263 from respondent No.1 Golden Multi Services Club Ltd. of respondent No.2 National Insurance Company Ltd. Said policy was for the period 1.11.2003 to 31.10.2018. Sum insured under the said policy was Rs.5 lakhs. Life assured was wife of complainant. On 20.2.2005 policy holder Kalpana died accidental death in her residential house due to burning. Accordingly Cr.No.65/2005 was registered at Police Station, Bhagyanagar, Nanded on 31.2.2005. Session case bearing No.147/05 was filed against complainant on the ground that he had illicit relation with one lady, therefore deceased Kalpana might have com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. We heard counsel for both side and perused the application under order. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and copies of medical certificate and other documents. 2. Undisputedly there was 119 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad allowing consumer complaint No.283/2011. 3. It is submitted by Shri. Lakhotiya, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant received the copy of impugned judgment and order on 09.10.2012, but she could not file appeal in time as she was hospitalized and further she was advised for bed rest. Thereafter her husband met with an accident and on 10.11.2012 was hospitalized. Her husband discharged from hospital on 18th November, 2012. Thereafter the applicant Hemlata was ailing and she was advised for rest for the period from 12.12.2012 to 27.12.2014 and again for the period from 27.01.2013 to 10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of five months which was caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.09.2013 dismissing consumer complaint No.236/2013. 2. We have perused the application under order and also the copies of impugned judgment and order. However we have had no opportunity to hear the applicant as the applicants as well as her counsel remained absent. We heard Shri. Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant. 3. On perusal of the application under order it reflects that the applicant was not aware about the date of impugned judgment and order and therefore she could not file the appeal in time. It is contended that on hearing the parties finally the date of judgment was not given and after a long gap; the judgment was passed on 26.09.2013. It is further contended that the applicant resides at a remote place at village Kurha-Kakoda Tal. Muktainagar Dist. Jalgaon and therefore she was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 74 days which was caused in preferring appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon partly allowing consumer complaint No. 53/2009. 2. We heard counsel for both side and perused the application under order. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and also the copies of complaint, written version and other documents. 3. It is submitted by Shri. S. B. Yawalkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that though the impugned judgment and order was passed on 12.12.2013 the appellant was not aware about the same. The appellant came to know about passing impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2013 on 17.03.2013 when it received the copy of notice along with the copy of impugned judgment and order from the complainant which was sent by complainant by post. Thereafter the applicant received certified copy of impugned jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Shri. Arun Ganpat Nawarkar appellant in both these appeals, original respondent No.3 challenges in the appeals the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Dhule passed on 18.09.2009 while deciding complaint cases Nos.1093/2008 and 1094/2008. Both these appeals are related to common subject matter, so we are deciding both appeals by common judgment and order. 2. Complainant Mangal Shantaram Patil and Shantaram Dayaram Patil both had kept certain amounts in Fixed Deposits. Said fixed deposits were matured therefore complainants demanded the maturity amounts. Said amounts were not paid by the respondent No.1 Dhule Shahar Kirana Va Bhusar Nagri Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Dhule and its office bearers. Therefore complainant approached to Forum by demanding maturity amount of Rs.1,61,500/- with interest and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- for cost. 3. Notices were issued to the respondent by District Forum. All the respondents were appeared before the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.115/2014. We heard Shri. P.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the appellant and we have decided to dispose of this appeal at the stage of hearing before admission. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the œcomplainant? and the respondent as the œopponent insurance company?) 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, complainant Shri. Digambar was the owner of vehicle i.e. Tata Safari Jeep bearing No.MH.22-H-4590. It was insured with the opponent insurance company. On 10.10.2009 the insured vehicle is stolen away and thereafter immediately the complainant informed the incident to the police as well as opponent insurance company. The police made investigation but the vehicle was not found. Therefore the complainant submitted insurance claim with the opponent ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad dismissing consumer complaint No.15/09. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- On 20.8.2008 complainant Shri.Subbarao Kolekar who is farmer had purchased sunflower seeds from opponent No.2 M/s Krushi Vastu Bhandar, Osmanabad. Same seeds were manufactured by opponent No.1 National Seeds Corporation Ltd. After purchasing sunflower seeds the complainant sown the seeds in his field by cultivating the field properly. However, according to complainant there was no proper germination. It is submitted that there was only 12% germination. Therefore he made complaint with Tahasildar, Osmanabad and also with the District Agriculture Officer. On receiving his complaint, the village Talathi as well as District Seeds Grieva...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent No.1 and 2 who are the officers of MSEDCL, against the judgment and order dated 30.9.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Latur in C.C.No.145/2008 whereby complaint is partly allowed by holding appellant/opponent to have given deficient service to the complainant. Respondent is original complainant. For better understanding appellants are jointly hereinafter termed as opponent MSEDCL and respondent as complainant. 2. The factual aspects of this case are that, complainant is a farmer having land admeasuring 6 acres 18 gunthas from Gut No.158/A from village Killari, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. That, he had planted sugarcane crop in his said land admeasuring 6 acres 60 gunthas in the agriculture year 2007-08. That, the said sugarcane was also recorded by Killari sugar factory. It was contended that on 18.3.2008 at about 12.00 noon, electric line passing through his said land over sugarcane crop had brushed each other and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Arya Hybrid Seeds Ltd., Aurangabad challenges in this appeal judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded on 16.3.2009 partly allowing consumer complaint No.333/2008. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as under. Complainant Kishan S/o Vishwanath Abadar, resident of Sawargaon, Tq.Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded is an agriculturist. Complainant is owner of land gut No.37 and 42 admeasuring 1 hector 78R and 77R. Complainant had purchased three bags of Soyabin seeds of Arya 33 variety each of 25 Kg. Said seeds were sown in his respective fields on 15.6.2008. It is revealed by complainant that there was bearing of pods but it was found that there is no grain in the said pods and pods dried suddenly. Therefore complainant approached to seed company but they did not respond. Therefore he made application to Taluka Krishi Adhikari. Accordingly, on 19.9.2008 Quality Control Inspector, Panchayat Samiti, Ardhapur visited the field and conducted the panchanama...
Tag this Judgment!