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 16.1.2009 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum Ahmednagar partly allowing consumer complaint No.431/2008 directing respondent/opponent No.1 to pay to the appellant/complainant Rs.20,000/- towards damages with interest @ 10% p.a. and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.1000/- more towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondents 1 and 2 as opponent No.1 and 2 respectively. Respondent No.3/opponent No.3 insurance company is already deleted) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Kiran Ramchandra Shelke is an agriculturist. Opponent No.1 Gopal Enterprises is a dealer of Sonalika Tractor and opponent No.2 is its sub-dealer. In the month of April 2008 complainant purchased tractor of Sonalika company bearing registration No.MH-16F-7801 from opponent No.1 and 2 for co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Legal Manager, Mumbai preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Aurangabad on 21.01.2012 while deciding consumer complaint No.287/2011. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Respondent No.1/original complainant Samindrabai Tryambak Jadhav resident of Pishor Taluka Kannad Dist. Aurangabad is a wife of Tryambak Sandu Jadhav. Said Tryambak was farmer and owner of land Gut No.583 situated at Pishor Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. That, for the farmers in the State of Maharashtra, State Government had obtained œFarmers Personal Accident Policy? for sum assured Rs.1,00,000/-. On 19.06.2009 Tryambak died by falling from the bullock cart. Accordingly accidental death u/s. 174 of IPC was registered, Post Mortem was conducted. Therefore complainant preferred the claim with insurance company on 15.07.2009 annexing all the required documents, but her claim was neither dec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in all these four appeals is the common judgment and order dated 31.10.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Parbhani partly allowing consumer complaint No.92/2008 and 95/2008 directing appellants/opponents to pay to complainants/respondents Sarjerao in C.C.No.92/08 damages at Rs.48,000/- with interest @ 9% pa. and complainant Late Tukaram in C.C.No.95/2008 damages at Rs.34,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and further compensation of Rs.2000/- each and Rs.1000/- more each towards the cost of proceedings. 2. Appeal No.1302/08 is filed by original complainant Late Tukaram and appeal No.1303/2008 is filed by original complainant Sarjerao for enhancement of damages. Whereas appeal Nos.1452/2008 and 1453/2008 are filed by opponents. As all these appeals impugn the same common judgment, we have decided to dispose of these appeals by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- Complainants Sarjerao and L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Complainant Shri.Jagdish Agrawal by this appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 16.3.2012 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad declining his claim for compensation and amount of interest only. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondents as opponents) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Opponent No.1 Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. is a company. Opponent No.2 is its Managing Director and opponent No.3 is its Manager, whereas opponent No.4 as agent of opponent No.1 to 3. 3. According to the complainant in the year 2007 opponent No.3 and 4 contacted him and convinced him for obtaining policy of Kotak Unit Linked Retirement Income Plan. Complainant was told by opponent No.3 and 4 that he is required to pay one time premium of Rs.5 lakhs and he would get Rs.1 crore after 20 years. Accordingly complainant paid Rs.5 lakhs through D.D. dated 13.10.2007....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opponents who are the authorities of the MSEDCL against the judgment and order dated 31.10.2007 passed by District Forum Beed in consumer complaint No.83/2003 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent is the original complainant. For the better understanding the appellants are hereinafter referred as œopponents? and the respondents as the œcomplainants?. 2. The brief facts of this appeal are that, the original complainant namely Badrinarayan s/o. Shriram Baheti died during the pendency of the complaint and hence his LRs namely Dwarkadas and Ganeshlal who are the present complainants were added as a party to the complaint. It was the case of the complainants that they belonged to the joint family. That, the complainants had owned land admeasuring 4 Hector 86 R from Gut No.204 and their cousin brother namely Ramesh Ramnarayan Baheti had own...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original complainant against the judgment and order 30/08/2008 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum Jalgaon in CC.No.141/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the respondents to have committed deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 to 6 who are the office bearers of the society namely Shri. Gajanan Grihataran Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon are the original opponents Nos. 1 to 6 whereas the respondent No. 6 is the original opponent No. 7 which is the Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd, Mumbai branch Jalgaon. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? and the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 together as the œopponent society? and the respondent No. 6 as the œopponent Housing Finance Corporation?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainant had obtained loan of Rs 72,000/- for the purchase of house fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opponent against the judgment and order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the District Forum, Dhule in consumer complaint No.45/2006, whereby complaint is partly allowed holding the appellant as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent is the original complainant. For the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter termed as œopponent finance corporation?, whereas the respondent as the œcomplainant?. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that, the husband of complainant namely late Sanjay Kashinath Pawar had obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in two installments i.e. firstly Rs.2,00,000/- and later on Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.06.2005 for housing purpose, from opponent finance corporation. That, while sanctioning the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- the complainants late husband Sanjay Pawar had mortgaged his LIC policy bearing No.967398180. Whereas at the time of sanctioning the further amount of loan o...
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 against the judgment and order dated 03.09.2009 passed by the District Forum Ahmednagr in consumer complaint No. 198/2009 whereby the complaint is allowed holding original opponent No. 1 and 2 liable for deficiency in service. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter termed as œopponent No.1? and the respondent as the œcomplainant?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are that, the complainant is dealing with the business of sale of furniture and other stationery articles including sale of mobile handsets. That, on 20.10.2008 he had sent parcel containing two mobiles handsets through opponent Courier Company. It was submitted that the representative of the opponent no.1 namely Shri. Rahul Sirke who was working in the courier office on 20.10.2008 had verified both the handsets, out of which one was Nokia company having cost of Rs.7584/- and other of Samsang company ...
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 27.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon dismissing C.C.No.91/07. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondent as opponent insurance company.) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:- Complainant is partnership firm having business of sales of different types of pulses. He had insured the stock by obtaining policy No.160701/11/05/11/00001116 for the period from 25.3.2006 to 24.3.2007. He had also insured his plant and machinery by obtaining policy No.160701/11/05/11/00001121 for the period from 22.3.2006 to 21.3.2006. 3. In the night in between 4.7.2006 and 5.7.2006 there was heavy rain fall and due to rain fall flood water entered into the premises of complainant where goods i.e. grains were stored. According to him mung mogar bold-142 quintal, mung monger medium -34 quintal which were stored in the premises are da...
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 31.01.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum Hingoli dismissing consumer complaint No.66/06. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Shivaji Bhosale who was husband of complainant Chhayabai was agriculturist having agriculture land at Amba, Dist.Parbhani. On 5.1.2005 the Government of Maharashtra had obtained Farmers Personal Accidental Insurance Policy for the farmers in Maharashtra from opponent No.3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. for sum assured of Rs.1 lakh. On 23.10.2005 insured Late Shivaji Bhosale died in motor-accident while driving motor-cycle. After his death his widow complainant Chhayabai collected necessary papers and submitted insurance claim through opponent No.2 Tahasildar, Wasmat, Dist.Hingoli. However, opponent No.3 insurance company rep...
Tag this Judgment!