Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 08/02/2007 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum, Nanded in CC.No.162/2004 whereby the complaint can be dismissed. The respondent No. 1 which is insurance company is the original opponent No. 1, hereinafter termed as the œopponent insurance company? whereas respondent No. 2 who is a Secretary of the high school is the original opponent No. 2 is hereinafter termed as the œSchool authority?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under:- That, the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Dhondiba Sitaram Jadhav. The complainant No. 1 is the wife and the complainant Nos. 2 to 6 are the childrens of the deceased Dhondiba Jahav. It is submitted that the deceased Dhondiba Jadhav was teacher working with the opponent school authority. That, during his life time he had obtained insurance policies from the opponent insurance company, as per the detai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. All the above mentioned three appeals are related to common subject matter, we are therefore deciding these appeals by common judgment and order. Appeal No.235/2008 arising out of complaint case No.169/2007 which was filed by Dr. Shriram Mukundrao Kalyankar decided on 18.01.2008 by District Consumer Forum, Nanded partly allowing the complaint. Appeal No.305/2008 is arising out of judgment and order passed by District Forum, Nanded in consumer complaint No.170/2007 filed by Dr. Shradhha Mukund Pande and Appeal No.306/2008 is arising against the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Nanded in complaint case No.208/2007 filed by Shri. Shivaji Gunwantrao Indrale. All the three complaints were partly allowed by the District Forum. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original respondent No.1 Seva Automotive Private Limited, Nanded through its Manager preferred this appeal. Original respondent No.2 was Marketing Manager Maroti Udyog Limited, Gudgaon, H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original opponents who are the officers of insurance company against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 17/11/2008 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum, Osmanabad in CC.No.235/2008, whereby the complaint is allowed and the opponent insurance company is held liable for deficiency in service. The respondents are the original complainants. For better understanding the appellant is herein after termed as the œopponent insurance company? whereas the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are jointly termed as the œcomplainants?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Rajendrakumar Taur. He had during his life time obtained insurance policy bearing No.985155595 for the insurance sum of Rs 60,000/- from the opponent insurance company. It is the case of the complainant that the said policy was obtained on 27/12/2007, however, it was given back date effect from 01/04/2...
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 who is the officer of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 26/06/2009 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum, Nanded in CC.No.53/2009, whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellant as liable for deficiency in service. Respondents are the original complainant (hereinafter termed as the œComplainant?). 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainants are the farmers having land G. No. 292 of village Rui Tq.Hadgaon Dist. Nanded. That, the complainants have obtained electric connection for the electric pump installed on the well situated in the said G.No. 292. That, their consumer No. was 560050000015. It was contended that, the complainant No. 1 had planted sugarcane in the land admeasuring 2.35 Hect. whereas the complainant No. 2 in the land admeasuring 85 R in the said gut number. It was further...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 05.02.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint No.296/2007. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? and the respondent as the œopponent?) 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, late Pradip who was the husband of complainant Meera had a swelling in his groin. He consulted with opponent Dr. Subhash Zanwar for treatment of his swelling in the groin who operated the same on 03.12.1995. After operation there was blood poisoning and subsequently developed septicemia. Therefore the patient was having severe pains and inflammation. According to complainant the opponent doctor could not diagnose properly and advised him to shift to the hospital of Dr. Thole at Nashik. Thereafter Dr. Thole referred patient to Pune where the condition of patient became serious. The doctor from the Pune hospita...
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 Nos. 1 and 2 who are the officers of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd against the the judgment and order 30/10/2007 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum Dhule in CC.No.277/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellant /opponent liable for deficiency in service. The respondents are the original complainant. For better understanding the appellants are hereinafter referred as œ opponent? whereas respondents as the œcomplainants?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainant No. 1 is the legal heir of Shankar Lotan Patil who has owned agricultural land G.No. 206/1 and 206/2. That, there was a well in the said Gut Nos. That in order to irrigate the land, the power pump was installed on the said well for which electric connection was obtained from the appellant and the consumer No. was 9717705662255. The complainant No. 1 had ...
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 21.08.2008 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum Aurangabad allowing consumer complaint No.227/2008 directing appellant/opponent nursing institute to repay tuition fee of Rs.14,000/- which was paid by complainant/respondent and further to pay to the complainant amount of Rs.1500/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent nursing institute and respondent as complainant ) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Opponent is running nursing institute. It is non-aided institute. Its yearly student capacity is 20. On 11.11.2006 complainant Miss Priti Kondikar took admission in the opponent nursing institute and paid Rs.14,750/- towards first instalment of tuition fee and admission fee. However, on 6.12.2006 she claimed refund of tuition fee on the ground that she got admission in D.Ed. college etc. but it has only r...
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 25/02/2008 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Latur partly allowing complainants claim in CC.No.44/2007 directing the respondent /opponent No.4 to provide accessories and other parts of the tractor to the complainant and further to pay compensation Rs 3000/- for causing mental agony and Rs 2000/- more towards cost of the proceeding. The opponent No. 4 is also directed to pay to the complainant interest @ 9 % p.a. on the price of the accessories Rs 40,500/- w.e.f. 22/03/2006 till the date of providing the accessories and further interest @ 9 % p.a. on servicing charges Rs 10,000/- till compliance of the order etc. ( For the sake of brevity the appellant herein after referred as the œComplainant? and the respondent as œopponent?. ) 2. Brief facts arising to the present appeal are as under :- Complainant Shri. Rajendra Shankerrao Sonke had purposed to purchase Mahindra Sa...
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 10.12.2008 passed by Dist.Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar partly allowing consumer complaint No.311/2008 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.4500/- with interest @ 10% p.a. with effect from 18.7.2008 and further compensation of Rs.1000/- for mental agony and cost of proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellants are herein after referred as opponents and respondent as complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Opponent Nimbkar Seeds Pvt.Ltd. is seed manufacturing company and opponent No.2 Aditya Sales Corporation is a dealer of opponent No.1. Complainant Shri.Bhausaheb Palve is an agriculturist. On 12.11.2007 complainant purchased a bag of sunflower seeds for Rs.600/- and sown those seeds in his field. However, there as no proper germination of the seeds. Therefore he made complaint with opponent No.2, but opponent No....
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 dated 29.03.2008 passed by District Forum, Dhule in consumer complaint No.30/2008 whereby complaint is dismissed. The respondent is the original opponent. For better understanding the appellant hereinafter is termed as the œcomplainant? whereas the respondent as the œopponent insurance company?. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the complainant had owned Auto Rickshaw No. MH.18/T/1987 and had obtained insurance policy from the opponent insurance company which was effective for the period from 09.10.2006 to 08.10.2007. That, on 30.11.2006 the said auto rickshaw while going from Vikharan to Navsari turned turtle and was damaged. That, he had to spent Rs.50,000/- towards repairs of the said auto rickshaw. That, following the said accident he had informed police authority. The police visited the spot and conducted the panchanama. That the complain...
Tag this Judgment!