Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Sou. Usha S. Thakare, Judicial Member: [1] Being aggrieved by the order dated 20/06/2011 passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra [hereinafter to be referred to as Learned District Forum] in Consumer Complaint no.85/2009, original complainant/appellant-Dr.Ms.Jyoti Kacharu Avhad has preferred the present appeal. By the order under challenge, Learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the consumer complaint filed by the present appellant. [2] Facts giving rise to the present appeal in short as under:- Complainant/appellant is an Ayurvedic Practitioner. Opponent is a Cosmetic Surgeon. Complainant had normal hair on her head till seven years of her age. Thereafter, by 14 years of her age her head almost became bald and she was compelled to wear a wig. Complainants baldness was a major hurdle in her marriage. In the month of March 2005, complainant read the opponents article about procedure of hair transplant by advanced method. She met opponent doct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainant is carrying on his business as a jeweler and valuable ornaments from his shop “ M/s. Ambika Jewellers, having its address at Rajnarayan Dube Chawl, Golibar Road, Jawahar Nagar, Santacruz, Mumbai “ 400055. The Complainant had taken an insurance policy from the Opponent “ The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity) from time to time. Risk was covered for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. On 23/11/1998, the Complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.5,95,530/- due to theft/robbery in the shop of the Complainant when the shop was closed. A police complaint was lodged about the incident with the Nirmal Nagar Police Station and accordingly a FIR was registered, which is filed on record. The incident occurred during the policy period. Hence, the Complainant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company on 25/11/1998. Insurance Company appointed one M/s. Garg and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Complainant booked a flat with the opponent on 03/04/1999. Possession was to be handed over on 31/03/2000. Complainant has paid the different amounts from time to time. Opponent denied to give possession of the flat. Complainant then insisted for the possession of the flat or new property as per the market value of the said flat. On consistent request from the complainant, opponent mortgaged flat no.201 admeasuring 770 sq.ft. at opponents proposed construction titled as Rane Towers at Saraswat Colony, Dombivali (East) till the amount is refunded. Lastly, opponent entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter to be referred to as MOU) and agreed to pay the amounts on different dates. On 16/08/2002, opponent agreed to pay total amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the complainant. As the opponent has not paid the said amount, complainant has filed this consumer complaint demanding the said amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. [2] Opponent resisted the cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member: 1. The Complainant had booked a Flat No.G-1201 in Mahaavir Heritage, located at Plot No.3, Sector 35G Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, the project developed by the Opponent Mahaaavir Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as œthe Opponent? for the sake of brevity) for total consideration of Rs.26,20,000/-. An amount of Rs.25,38,675/- has already been paid against the total consideration. However, no agreement has been executed nor possession delivered. In between demand notice dated 09.11.2012 issued by the Opponent builder developer demanding outstanding amount of Rs.7,48,840/-. Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- through the Bank transfer and approached for possession. However, the Opponent issued termination notice dated 9thNovember, 2012 thereby canceling the allotment of the said flat as the amount claimed under the demand notice has not been allegedly paid in time by the Complainant. Aggrieved thereby the Complainant has filed this consumer complaint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1]Complainant is a partnership firm engaged in carrying business in export of garments including textile and fabrics and enjoys good reputation as a Star Exporter as appreciated by the Govt. of India. The complainant has availed œStandard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy bearing no.121502/11/2006/1 to provide insurance cover to the stocks of raw material, finished products, plant, machinery and accessories, furniture, fixtures and fittings with a sum assured of Rs.90,00,000/-. Said policy was valid for the period from 07/04/2005 to 06/04/2006. Due to unprecedented rains and flooding that occurred on 26/07/2005 in and around city of Mumbai, complainants insured premises suffered damage. As a result of continuous torrential rains and flooding that lasted for more than 12 hours, supply of electricity was disconnected which was restored only on 27/07/2005. Incident was promptly reported to the opponent The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
P.B. Joshi, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. The Complainant has obtained an Insurance Policy from Opponent under Marine Open Cover Policy bearing No.120400/21/026/11/021548/98. The Complainant had received a purchase order on 17.12.1998 from Rajasthan State electricity Board for supply of 12.5/132 KW - 3 Phase 50 HZ Transformer oil cooled with standard spares and accessories. The same was prepared for shipment after clearance from Central Excise with Inland Transit Insurance from the Opponent. The Opponent insured the same under Marine All Risk - Inland Transit from Thane to Sagwara, Rajasthan for Rs.43,68,862/- and corresponding premium was paid by the Complainant. The goods reached the destination on 09.06.1998 but the material was in damaged condition, while in transit which was observed on 11.06.1999 as evident from M/s. RSEBs inspection report. Since the goods were misfit for use which were returned for repair. Opponent held Insurance Survey on 13.06.1999 through their Surveyor M/s....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Naredra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant booked a residential flat with Keshavdeo Poddar and Co. for total consideration of Rs.7,99,350/- and relied on the allotment letter dated 01/12/1997 issued by the said builder/developer company. Amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash was paid as earnest money. Further amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid on 31/01/1998 and on failure to do so allotment was liable to be cancelled with forfeiture of Rs.50,000/- paid as earnest money. Amount of Rs.1,84,000/- was to be credited to the account of the complainant in the Oman International Bank S.A.O.G. located at Nariman Point, Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred as Opponent Bank). Said amount was transferred by Telegraphic Transfer (T.T.) from Oman International Bank S.A.O.G., Muttarah, Muscat. This amount was transferred by Mr.Mohamed Ashfaque from his account at Oman International Bank S.A.O.G., Muttarah, Muscat to the account of the complainant in the same Bank branch located at Mumbai. The amount was transf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Presiding Member: 1. Aggrieved with the order dated 08/01/2014 passed in consumer complaint no.CC/13/100 (in the matter of Mr.Digambar B.Dhande v/s. M/s.Eureka Forbes Ltd.) by Central Mumbai District Forum, the present appellants/original opponents have preferred this appeal challenging the said order. 2. District Forum while holding deficiency of service against the appellants allowed the consumer complaint and directed to refund an amount of Rs.8,690/- with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e.05/06/2013. District Forum also ordered to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony. Aggrieved thereby, original opponents/present appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the impugned order was made ex-parte as at no point of time copy of the complaint and other compilation thereto were served on the opponents. Since the appellants had no opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the respondent/org.complainant, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban District has decided the consumer complaint bearing no.189/2010 (Mr.Sujit shivshankar Singh vs. M/s.Sonalika International Cars and Motors Ltd. and ors.) by an order dated 27/09/2013 thereby dismissing the complaint filed by the present appellant/original complainant [hereinafter to be referred to as complainant against the original opponents/present respondents [hereinafter to be referred to as opponents]. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has challenged the impugned order of the District Forum by filing this appeal. Appellant has stated that the order passed by the learned District Forum is bad in law and against the provisions of natural justice. Further, it is averred that learned District Forum failed to appreciate that the problem with exhaust pipe assembly, head light lamp, power window, switch gear, diesel guard in the car are not manufacturing defects, though the complainant plead...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Usha S. Thakare, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Executants [Original Opponents in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013 (In the matters of Mr. Subhash Damdoar Tigde Vs. M/s. Rashmi Enterprises and Ors.) have filed present execution application under Section-27(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for execution of the order dated 28/08/2013 passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013. [2]According to the Executants, vide an order dated 28/08/2013 passed in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 2013, certain directions were given to the Mr. Subhash Damodar Tigde “ Complainant therein/Respondent herein. Those directions read as follows:- œComplainant to address as to how this interest can be claimed (within the scope of Section-14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) when there is no prayer for refund of consideration but the Complainant insists upon implementation of the contract witnessed by a memorandum of understanding, obviously, keeping it alive and not consent...
Tag this Judgment!