Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Presiding Member: [1] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 06/05/2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.302 of 1995, Dasharath Kangule Vs. Dr. Vishwas Sapatnekar. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- [2]Mr. Dasharath Kangule the Respondent/original Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) was operated by Dr. Vishwas Sapatnekar the Appellant/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent Doctor for the sake of brevity) for the fractured femur on 30/06/1994 and the Complainant was discharged on 05/10/1994. However, as there was no relief to the Complainant, an X-ray was done on 10/01/1995 and thereafter; the Complainant consulted Dr. Subodh Mehta. As per the opinion of Dr. Subodh Mehta, the Complainant was suffering from non-union of fracture on right femur s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: R. C. Chavan, President: This appeal is directed against the order dated 06/01/2011 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane in Consumer Complaint No.80 of 2010, Smt. Kavita Sudam Mhaske Vs. The Branch Manager, L. I. C. of India. [2]Heard Adv. Prakash B. Kadam on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity). Notice before admission and even notice after admission was duly served on the Respondent. However, the Respondent failed to appear before this Commission and participate in the proceeding. We are, therefore, constrained to decide this appeal without the assistance of the Respondent. [3]Appellant/Insurance Company admits that a policy of insurance had been taken out on the life of Mr. Sudam Mhaske. Respondent/original Complainant Smt. Kavita Sudam Mhaske (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) is the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
R.C. Chavan, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Central Mumbai whereby the District Forum partly allowed the complaint No.35/2008 before it and directed the opponent/Society to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards repairs of the tenement and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under :- The complainant owned a flat No.6 on second floor of the building of the appellant/Society which accommodates twelve members. There was some open land adjacent to the building. M/s.Suraj Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.Suraj Developers in short) was to start some construction on the adjacent piece of land and for that construction activity; they had to utilize the open space of the appellant/Society. M/s.Suraj Developers had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,01,000/- towards usages of this open space. However, subsequently, M/s.Suraj Developers and the Society agreed that in lieu of payment of Rs.7,01,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Common order in A/10/696 + A/11/61: S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member These two above-referred appeals since the nature of cross-appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Both these appeals take an exception to an order dated 15/5/2010 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.583 of 2007, Kaveri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Others Vs. M/s. Sunil Builders through its partners Smt. Radhadevi Ramji Singh and Others. [3] The Complainant No.1 Kaveri Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Society for the sake of brevity) represents the flat-purchasers inter-alia including Complainants Nos.2 to 14 in the building constructed on the land which was earlier belonging to Ardeseer Hormarji Wadia Charitable Trust and which was taken for development by the Opponent M/s. Sunil Builders, a partnership firm repr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Builder/Developer for not handing over the flat agreed to be sold to the Complainant Mr. Lokeshwar Singh Kshatriya (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) and in the alternative for compensation at the market price. [2] Undisputed facts are that the Opponent No.1 M/s. P. K. Constructions, a partnership firm of which the Opponent No.2 Mr. Raj Panicker alias Baburaj Bhaskar Panikar and the Opponent No.3 Mr. Rajendra Narayan Kakade were the partners was developing a housing complex known as Mahaveer Nagar. The Complainant agreed to purchase a flat bearing No.103, situated on the first floor in the Building No.3, admeasuring 680 sq. ft. for total consideration of Rs.2,72,680/- from the Opponents/Builder (hereinafter referred to as the Builder for the sake of brevity). The deal is witnessed by an agreement dated 26/7/1994. The Compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, J. Presiding Member: [1] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 21/12/2010 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.76 of 20007, Mr. Parasmal V. Jain and Another Vs. M/s. Sunny Construction Company. Facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:- [2]Respondents/original Complainants, namely Mr. Parasmal V. Jain and Smt. Rasila Parasmal Jain (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants for the sake of brevity) had filed consumer complaint before the State Commission. It was filed seeking possession of flat booked by the Complainants in the year 1992 for an consideration of Rs.7,42,600/-. As per the prayers of the Complainants were less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission, the complaint was returned to the Complainants for presenting it before an appropriate District Forum. Accordingly, the Complainants file...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.B. Sawarkar, J. Member: (1)This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12/05/2003 in Consumer Complaint No.321/2001, Sou.Shalabai Annasaheb Patil Vs. Dr.A.R.Kulkarni, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (District Forum in short). (2) The case of the appellant is that she went to the respondent No.1-Dr.A.R.Kurlkarni on 01/01/2000 with a complaint of pain in her stomach near left upper side. Respondent No.1 doctor gave here medicines, but the pain did not recede. Therefore, the respondent asked her to get operation done for ulcer and operated her on 21/03/2001. But after the operation, respondent doctor told that as her appendix was affected which he came to know while operating for ulcer, he removed it. (3)She remained in hospital for 20-25 days, out in spite of operation the pains did not subsist, therefore, was again required to undergo various medical tests. It came to the notice after 3 months that there was mass of unspecified nature in her stomach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
This consumer complaint pertains to supply of defective goods purchased from opponent No.1-Coulter Electronics Ltd. which carried its business in India at the time of supply of defective equipments and filing of the consumer complaint through its Branch Office-original opponent No.2-Coulter Products Division at Mumbai and now carrying its business activities in India through a company constituted under the Indian Companies Act, namely, opponent No.2-Bechman Coulter India Pvt. Ltd.. 2. It is the case of the complainant-Seth Gordhandas Sundardas College Kind Edward VII Memorial Hospital (Rs.K.E.M.Rs. in short), Hospital and Medical Education Institute, run by a Local Body-Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, that for use in Department of Pharmacology, after considering the various offers, selected the machine manufactured and supplied by opponent No.1-Coulter Electronics Ltd., namely, Coulter Multisizer II machine for a total consideration of INR 10,91,194/-. Accepting the quotation, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Presiding Member [1] Since these three consumer complaints bearing Nos.30 of 2012, 48 of 2012 and 49 of 2012 involve identical facts and common question of law, all these three complaints are clubbed together and are decided by this common order. Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2012 is being treated as Master Complaint while other two complaints are treated as Slave Complaints. [2]Alleging deficiency in housing construction service on the part of the Opponents viz. Terrain Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the Opponent No.1 herein and its Directors, the Opponents Nos.2 to 5 herein, the Complainants have filed these three consumer complaints, seeking direction as against the Opponents to execute and register agreement for sale in their favour and hand-over to them possession of residential premises together with consequential relief of compensation and costs of the proceeding. [3]Mrs. Karishma Lalwani has filed Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2012. She alleges that as against the agr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narednra Kawde, Member: 1. Present appeal is filed challenging the order in Consumer Complaint No.157/2004, (Anandrao Ramchandra Salunkhe V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.), passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli (the District Forum in short) on 10.03.2005. The District Forum appreciating the contentions of the Respondent/Complainant partly allowed the consumer complaint holding deficiency in service against the Appellant/Opponent and directed the Appellant/Opponent Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs.29,888/- together with interest @9% per annum effective from 21.07.2004 and costs of litigation of Rs.1,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant. 2. Heard both parties. Perused the record. 3. Undisputed facts are that the Respondent/Complainant obtained Policy bearing No.945237308 with sum insured of Rs.75,000/- for the period of 25 years on 11/11/1993. The policy stood lapsed as the premiums from August 2002 onwards were not paid and the said pol...
Tag this Judgment!