Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S. B. Mhase, President. [1] Heard Adv. A. S. Vidyarthi on behalf of the Appellant/Opponent and Adv. Anand S. Kulkarni on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant. [2]This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 30/4/2008 passed by the District Forum, Solapur in Consumer Complaint No.139 of 2007. By this order the Appellant/Opponent, namely HDFC Standard Life Insurance was directed to amend the insurance policy to include mortality and extra health cover charges. Insurance Company was further directed to pay to Respondent/Complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- by way of compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-. The Insurance Company was directed to comply with this order within a period of thirty days and failing which the amounts ordered to be paid to the Respondent/Complainant were to carry interest @ 9% p.a. Being aggrieved by the said order the Appellant/Opponent, Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. [3]In this appeal, Appellant is the original Opponent while the Respondent is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member: (1) Complainant M/s.Gaurav Textiles has filed this consumer complaint through its proprietor-Dilip Jayantilal Nakum alleging deficiency in service against the opponent-The National Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as insurance company), as insurance claim payable under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy has not been settled for the loss sustained by the complainant due to destruction of insured stock on account of electric short circuit that occurred at the insured godown premises of the complainant. (2) Further, it is the contention of the complainant that under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy bearing No.260900/11/06/3100000560 stock of cloth processing machinery and raw material was insured which was stored in the godown premises. During the validity period of the insurance policy, the fire took place in the insured godown premises on 11/07/2006 and stocks worth Rs.28,29,238/- was destroyed. The incident was promptly reported to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint refers to alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (Insurance Co. in short) in repudiating the insurance claim pertaining to theft of diamonds. 2. It is the case of complainants that since from the year 1999 they are taking Jewellers Block Insurance policy to obtain the insurance cover for their stock, etc. Each year said policy was renewed and the last policy which covers the event was valid for the period 00.00 hrs. on 10/04/2003 to midnight of 09/04/2004. On 05/11/2003 against the two receipts 254.15 carats diamonds were entrusted to broker Mr.Chandrakant V. Shah through his son Mr.Anand Chandrakant Shah for being shown to the prospective customers. Those diamonds were issued against the Jangad receipts. Said broker delivered those diamonds to London Star Diamond Company (India) Ltd. (referred as second broker) since they had come to know that some foreign party was visiting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member Both these appeals are filed by same Appellants against the same Respondent challenging a common order dated 12/5/2007 passed by the District Forum, Kolhapur in two consumer complaints bearing Nos.223 of 2006 and 224 of 2006. Since these appeals involve identical facts and common question of law for adjudication both these appeals are disposed of simultaneously by this common judgment and order. [2] Smt. Savitri Dattatraya Powar and Smt. Laxmi Dattatraya Powar, who are the Appellants Nos.1 and 2 herein respectively and who were the original Complainants Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the two consumers filed before the District Forum, both are widows of Late Mr. Dattatraya Keshav Powar, while the Appellant No.3/original Complainant No.3, Mr. Gautam Dattatraya Powar is the son of deceased Mr. Dattatraya Keshav Pawar. (Hereinafter all the Appellants shall be collectively referred to as the Complainants) Late Mr. Dattatraya Keshav Pawar had insured his vehicle 10 seater...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Shri Narendra Kawde, Honble Member: 1. The Complainant No.1 Shree Sadguru Nagar Millennium Tower Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., is the registered Co-operative Housing Society under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and Complainant Nos.2 to 60 are the flat purchasers and members of the Complainant No.1 Society. The Opponent Mr.Jagdish Waman Rane, is the proprietor of Shree Sadguru Enterprises, who has completed construction of eight buildings named as Shree Sadguru Nagar (hereinafter called to as Opponent Builder Developer. The complaint has been filed by the Complainants alleging deficiency in service against the Opponent Builder Developer amongst other things for not obtaining Occupation Certificate in respect of disputed building no.8 and executed Deed of Conveyance in favour of the Society. 2. Complainants further aver that the builder developer handed over the possession of the flats between 6th July, 2004 to 14the April, 2005 without obtaining occupation certi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Oral Order: S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.A.S.Vidyarthi-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Rahul Gandhi-Advocate for the respondent. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 22/06/2006 passed in consumer complaint no.452/2001, M/s.Prakash Provision and General Stores v/s. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.; by Additional District Forum, Pune. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant/original opponent/Insurance Company (herein after referred as Insurance Company) in repudiating part of the insurance claim, which arose on account of Shopkeepers Insurance policy taken by the respondent/original complainant (herein after referred as the complainant) on account of burglary and theft in the shop which occurred in the night between 7th and 8th January, 1998. Insurance Company excluding the cash in the cupboard and electronic weighing scale assessed the loss and agreed to settle the insurance claim at `10,096/- but since it was not acceptabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Mr.S.S.Kalekar-Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Tanaji Gholap A.R. /son of the respondent.Affidavit of respondent -Amabadas Laxman Gholap is filed today as per direction dated 19/12/2012. It is taken on record. Heard both the sides on merits. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 17/05/2012 passed in consumer complaint no.475/2010, Mr.Ambadas Laxman Gholap v/s..Executive Engineer, MaharashtraState Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Barshi, District Solapur; by the District Forum, Solapur. Consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of appellant/original opponent (herein after referred as the opponent) for not giving energy connection already sanctioned in spite of payment of amount of `4,620/- on 10/02/1996. Thus, grievance is about not releasing the energy connection against the opponent, who is the Executive Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., at Barshi District Solapur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/07/2010 passed in consumer complaint no.33/2008, Mr.Rajan Alimchandani v/s. The Director, Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. and another; passed by Mumbai Suburban District Forum. Appeal is filed by M/s.Hewlett Packard India Sales P.Ltd., feeling aggrieved by the impugned order where a direction was given against its Branch Manager at Unit Nos.1and2, Ground floor, Enterprise Centre, C-75, Off.Nehru Road, Next to Orchid Hotel, Vile Parle(East), Mumbai 400 099 (original opponent no.2). At the outset, it may be mentioned that original opponent no.1- The Director, Bitsy Infotech Pvt.Ltd. did not file any appeal and, thus, conceded to the impugned order. This appeal by order dated 14/01/2013 stood dismissed against it. It is a case of respondent/original complainant - Mr.Rajan Alimchandani (herein after referred as complainant) that he had purchased the product of the appellant viz. HP-F-2120 Printer on 29/07/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 10/09/2007 passed in consumer complaint No.38/2007, Mr.Chandrashekar Singh V/s. Shree Nursing Home and Anr., by Addl. District Forum, Thane. It is a case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opponents (hereinafter referred to as opponents) on account of alleged medical negligence shown by them, particularly, on 24/11/2006 when wife of complainant-Chandrashekar Singh (hereinafter referred to as complainant), namely, Late Alka was readmitted under condition of bleeding. It is not in dispute that appellant No.2/opponent-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve runs a Maternity Home-Shree Nursing Home. It is also not in dispute that appellant/opponent-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve is a qualified Gynaecologist. According to the complainant Late Alka was admitted for her delivery at opponent No.1-Nursing Home under care of opponent No.2-Dr.Smt.S.R. Karve. She had delivered a female child on the same day a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member Heard Adv. Mrs. Medha Rajesh Behere on behalf of the Appellant/original Opponent, Ratnakar Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for the sake of brevity) and Adv. Rahul K. Desai on behalf of the Respondent/original Complainant, Mr. Uday Jaywantrao Mahajan (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity). [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 1/10/2001 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.679 of 1998, Shri Uday Jaywantrao Mahajan Vs. The Manager, The Ratnakar Bank Ltd. It is a case of honouring a fraudulent cheque bearing No.150262 issued for an amount of `50,000/- and it was a bearer cheque. According to the Complainant, he had neither issued the disputed cheque bearing No.150262 nor did he receive from the Bank a cheque booking containing disputed cheque leaf and inspite of that the B...
Tag this Judgment!