Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. Mr.Santanu Sudhir Banerjee (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has filed a consumer complaint against M/s.Chaurang Developers through its Proprietor Mr.Harishchandra Madhukar Shinde and Varadvinayak Real Estate Consultant through its Proprietor Mr.Vijay Shinde (hereinafter referred to as opponents) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on 16/11/2010. The complaint was numbered as Complaint No.194/2010. Accordingly notices were served on the opponents. Opponents appeared through their Advocates and filed written version and given copy of the same to the complainant. 2. The brief facts of the complaint can be summarized as under :- The complainant states that he has purchased two flats in a project constructed by opponent No.1 called as Mangalmurti. He states that he purchased flat No.504 admeasuring 53 sq.mtrs. built up area (570 sq.ft.) on 19/09/2008 for a consideration of Rs.5 Lakhs for himself and flat No.402 admeasuring 555 sq.ft. on 30/12/2008 fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.B. Mhase, President: Heard Adv. S. B. Prabhavalkar on behalf of the Applicants/Appellants and Adv. Digamber Thakre on behalf of the Non-Applicant/Respondent in MA/12/232 in A/12/760 and Adv. Smt. Panchashila Narawade on behalf of the Non-Applicants/Respondents in MA/12/239 in A/12/770 to MA/12/242 in A/12/773. [2]This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal. Surprisingly, in the prayer clause of the delay condonation application though there is a prayer for condonation of delay, the period of which the delay is being sought to be condoned is not stated. In prayer clause of the delay condonation application reference is made to paragraph (08) of the said application. Paragraph (08) of the said application points out that there is a delay of two years and ten months in filing the appeal. Delay is calculated from the date of order. It is further stated that if the delay is to be calculated from the date of knowledge, there is a delay of approximately sixty day...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: (1) appeal takes an exception to an order dated 31.07.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No.265/2009 , Mahabanoo Contractor V/s. Branch Manager, Bank of India, by District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (the Forum in short). (2) It is a case of alleged deficiency in service against the Branch Mananger, Bank of India, Sewri, Mumbai, for honuring the cheques of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively, total amounting to Rs.50,000/-. It is alleged that the cheques which were honoured were fraudulent cheques and negligence is alleged on the part of the Bank Officials to honour those cheques. Bank took defense that their officials while honouring the cheques duly verified the signatures with their Specimen Signature. The Forum upheld the defense of the Bank and dismissed complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby the original Complainant has preferred this appeal. (3) Heard both sides at length. (4) We find that in the instant case the Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Milind M. Mahajan, Judicial Member: [1] Heard Mr. J. B. Gai, authorized representative of the Complainants, Adv. Dara Irani on behalf of the Opponents Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Adv. Milind M. Mahajan on behalf of the Opponent No.2 on the point of admission of the complaint. [2] This consumer complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service vis--vis medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors and the hospital where Late Dattajirao Balwantrao Mane (hereinafter referred to as the patient for the sake of brevity) was admitted and received treatment during the period 22/10/2009 to 15/11/2009 i.e. till his death which occurred and was declared around 07:00 a.m. on 15/11/2009. [3] It is the contention of the Complainants that Late Dattajirao, a senior citizen, was under the treatment of a local doctor at Sangli and was suffering from chest congestion and breathlessness for about a period of one month from the month of September-2009 onwards. Late Dattajirao was also experiencing chroni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.R. Khanzode, Judicial Member: 1. Admit and heard forthwith with the consent of the parties. 2. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/06/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.32/2008 Jai K. Kothari and another v/s. Managing Director-Nahalchand Laluchand Pvt.Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai (the Forum in short). 3. It is the case of alleged deficiency in service on the part of builder/developer/ Nahalchand Laluchand Pvt.Ltd. for not handing over possession of flat of the complainant. Forum partly allowed the complaint and for the reasons mentioned, instead of delivering possession of flat directed to refund consideration paid of Rs. 65,000/- plus expenses incurred towards the stamp duty and registration of the agreement and directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 1,43,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 19/06/2006 and also awarded costs of Rs. 5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby builder/developer preferred this ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 19/02/1999 passed by District Forum, Mumbai Suburban in consumer complaint No.456/1996. 2. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised as under:- The original complainant/respondent had applied for flat vide application dated 15/07/87 to the original opponent/appellant. The scheme wherein the complainant/respondent had applied is known as Demand Registration Survey 1987. The complainant/respondent initially paid Rs. 7,500/- through demand draft to the opponent/appellant. The complainant/respondent had applied for hire purchase scheme under Priority-II. According to the complainant/respondent, price of the tenement would be around Rs. 2,47,500/-. On or about 28/06/1996 the complainant/respondent received a letter from opponent/appellant which states that the complainant/respondent was successful in the allotment of tenement and after reading the letter, complainant/respondent came to know that the term...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member 1. Mr.Satish Kolhapure and Mrs.Shilpa Kolhapure (hereinafter referred to as complainants) have filed a consumer complaint against Nirmal Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as opponent) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on 07/04/2010. The complaint was registered and numbered as Complaint No.54/2010. 2. Brief facts leading to this complaint can be stated as under:- On 14/03/2009 complainants booked a flat bearing No.1804 admeasuring 835 sq.ft. carpet area (1197 sq.ft. saleable area) in the building known as Delight, City of Joy, to be constructed by the opponent on plot of land bearing No.CTS No.661/1/7 J.P. Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai for consideration of Rs. 59,35,923/-. Initially, complainants made payment of Rs. 5,93,000/- and the opponent issued receipts dated 19/04/2009, 14/05/2009 and 28/05/2009 and the remaining amount was to be paid after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member: [1] Adv. Vikramaditya Deshmukh instructed by I. R. Joshi and Co., is present on behalf of the Appellant. Adv. Uday B. Wavikar is present on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Notice after admission was sent to Respondent No.2, which as per India Post report was duly served on the Respondent No.2 but the Respondent No.2 is absent. Under the circumstances, appeal to proceed in absence of the Respondent No.2. Heard both the learned advocates. Perused the record. [2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 2/5/2011 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bandra (hereinafter referred to as the Forum for the sake of brevity) in Consumer Complaint No.90 of 2006, Sankalp Apartment Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mukesh Motilal Garg and Another. As per the impugned order, in effect, the Appellants/original Opponents Nos.1 and 2 were directed to refund to the Respondent No.1/original Complainant Society, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
S.B. Mhase, President 1. Heard Mr.K.G. Kulkarni, Advocate for the applicant/appellant. 2. This appeal is directed as against the order passed by District Forum, Nashik in consumer complaint No.114/2005 decided on 24/04/2012. By the said order, consumer complaint was dismissed. On the same day i.e. 24/04/2012 true copy of the said order was delivered to the appellant/org. complainant. However, appeal has been filed on 29/10/2012 and thus, there is delay in filing appeal. Therefore, delay condonation application has been filed to condone the delay of 35 days. However, we find that actual delay is more than 35 days and it has not been properly calculated by Advocate for the applicant/appellant who himself is brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the applicant/appellant. 3. The ground for condonation of delay is that on 26/04/2012 Advocate for the applicant has preferred two applications for getting certified copies of the documents. It is stated that certified copies of the docume...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
1. This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 05/01/2011 dismissing a consumer complaint bearing No.178/2009, Vijay Narayan Bhambure and Anr. V/s. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.; Loan Against Securities Department, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai, by District Forum, Central Mumbai. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, original complainant has preferred this appeal. 2. It is the case of complainants-Mr.Vijay Narayan Bhambure and Mrs.Sheela Vijay Bhambure that they had taken services of ICICI Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Bank) for taking loan against shares i.e. loan against securities by opening a current account. Shares accordingly were pledged with the Bank and as agreed between the parties, the complainants could avail the loan limit to the extent of 50% of the value of shares. It is not in dispute that if the limit exceeds, the complainants had to make good by pledging additional shares relevant to the market value of the shares pledged. In case the complainants failed to ...
Tag this Judgment!