Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Usha S. Thakare, Judicial Member: 1. Being aggrieved by the order passed by Learned District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.168/2010 dated 25/11/2013, original complainant has preferred the present appeal. By the order under challenge, Learned District Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant by holding that relationship between complainant and opponent is not that of consumer and service provider. 2. According to the complainant/appellant, he had entered into an agreement with opponent for purchasing land bearing plot No.38, admeasuring 1 acre from survey no. 277/19, 277/15 situated at village Warak, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune. The total survey no. is admeasuring 91 acres. The opponent is a private limited company dealing in land development. On 14/01/1997 the said agreement was executed in favour of the complainant and opponent agreed for execution of sale deed of plot for Rs.1,60,000/-. On that day, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Usha Thakare, Judicial Member: Being aggrieved by the order passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur in consumer complaint no.461/2011, original opponent no.3/appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the present appeal. Facts giving rise to this appeal in short are as under:- Complainant-Smt.Mayavati Bharat Bagal is a farmer and she resides at village Dasoor, Taluka- Malshiras, District Solapur. Her husband had taken insurance policy from the opponent no.3/present appellant. Present appellant is an insurance company. The State of Maharashtra had entered into an agreement with this Insurance Company for the farmers accident insurance policy for the area of Pune and Nasik. As per the said policy, the farmer who was injured or died will get benefit of the said policy. The said policy was taken as per the direction of the State Government dated 30/09/2009. Husband of the complainant died while he was driving motor cycle bearing no.MH-45-G 2963. On the da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and availed Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy to provide insurance cover to the stocks situated at various locations in the country issued by the opponent, National Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opponent insurer for the sake of brevity). The validity of the insurance policy commenced from 01/10/2004 to 30/09/2005. The stocks situated in the godown at M/s.Om Enterprises, Mahaveer Godown, Survey No.186 and 187, Thane-Bhiwandi Road, Purna, Dist.Thane, interalia, was covered under the insurance policy against the perils. Claim arising on account of unprecedental rains and consequent flooding that occurred on 26/07/2005 in an around Mumbai and Thane area resulting in damage to the insured stock was repudiated by the opponent insurer as no claim. Aggrieved thereby, present consumer complaint has been filed alleging deficiency of service against the opponent insurer claiming total ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] This appeal filed by the Appellant/original Opponent “ M/s. Perfect Ply-N-Wood (hereinafter referred to as the Opponent for the sake of brevity) takes an exception to an order dated 04/02/2012 passed by the Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Consumer Complaint No.237 of 2007, Mr. Paresh C. Parekh Vs. M/s. Perfect Ply-N-Wood. [2] The facts leading to this appeal can be summarized as under:-The Respondent/original Complainant “ Mr. Paresh C. Parekh (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant for the sake of brevity) was to have furniture for his house which is situated in the vicinity of Gorai creek. Hence, he wanted furniture which is not affected by humidity and moisture. The Opponent, who is a dealer in plywood and doing the business in the name and style as Perfect Ply-N-Wood, had recommended to the Complainant to use the marine orchid plywood. Accordingly, the Complainant purchased marine orchid plywood and paid a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: [1] All these appeals filed by the Appellants/original Complainants take an exception to a common order dated 24/01/2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolhapur in Consumer Complaints Nos.624 of 2009 to 641 of 2009. Since all these appeals involve identical facts and common question of law, all these appeals are clubbed together and are disposed of by this common order. [2] Facts leading to these appeals can be summarized as under:- "The Appellants/original Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants for the sake of brevity) purchased an organic manure - Hortimeal-5:10:5 and Hortimeal-5:10:0 from the manufacturer “ M/s. Opal Farm Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent/original Opponent No.1; and the dealer “ M/s. Pandit Agro Services, Medha Krishi Seva Kendra and Janori Vividh Karyakari Seva Santha. 300 bags of said organic manure was directly purchased from the manufacturer viz. the Respondent/original Oppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] These two appeals filed by original Complainants, Smt. Rajashree Simant Sukale and Ms. Tejashree Simant Sukale (Appeal No.973 of 2011) and the original Opponent No.1 - ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. (Appeal No.282 of 2012) are directed against an order dated 25/10/2011 passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune partly allowing Consumer Complaint No.188 of 2010 before it and directing the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company for the sake of brevity) to pay to the Complainants, an amount of Rs.4,121/- towards refund of insurance premium together with interest thereon @ 15% p.a. with effect from 17/12/2009 besides an amount of Rs.25,000/- by way of compensation towards physical and mental agony and costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. [2] Facts, which are material for deciding both these appeals, are as under:-It is not in dispute that deceased Mr. Simant Dattatraya Sukale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
R.C. Chavan, President: [1] This appeal is directed against an order dated 29/10/2013 passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune dismissing the Consumer Complaint No.184 of 2012. Facts, which are material for deciding this appeal, are quite disturbing. [2] The Appellant/original Complainant “ Smt. Leela Ushakant Gaur, is a daughter of one Smt. Vimal Randive. Appellant and Smt. Vimal Randive held two lockers bearing Nos.188 and 191 in the safe deposit vault of the Respondent Bank at its Pune Branch. The Appellant as well as her mother were entitled to operate the lockers. In the year 1992, Appellants mother went to United States of America where the Appellants sister was residing. There was some bitterness between the family and the Appellant was not in touch with her mother. Appellants mother had allegedly lost the keys of the lockers. Appellant approached the Respondent Bank to permit her to operate the lockers since the lockers were operable by ei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Narendra Kawde, Member: [1] Complainant executed a registered agreement with opponent, M/s.Shree Sai Developers Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as opponent builder/developer) on 25/10/2005 for purchase of flat bearing No.903 admeasuring 945 sq.ft. built-up area on 9th floor in D building, in Golden Park Tower a project developed by the opponent builder/developer for agreed consideration was Rs. 20,79,000/-. Possession of the flat was to be delivered on or before 30/06/2007. Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 5,40,540/- against the agreed consideration. Opponent builder/developer sent demand notice for amount of Rs. 3,95,010/- outside the purview of terms and conditions of the agreement as alleged. Therefore, dispute arose at this point. Present consumer complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service against the opponent builder/developer praying for direction to hand over peaceful possession of flat, alternatively for compensation of Rs. 49,75,000/- together with cost of liti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
Dhanraj Khamatkar, Member: 1. Mr.Prashant Mukund Patil has filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service (herein after referred as complainant) against the Chief Officer, Konkan Housing and Area Development Board (herein after referred to as opponent). The complaint was registered as consumer complaint no.CC/12/328. Facts leading to this complaint can be summarized as under:- 2. The complainant had applied for a plot in response to an advertisement by the opponent in newspaper dated 24/10/1983 to tab the interest of common man for Housing project at Virar. The complainant had applied for the same. Total 1285 persons responded to the advertisement. Out of 1285 applicants, opponent had informed to only 702 applicants in the year 1987 to deposit 10% of the cost of the plot. Accordingly, the complainant paid deposit of Rs.500/-. The complainant paid 25% of the cost i.e.Rs.26,125/- of a plot no.484 allotted to the complainant. The opponent had revised the cost of plot to Rs.1,21...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Mumbai
R.C. Chavan, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune partly allowing consumer complaint no.740/2001 and directing the appellants/ original opponent nos.1, 5 and 7 to jointly and severally pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards costs and compensation. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The complainant had been admitted to opponent no.1s hospital run under the supervision of opponent no.5 “Medical Superintendent and opponent no.7- Director of the hospital. He was admitted on 16/08/1995 on the basis of sonography report, which indicated that there were some kidney stones. The stones were surgically removed. Thereafter, on 17/08/1995 the complainant started having chest pain and an Xray was taken. The complainant was told that a bag would have to be inserted to drain out the fluid from the lungs. A bag was then attached to drain the fluid from h...
Tag this Judgment!