Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal is filed against the order of Yavatmal, DCDRF issued on 1/9/2002, in CC No. 213 of 1999 granting the complaint and directing that the OP shall accept the premium of the policies from the complainant as per the contract dated 20/2/2009, and shall give benefit of policy to the beneficiaries also the OP shall pay Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant. 2. The brief facts leading to above complaint are that the complainant who is Manager of the Yavatmal District Central Co-Operative bank Ltd., Main branch Yavatmal, filed complaint against the OP No. 1, which is Branch Manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Yavatmal and OP No. 2 which is Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Amravati. The complainant complained that the OP No. 1 on 20/2/1999 made a contract with the complainant to provide the Janata Personal Accident Insurance scheme through the bank of complainant for the benefit of banks subsidiary institution and me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal is against the order of Additional D.C.D.R.F., Nagpur passed in CC No. 39/2010 dated 03/12/2010 granting the complaint and ordering as below. i.The opposite party (for short O.P.) shall take away the defective lathe machine of 12 feet KMT Panjab Make from the complainant and shall provide him a new machine of the same make. ii.If not possible, the O.P. shall return Rs.1,75,000/- paid by the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of acceptance of money and shall also return the ten cheques given by the complainant. iii.O.P. shall pay Rs.15,000/- as agony compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost to the complainant. The O.P. shall comply with the order in the span of 30 days. 2. The brief background facts are that the complainant-Gour Kishor alies Kishorbhai Govindchand Raut owner of M/s. Lucky Engineering , Nagpur made a complaint that he works as a turner in the above proprietary firm which he runs for his livelihood at Nagpur....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal challenges the order of the D.C.D.R.F., Nagpur dated 05/08/2002 passed in complaint No. 107/2002 granting the complaint. The Forum directed the O.P. to reconnect the electric supply by providing a new meter in the span of the 30 days. 2. Brief facts beneath the appeal are that the complainant Suresh Bhikaji Sakharkar has a Floor Mill with two electrical connections at village Watoda, District Nagpur. He was regularly paying the bills of electricity. On 11/04/2002 the officers of flying squad of the O.P. No.1 inspected the meters in his floor mill and prepared the inspection report for meter No. 410012547386. They disconnected the supply and also filed a complaint against him in the Police Station. 3. The complainant complained that when the seal of the meter was intact, the flying squad conspired and made out a case of electricity theft as the complainant did not pay the officers of O.Ps. who demanded 25,000/-. As he could not pay, the O.Ps....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Jayshree Yengal, Member: This appeal challenges the order dtd.03.01.2002 passed by District Consumer Forum Bhandara, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No.CC/01/272, whereby directing the opposite party / appellant herein to pay the complainant the maturity amount of Indira Vikas Patra purchased by the complainant after conducting due enquiry and inspection. Respondent Punjumal to be referred as complainant and the appellants “ Union of India through Secretary, Department of Post and Telegraph and Others to be referred as the O.Ps. for the sake of brevity. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are:- "1. Complainant Punjumal had purchased Indira Vikas Patra of Rs.20,000/- on 10.07.1993 for period of five years. The maturity of the said Indira Vikas Patra was on 10.07.1998 and the maturity amount would be Rs.40,000/-. The complainant was given registration number 954 to 958 for 51-VP/39-B. It is the contention of the complainant that when he approached the o.p. to get ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short OP) Nos.1 and 2, against the order dated 19/01/2002 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No.77/2001by the District Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he has taken electric connection from the OP Nos.1 and 2 to run his proprietary concern under the name and style as œM/s Sati Oil Mill?. The OP issued excess bill of the month of December,1998 for Rs.9066/- and, therefore, it was returned by the complainant to OP for correction. The OP again sent excess bill of the month of January,1999 for Rs.9207.55/-. Then the OP issued another excess bill of the month of February,99 dated 10/3/1999 for Rs.32,113/-. The said bill for Rs.32,113/- was to be paid till 30/4/1999 with delayed payment charges (DPC). Therefore, the OP had no authority to disconnect electric supply till 30/4/1999 f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original Opposite Party (for short OP) against the order dated 10/5/2010 passed in consumer complaint bearing CC No. 229/2009 by the District Forum, Yavatmal by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he is an agriculturist and he owns agriculture land admeasuring 6 hactares and 59 Rs. and another admeasuring 2 hactare and 64 Rs at village Hivara. He personally cultivates the same. He had sown and cultivated cotton and Tur crop in the said lands during the year 2008-09. His both the said lands are duly irrigated. He harvested both the said crops. He got 22000 kgs of yield of raw cotton and 16000 kgs of Tur. He stored the same in his godown in the said land. He insured the said agricultural product by taking insurance policy from the OP for the period from 14/1/2009 to 17/7/2009 i.e. for a period of 7 months by paying requisite premium to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos.1 and 2 against the order dtd.21.06.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravti passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No.CC/05/184 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the original complaint in brief, is that he is serving in Telecom Department and residing in residential quarter of that department. The O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 had provided electric connection to his said quarter. However, the O.Ps. issued exorbitant bills for the period from 31.03.2005 to 31.05.2005 for Rs.3,700/-, 31.05.2005 to 31.07.2005 for Rs.9,380/- and for the period from 31.07.2005 to 31.08.2005 for Rs.11,320/-. The residential quarter is comprising of only two rooms and ony complainant, his wife and one son are residing in that quarter. Complainant therefore, made complaints from time to time orally and in writing to the O.Ps. to correct those bills. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite party (for short O.P.) insurance company to pay to the complainant “ company Rs.44,68,300/- with interest @ 18% p.a. form the date of complaint till its realisation. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that it is a private limited company and it is the business partner of another company namely Karnataka Antibiotics and Pharmaceutical Ltd (for short KAPL) It was entrusted with the job of procuring material on behalf of said KAPL and to comply with the orders placed on them including transportation and insurance arrangement. The complainant received an order from KAPL, indented by the Director of Health Services, Manipur for the total value of Rs.75.00 Lacs approx. The complainant procured the said ordered material from various sources and stored the same at Delhi for further dispatch to Manipur. The complainant insured the said accumulated stock at Delhi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
Jayashree Yengal, Member: 1. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30/4/2008, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Buldana dismissing the Consumer Complaint bearing No.227/07 as barred by limitation, the original complainants have filed this appeal. Appellant No.1 Vishnu Shetye, appellant No.2 Ghanashyam Choudhary, appellant No.3, Kailash Choudhary and appellant No.4 Brijmohan Choudhary to be referred as Complainant Nos.1,2,3 and 4 respectively and respondent Aadarsh Housing Cooperative Society Ltd. Chikhali to be referred as Opposite Party (for short OP) for the sake of brevity. 2. The complainants filed a consumer complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Party seeking allotment of plots in the layout of the Opposite Party or in the alternative, claiming compensation of 3 lacs each towards the cost of plots. 3. The Opposite Party resisted the complaint by filing its written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainants. The OP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The instant appeal is filed against the order of the D.C.D.R.F.,Yavatmal dated 23/10/2008 passed in complaint No. 314/2008 granting the complaint partly and providing that, i. The complaint is allowed against the O.P. Nos.1and2 and is dismissed against the O.P.No.3. ii. The O.P. No.1and2 on behalf of State Bank of India is directed to cancel the debit entry of Rs.50,000/- made in the saving Bank Account of the complainant on 05/05/2007. iii. The O.P. Nos. 1and2 shall provide Rs.1000/- on behalf of SBI Arni, District Yavatmal, as cost to the complainant in the span of 30 days. iv. The other requests of the complainant are dismissed. 2. The simple facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant Sanjiv Maske who is a teacher at village Arni took a housing loan from the respondent “ SBI, Arni of Rs.3,50,000/- and took two account numbers as below. i. Loan Account No.- 015593006219 ii. Saving Account No.-01190006219 3. It is the procedure that...
Tag this Judgment!