Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the order passed by District Forum Yavatmal in CC No.304/2005 dtd.19.04.2006. By the above order the Forum granted the complaint of the complainant against O.P.Nos. 1 and 2 and directed the O.P. to return the price of the defective sowing machine of Rs.5,200/- @ 6% p.a. from the date of payment for purchase to the date of returning the amount to the complainant within a span of 30 days, if not paid, to pay interest @ 9% p.a. penal interest till the date of payment. Pay Rs.3,000/- for mental and physical harassment of the complainant and Rs.500/- as cost within 30 days from the date of order. 2. The facts leading to above order are that the complainant Mhommad Akhtar filed a complaint on 09.11.2005 before the Forum that he is a farmer and is engaged in farming with modern implements. The aforesaid O.P.No.1 Shri Vasantrao Kale, Wani was making an advertisement of an efficient sowing machine and he therefore, contacted O.P.No.1 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Sawarkar, Member: 1. The present appeal No.A/11/128 takes an exception to the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amravati dtd.18.02.2011 passed in complaint case No. CC/10/117 vide above order the District Forum granted the complaint and provided a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the original complainant with a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid in the period of 30 days, if not paid, then to pay an interest @ 9% p.a. 2. The facts in the complaint are that the original complainant Sou Vaishali Anil Tondre filed a complaint against the original opposite party Sarika Ritesh Choudhari alias Sarika Indrakumar Wankhede before the Forum on 25.05.2010. The complainant complained that when she was pregnant of three months on 23.03.2009 she slipped. As she had a pain in stomach she allegedly went to the O.P. for treatment. The O.P. gave her certain homeopathic medicines and told her that as she slipped, the foetus in her womb is disturbed and she will have to get the abortio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against order dtd.13.12.2001 passed by District Forum, Yavatmal in consumer complaint bearing No. CC/99/487 by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that she is a married woman and she had conceived and therefore, she had consulted opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) No.2 - Dr. Sandhya Bonde for examination and treatment on 28.01.1999. She referred her (complainant) to O.P.No.1 “ Dr. Mamata Mukhi for sonography. The O.P.No.1 did the sonography on 28.01.1999 and issued report on charging Rs.250/-. The said report alongwith photocopy of sonography was handed over to O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.2 after going through that report said that the complainant is bearing twins and accordingly, she gave treatment to her. However, on 27.02.1999 the complainant suffered labour pains and she was, therefore, taken to nearby O.P.No.3 - Christian Hospital of Um...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 02/09/2002 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC No. 35/2002 by the District Consumer Forum Akola by which the complaint has been allowed. 2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he is a medical practitioner and he had obtained mediclaim policy from Opposite Party (for short O.P.) on 09/03/2001. The amount of Rs. 30000/- was payable under it towards expenses of hospital and medical tests. On 10/05/2001 the complainant felt severe pain in his chest. He therefore, went to Dr. Rohatiya for treatment. Dr. Rohatiya examined him and prescribed medicine for 10 days and advised him (complainant) for medical tests. The complainant got no relief in that treatment and the his chest pains was unbearable. Therefore, he consulted Dr. Rohatiya, who considering the severness of illness, asked the complainant to take treatment by admitting him in hospital. He was therefore admitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 08/07/2002 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 297/2001 by the District Consumer Forum, Akola 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, holding agricultural land in gut No. 19 of village Bahirkhed. The said land falls under the water supply scheme of the opposite party (for short O.P.). He has got right to irrigate his land by taking water from Bahirkhed water distribution system. Therefore he made application to the O.P. As per the direction of the O.P., he had furnished to the O.P. map showing availability of the water canal to his land. He then sowed wheat and Tur seeds in his two acres of land. However, the O.P. did not supply water to his land. The complainants two neighbours namely Pravin Gawande and Suresh Gawande closed the water canal passing through his land. The O.P. did not repair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
S.B. Savarkar, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 3.3.2007 passed in CC No. 164/2004 by the District Forum, Amravati by which the complaint has been partly allowed. Vide above order, the Forum directed the Opposite Party to issue a bill of electricity of the preceding six months at the rate of 130 units per month without levying any interest, interest upon the interest or delay charged upon it which the complainant should pay. Forum further directed to re appropriate the amount of Rs.4723/- dated 19/1/1994 and Rs.1888/- dated 10/7/1991 total Rs.6118/- deposited by the complainant, if not appropriated so, and, then accept the bill as directed in clause two. It further directed the complainant to pay the amended bill in 30 days, if not paid, the OP was permitted to recover the bill with interest and other charges. The facts leading to above judgment are that the complainant in the above Consumer complaint claimed himself to be consumer of the O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals bearing Nos.A/1636/01 and A/1637/01 are being disposed of by this common order as common question of law and facts is involved in them. They are directed against the respective orders passed in two consumer complaints bearing CC Nos.257/00 and 258/00 on 16/10/2001 and 9/10/2001 by the same District Consumer Forum, Bhandara by which both the complaints have been partly allowed. 2. The common case of the respective complainant, as set out in both the said complaints, in brief is that they are running rice mill at Gondia and they have obtained electric connection from the Opposite Party (for short OP) No.1 and 2 for running their rice mill. The officers of the OP Nos.1 and 2 served bills for Rs.69084/- and Rs.327156/- respectively on 15/9/2000 and 29/6/2000 to the complainant Sitaram Agrawal in complaint bearing No.CC No.257/00 and similarly, they served bills for Rs.53088/- and Rs.165556/- respectively on 15/9/00 and 26/9/2000...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 11/07/2008passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No.188/2007 by the District Forum,Amravati by which the complaint has been dismissed. 2. The case of the complainant, as set out in the complaint, in brief is that he is serving in police department and he resides at Amravati. The Opposite Party (for short OP) No.1 is a medical practitioner and he runs hospital in the name as œMurke Hospital? at Amravati. The OP No.2 is also a medical practitioner and he also runs hospital at Amravati. The complainant has two issues and Sarthak is one of his minor son. Police department entered into an agreement with OP No.1 to provide medical services to the police employees and their dependents under a scheme called as œMaharashtra Police Kutumba Arogya Yojna? hereinafter called as œFamily Health Care Plan?. The OP No.1 is liable to provide free medical services to police employees and their d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 21/06/2007 passed in Consumer Complaint bearing CC No. 68/2006 by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati by which the complaint has been partly allowed. 2. The case of the complainants as set out in the complaint in brief is that he purchased tractor from the O.P. (for short O.P.) No.2 by paying it cash of Rs.1,15,000/- and by obtaining loan of Rs.2,25,000/- from the O.P. No.1- Finance Company. The said loan was to be repaid in installments as described in the complaint. The complainant paid the said installments. The last full and final payment of Rs.69,500/- was made by the complainant to O.P. No.1 on 24/01/2005. However, thereafter the O.P. No.2 did not issue œNo Objection Certificate? along with registration particulars of that tractor. The O.P.No.2 demanded excess amount of Rs.29,176/- towards interest over delayed payment which is not legal. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint and p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Nagpur
B.A. Shaikh, Presiding Member: 1. This Revision Petition is directed against interim order dtd.05.03.2013 passed in consumer complaint No.CC/12/65 by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal by which the interim application filed by the original complainant, who is respondent herein, has been granted. 2. Facts in brief giving rise to present Revision Petition are that the respondent herein filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are original opposite party (for short œthe O.P.?) Nos.1 and 2. The respondent herein in that complaint prayed that direction be given to the petitioner herein to restore electric supply of his canteen and Pan Shop, illegally disconnected by the petitioners and to direct them to pay him compensation of Rs.9.50 Lacs due to loss caused to him due to disconnection of his electric supply. He also claimed Rs.30,000/- from the petitioners herein towards...
Tag this Judgment!