Court : Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shillong
Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member: 1. This entire batch of appeals arises from orders passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums of East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi Districts of Meghalaya (hereinafter referred to as the learned District Fora/Forums) in respect of Complaints filed by various Consumers against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as BSNL). In all the related orders some relief or the other has been granted by the learned District Fora and, besides that, the learned Fora have turned down BSNLs plea that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction over complaints / disputes relating to the telecom / telegraph services provided by them. Hence the Appeals. 2. As the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is a common ground of appeal and goes to the root of the matter, it was our considered view that the maintainability of the complaints be first decided as a preliminary issue as no purpose would be served by going into the merits of each appeal in case it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shillong
Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member: 1. This entire batch of appeals arises from orders passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums of East Khasi Hills and Ri Bhoi Districts of Meghalaya, hereinafter referred to as the learned District Fora or Forums in respect of Complaints filed by various Consumers against Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited hereinafter referred to as BSNL. In all the related orders some relief or the other has been granted by the learned District Fora and, besides that, the learned Fora have turned down BSNLs plea that the Consumer Fora have jurisdiction over complaints or disputes relating to the telecom or telegraph services provided by them. Hence the Appeals. 2. As the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is a common ground of appeal and goes to the root of the matter, it was our considered view that the maintainability of the complaints be first decided as a preliminary issue as no purpose would be served by going into the merits of each appeal in case it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shillong
P.K. Musahary (Retd.), President: 1. Heard Mr. R.P. Kakoti, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Das, learned counsel for the Complainant. Also heard Mr. S. K. Goswami along with Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties. 2. The Complainant, a businessman by occupation and a resident of Dolgaon in the district of Darrang, Assam married Smt. Chandrani Sarkar who hailed from Tura Garopahar in Meghalaya. She got conceived sometime in the month of November, 2003 and as per her attending physician, she was expected to deliver child in the first week of August, 2004. As at the relevant time the Complainants wife was residing at his permanent residence at Dolgaon, necessary medical advice and treatment was given to her by Dr. B.C. Kalita, a specialist in Obstetrics and Gynecology of Mangaldoi. On the advice of the said doctor he got his wifes pregnancy test/investigation done mostly at Tohbildar Clinical Laboratory and Radhika X-ray and Imaging Centre at Mangaldoi. As per...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shillong
P. K. Musahary, President (Oral): 1. By this order we are disposing this appeal after a long gap of over 16 years since it was filed on 15.12.1997. However, we want to put on record, for information of all concerned the reasons, rather circumstances, leading to such undesired inordinate delay in disposing the appeal. 2. On perusal of the records we find that the notice to the sole respondent could not be served inspite of necessary steps taken by the appellant. On 23.02.2002 it was dismissed for non-prosecution and default of the appellant vide order dated 23.02.2002. The appellant then filed an application, being Miscellaneous Case No. 1 (M) 2002, for setting aside the said dismissal order and restoration of the appeal to file. Unfortunately, the notice issued in the said Miscellaneous Case also could not be served and this Commission allowed the appellant to effect the notice on the respondent by publishing in a local newspaper The Shillong Times. The substituted notice was according...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Meghalaya State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Shillong
Judgment And Order (CAV) Ramesh Bawri, Senior Member:- 1. The complainant has filed this complaint petition stating that he is the proprietor of M/s N P Textiles. He got his shop insured with the opposite party insurance company. Unfortunately his shop was gutted by fire in the month of September, 2008. He filed a claim of Rs. 43 lakhs for the loss and damage suffered in the incident. The opposite parties refused to settle the claim and intimated the complainant that the cheque for premium of Rs. 15,200 issued in favour of the insurance company was dishonoured and the insurance policy which was issued due to oversight was cancelled and the company was not liable to compensate the loss. The insurance claim having been repudiated, the complainant lodged the present complaint for payment of compensation. 2. The opposite parties have filed a showcause reply raising a preliminary issue that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant complaint. Further it is c...
Tag this Judgment!