Court : SCDRC
Santhamma Thomas : Member The judgment dated 26th April 2012 rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur in case CC.No.304/09 filed on 24.04.2009, allowing the complaint and 1st and 2nd respondents in the Lower Forum is challenging the order as specified below in the present appeal. 2. The respondent is a consumer vides number 4082 with Appellants since 11/98 as per the records submitted. It is stated that respondent had given a request to Agricultural Officer for exemption of electricity charges as any electricity connection obtained or used for agricultural purpose shall be for free. However the appellants had issued a notice on 02.03.2009 to the respondent stating that there have been arrears since 11/98 for his electricity connection and it is demanded to make the payment immediately for which any default the connection shall be disconnected. Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Anthikkad, Thrissur who was the 3rd respondent in the Lower Forum supported the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral): 1. Present appeal is directed against the order dated 26.10.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo, whereby appellants complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed, with the findings that the vehicle, in question, was being used as a goods carrier vehicle, without there being a route permit and also on the ground that there was one unauthorized person on board the vehicle (tractor), when the accident took place. 2. Appellant owned a tractor, which was registered as a light goods vehicle, per registration certificate, copy Annexure-A. The tractor was insured with the respondents, for the period from 24.03.2009 to 23.03.2010, in the sum of Rs.3,49,600/-. On 07.06.2009, tractor met with an accident. Report, copy Annexure-C, was lodged with the Police. At the time of the accident, the tractor was carrying earth, as per ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1) The appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the District Forum allowing the complaint on the premise of the appellants failure to prove intoxicated condition of the driver at the time of the accident and its failure to examine Mani Kumar to whom the respondent said to have given oral intimation of the accident and resultant damage caused to the insured car. 2) The respondent got his car bearing registration number AP 16 BM 6679 insured with the appellant-insurance company for a sum of Rs. 5,75,696/- covering the period from 10.08.2011 to 09.08.2012. The car met with an accident on 01.01.2012 during night hours near Siddhartha College, Vijayawada. The respondent got the vehicle repaired by spending an amount of Rs.1,98,000/-.The appellant-insurance company repudiated the claim on19.03.2012 on the ground that driver was under the influence of alcohol and notice in writing was not given immediately after occurrence of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarasimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeal is challenge to the order dated 23.04.2014 passed in CC 6/2013 by the District Forum, Guntur. 2. The facts of the case leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondents father obtained Life Insurance policy bearing no. 16638248 from the appellant insurance company for sum assured of Rs.3,75,000/- for the period commencing from 23.3.2010 till 23.03.2020 and the premium was payable half yearly @ Rs.12,500/-. The respondents father died on 14.5.2010. The respondent being nominee of his father for the sum assured in terms of the insurance policy, lodged claim with the appellant which repudiated the same on the ground that the insured suppressed his correct age at the time of obtaining the insurance policy. 3. Questioning the rationality of repudiation of his claim, the respondent filed the complaint before the District Forum and the appellant resisted the same on the ground that the insured submitted proposal form bearing N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. We heard counsel for both side and perused the application under order. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order and copies of medical certificate and other documents. 2. Undisputedly there was 119 days delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad allowing consumer complaint No.283/2011. 3. It is submitted by Shri. Lakhotiya, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant received the copy of impugned judgment and order on 09.10.2012, but she could not file appeal in time as she was hospitalized and further she was advised for bed rest. Thereafter her husband met with an accident and on 10.11.2012 was hospitalized. Her husband discharged from hospital on 18th November, 2012. Thereafter the applicant Hemlata was ailing and she was advised for rest for the period from 12.12.2012 to 27.12.2014 and again for the period from 27.01.2013 to 10....
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member: 1. The complainant is a partnership firm run in the name and style M/s M.S Manufacturing Company, situated at Plot No.233, Rai, District Sonepat. It runs the business of manufacturing of Corrugated Boxes. The firm purchased Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Exhibit C-4) from the New India Insurance Co. Ltd (opposite parties) covering the period from 18thJune 2012 to 17thJune, 2013. Prior thereto also, the insurance policy was purchased from the opposite parties. The total insured amount was Rs.70.00 lacs (i.e. Rs.30.00 lacs for building-super structure, Rs.20.00 lacs for plant machinery and accessories and Rs.20.00 lacs for stock and stocks in process). In the insurance policy, there was Clause 4, that is, reinstatement of value policy clause. 2. On January 5th, 2013, at about 3.30 a.m. fire took place in the premises of the company. Fire tenders were called (Ex.C-11). The fire could be extinguished after about six hours. FIR (Ex.C-12) was got registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
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 : SCDRC
R.S. Sharma, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (henceforth œDistrict Forum") in Complaint Case No.563/2011. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the appellant (complainant). 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are : the appellant (complainant) is owner of a goods carrying vehicle Pick Up Van bearing registration No.C.G.04/J.B. 6841 and its chassis no. is 91K60998 and engine no. is GA91K27480. The said vehicle was purchased with the financial help of respondent No.3 (O.P.No.3). The vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 and 2 (O.P.Nos.1 and 2) (Insurance Company). The policy number is 3003/57951968/00/00 and the policy was effective for the period from 27.10.2009 to 26.10.2010. On 23.07.2010, when driver of the appellant (complainant) Pradeep Naktore after delivery of goods returning back to Raipur and when he reached ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
A. Radha : Member Appellant is the opposite party before the Forum Below, Thrissur in C.C.No.178/11 wherein the Forum Below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to return Rs.1,30,000/-with interest @ 18% p.a and cost of Rs.2,500/-. 2. The complaint is with regard to the failure in completion of the construction work of complainants house. An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the opposite parties and the finished work was only for Rs.76,415/- as per the report of the expert appointed by the Forum Below. In this case the opposite party was exparte and the Forum Below proceeded with the case and allowed the complaint. 3. When this appeal came up for hearing, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party that though the notice was served on the opposite party the case entrusted to the Advocate could not defend the case. The Forum Below based on the pleadings in the complaint and even in the absence of evidence in support of the pleadings allowed the com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : SCDRC
Nawab Singh, President (Oral): 1. The Director, ICL Institute of Managerment and Technology (hereinafter referred as appellant) is in appeal against the order dated December 17th, 2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Ambala. For facilitation, the operative part of the order is reproduced as under:- œ.the complaint is accepted and Op No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions:- (i) To refund Rs.32,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 31.08.2012 i.e. the cut off date the withdrawal of admission, after deducting processing fee of Rs.1000/- as per Section 10 of All India Council for Technical Education Act 1987, till its actual realization. (ii) To pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10000/- in lump sum on account of causing mental harassment as well as costs of litigation etc incurred by the complainant. The aforesaid directions should be complied within 30 days of the receipt of copy of the ...
Tag this Judgment!