advocatemmmohan
cars
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the appeal, by setting aside the direction to replace the defective car with a new car and direct the appellant to refund to the respondent the entire cost of the car minus depreciated value at 10% as the consumer has used the car for more than two years, and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation as to the mental agony, harassment, physical discomfort and emotional suffering suffered by the appellant. This compensation shall include the cost of litigation.”In conclusion, we partly allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order of the State Commission and that of the District Forum. However, in view of the foregoing discussion, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pay to the complainant/respondent 1 compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the harassment, mental agony and expenditure suffered by him since the purchase of the car till the replacement of the engine assembly and cost of Rs.10,000/-, including these proceedings. This payment may be made within four weeks of the date of this order.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2007 [Against the order dated 22.12.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in First Appeal No. 771 of 2006] Tata Motors Limited Passenger Car Business Unit No. 402 4th Floor, Tower A, Signature Towers Petitioner South City I, N.H. 8 … Continue reading
the High Court has reversed the order of acquittal of accused Nos. A1, A15, A16, A21 and confirmed the order of conviction of accused Nos. A13 and A14 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Sessions Case No. 82 of 2002. The appellants are convicted under Section 302/149 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life.- Section 149 IPC creates a constructive or vicarious liability of the members of the unlawful assembly for the unlawful acts committed pursuant to the common object by any other member of that assembly.- accused- A1, A15, A16 and A21 were members of the same assembly which has caused the murder of the deceased, in terms of Section 149 IPC, as they had dragged the deceased after first assault and contributed in preventing the deceased from escaping the assault of A13 and A14. Therefore, accused A1, A15, A16, A21 are guilty of murder along with A13 and A14 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Moreover, the delay in registering FIR is justified as the complainant had to travel 30 kms on a mud road to reach the Police Station from the scene of crime. Also, the absence of S.I. in the Police Station further contributed in delay in registering the FIR.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2010 Krishnappa & Ors. ………….. Appellants Versus State of Karnataka by Babaleshwara Police Station …………..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1147 OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5830 of 2012) (CRL.M.P.No.23190 of 2011) Tippanna Ningappa Kundargi and Anr. ………….. Appellants … Continue reading
Repair with duplicate parts – Negligence in service – As per the report of 21.2.1992 from OP-2 (respondent No.2 in the present proceedings), the cause of the break down of the Engine was use of spurious CR bearings by OP-1/appellant during the course of overhaul of the Engine in 1990. The matter was therefore taken up with OP-1. Their representative allegedly visited the site in the third week of April 1992 and inspected the Engine. Two CR bearings out of the 12 replaced in 1990, were found to be without any mark of the manufacturer and therefore suspected to be spurious.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 01.12.2005 in Complaint Case No. C/326/1993 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh ) M/s. Ghaziabad Engines & Machines (P) Ltd., Court Road, Muzaffar Nagar- 251001, Through its Managing Director ……….Appellant Versus 1. Advance Level Telecommunication Training Centre, Government of … Continue reading
complainant obtained a Householders insurance policy and a Vyavasayi/AdhikariSuraksha Kavach policy, based on pre-insurance inspection of the household articles like clothing, kitchenware/crockery/cutlery, furniture and fixtures, miscellaneous house-hold items, electrical/mechanical appliances, articles of personal use, jewellery and electronic goods. The sums insured for different categories of goods were different, including Rs.2,68,000/- covering all risks for jewellery and other valuables under the Householders policy and Rs.6,000/- for a mobile hand phone set under the Vyavasayi/Adhikari Suraksha Kavach policy. Ordinarily, this proposition cannot be faulted. However, on careful perusal of the assessment of the loss by the surveyor we find that he applied deduction by way of depreciation to the insured amount of Sony Handycam video camera and Kodak digital camera (total Rs.61,000/-) @ 331/3% and Rayban sunglasses @ 25% under the Householders policy and @ 50% on Rs.6,000/- for the mobile phone handset and the baggage containing clothing, etc., under the Suraksha Kavach Policy. In all, the surveyor reduced the value of the loss by Rs.30,058/- on account of depreciation at the rates mentioned above. It is noteworthy that the policies were taken in September 2004 and the loss occurred in November 2004. Moreover, a qualified surveyor had subjected each of the items covered under the two policies to detailed pre-insurance inspection. Therefore, the contention that the surveyor applied depreciation on account of failure of the insured to produce the original bills does not carry conviction. The surveyor who conducted the pre-insurance inspection would have looked all the original bills before agreeing to specific insured sums noted against each item. Therefore, to apply depreciation within a matter of just two months of the pre-insurance inspection and that too at such high rates was surely not warranted. However, in our considered opinion, the reasoning given by the surveyor in disallowing the claim for the alleged loss of Mangalsutra is sound. 7. In conclusion, in respect of the amount the order of the District Forum (as affirmed by the State Commission) cannot be sustained in its entirety. In our view, the amount payable by the insurance company towards indemnification of the loss would be Rs. 1,49,342/- as assessed by the surveyor plus Rs.30,058/- deducted by way of depreciation (vide the surveyor’s report for items no. 8 & 9 under the Householders’ policy and items no. 1 & 3 of the Suraksha Kavachpolicy) without any justification (including Rs. 1,000/- less allowed under item no. 3 (Gold Kada’s)). This total sum of Rs. 1,79,400/- should also carry interest @ 9% per annum, as awarded by the District Forum, from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment, because the insured/complainant has not challenged the order of the District Forum on the point of date of commencement of interest payment. However, the award of compensation of Rs.5,000/- in addition to the interest is not permissible. 8. The revision petition is, therefore, partly allowed and the orders of the Fora below are modified to the extent that the petitioner insurance company shall pay to the respondent/complainant Rs. 1,79,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its payment. In addition, the insurance company shall pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant for all proceedings, including this. The payment may be made within six weeks. On the payment being so made by way of demand draft, the insurance company will be at liberty to get refund of the amount deposited with the District Forum with interest, if any, accrued thereon.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 3205 OF 2008 (From the order dated 24.03.2008 in First Appeal No. 68 of 2008 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi) New India Insurance Company 87, M. G. Road Mumbai- 400 001 2. Regional Office at Level V, Tower II Jeevan Bharati Building Petitioners Connaught … Continue reading
Work damage due to trouble of Heavy Earthmoving Machine (Hydraulic Excavator) used for mining activity in granite mines. Under the warranty attached to the sale of the machines, the opposite party had undertaken to supply spare parts worth upto Rupees one lac for each machine. From the material brought on record, we have reasons to believe that complainants must have incurred expenditure on purchase of spare parts from the open market, besides the spare parts supplied by the opposite party worth not less than Rupees. one lac for each machine. We therefore consider it appropriate to grant a sum of rupees one lac towards the cost of spare parts purchased by the complainant from the open market in respect of each of the four machines. 50. In view of our above discussions we hold that the complaints filed by the complainants deserve to be allowed partly in the following manner: (i) In Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2000 relating to equipment serial number G 10258 and G 10261, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7.00 lacs (i.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the loss of business in respect of equipment number G 10258 and Rs. 3.00 lacs in respect of equipment No. G 10261) and a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac towards the cost of spare parts in respect of each of the two machines; (ii) In Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2000 relating to equipment serial number G 10260, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3.00lacs i.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the loss of business and Rs. 1.00 lac towards the cost of spare parts; (iii) In Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2000 relating to equipment serial number G 10257, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacsi.e. Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the loss of business and Rs. 1.00 lac towards the cost of spare parts. 51. Since the said amount of claim of the complainant was not settled/paid by the opposite party within a reasonable time even after legal notice, we propose to further compensate the complainants by awarding interest @ 9% per annum on the above amounts with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till payment. 52 In the result, we partly allow the three complaints and direct the opposite party as under: (i) To pay a sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of the complaint till payment in Consumer Complaint No. 50 of 2000; (ii) To pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum per annum with effect from the date of the complaint till payment in Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 2000; (iii) To pay a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum per annum with effect from the date of the complaint till payment in Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2000; 53. The opposite party is called upon to make the payment of the awarded amount to the complainants within a period of six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum with effect from the date of default. 54. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are left to bear their own cost.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 50 OF 2000 K. Yusuf Basha 4/59, Bharathi Street, Swarnapuri, Salem – 4 … Complainant Versus Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., Regional Office Unity Buildings Vth Floor, J.C. Road, Bangalore – 560 002. … Opposite Party ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 51 OF 2000 K. Shahnawaz 4/59, Bharathi Street, Swarnapuri, Salem – 4 … Complainant Versus Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., Regional Office … Continue reading
Failure to pay interest while refunding deposited amount =“Resultantly, we direct that on the amount deposited by the complainants till the date of filing the complaint the total interest accrued i.e. RS.32,49,175/- be paid to the complainants alongwith an interest @ 18% per annum for the period of the pendency of the complaint till the actual realization of the amount. The complainants are also entitled to receive from the respondent Rs.50,000/- as mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. The payment of the abovementioned entire amount be made within 2 months.”
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2012 With I.A. Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 (Against the order dated 14.10.2011 in Complaint No.25/2007 of the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh) Kanpur Development Authority Motijheel Kanpur Through its Vice Chairman ……….Appellant Versus 1). Shri Sheo Prakash Gupta S/o Late Nanhe Lal Gupta 2). Shri Sanjai Gupta S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta Directors of M/s. Sanskriti Real Estate Pvt Ltd. … Continue reading
Insurance of stock – stock damaged in flood. first surveyor and second surveyor gave one and the same report . but the first surveyor gave clarification with supplement that 50 sugar bags are hand stitched and further endorsed that it is enough to solve the purpose.Except 50 bags, rest damage was paid. The district forum allowed the complaint but the state forum dismissed basing clarification of first surveyor. Their Lord ships allowed the revision restoring the district forum. stating that state commission swayed on presumptions but not on fact. It is true that the question of 56 bags is shrouded in mystery. However, the duty cast upon this Commission is to winnow the truth from falsehood. The Commission is to appreciate the evidence produced before it. It is not to be swayed away with suspicion and doubt. The evidence must be discussed in its proper perspective. The role of S.K. Parhi is wee bit doubtful. The volte-face on his part at the eleventh hour goes beyond the pale of our comprehension. He herms and haws and comes out on both sides of the above said knotty question. The unsavoury words used by him at the foot of document dated 07-06-2000 go to create a suspicion about S.K. Parhi. It is difficult to fathom what is meant by “will serve your purpose”. Was he going to oblige somebody? Why did not he report the truth at first instance? An integument of suspicion envelops the proceedings conducted by the respondents. 8. In the result, we accept the petition and restore the order passed by the District Forum. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2606 OF 2006 (Against the order dated 11-11-2005 in Appeal No. 203/2005 of the State Commission, Orissa) M/s Subash Trading Company Represented by its Proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta At/P.O. Chandan Bazaar P.S./Distt. Bhadrak (Town) Orissa …….. Petitioner (s) Vs. (1) The Divisional Manager New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Division Office At P.O./P.S./Distt. Balasore (Town) Orissa (2) The Branch … Continue reading
Electricity connections of agriculturist = The respondent/complainant contended that though he had deposited the requisite sum of Rs.3,360/-on 07.12.1998, he had not been given the electricity connection for his tube well and yet persons who had applied under the same scheme after him had been given such connections. The petitioners opposed the complaint mainly on the ground that the scheme, not being viable, had been discontinued with effect from 17.03.1999. (iii) On consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party (OP)/ petitioner: “……………………………… to issue to the complainant a demand notice specifying the requirements if any to be made by him and on his compliance of the demand notice, release the tube well electric connection in his favour. They shall also pay to the complainant a composite sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. The order be complied with within one month of the communication excluding then time taken by the complainant to complete the requirement of the demand notice”.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 1003 OF 2011 (From the order dated 30.11.2010 in First Appeal No.888 of 2005 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) 1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) The Mall, Patiala Punjab 2. Assistant Executive Engineer Suburban Dirba Sub Division Petitioners PSPCL District Sangrur, Punjab versus … Continue reading
Whether the legal heirs are entitled for insured amount ,when a person died during the grace period of payment of premium to his LIC POIICY, ? – yes- Payment of premiums – A grace period of one month but not less than 30 days will be allowed for payment of yearly, half-yearly or quarterly premiums and 15 days for monthly premiums. If death occurs within this period and before the payment of the premium then due, the policy will still be valid and the sum assured paid after deduction of the said premium as also unpaid premium/s falling due before the next anniversary of the policy. If the premium is not paid before the expiry of the days of grace, the policy lapses.’ 10. The aforesaid clause specifically provides that grace period of one month shall not be less than 30 days. One month can extend upto 31 days. And, therefore, in the present case, during the grace period the deceased expired. Hence, as per the aforesaid clause the policy would be valid and the heirs are entitled to the sum assured after deduction of the premium payable”.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 1338 OF 2011 (From the order dated 07.02.2011 in First Appeal No.238 of 2010 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata) Life Insurance Corporation of India Represented by its Branch Manager Sainthia Branch Petitioner P.O. & P.S. Sainthia District Birbhum, West Bengal versus … Continue reading
After completing the entire transaction of purchasing a car for 11 lakhas and add, the subsequent price decrease offer to the public is not amount unfair trade practice and it is not deficiency of service the price of the car is declared as Rs.9,99,999/- in the special offer. Despite that opponent No. 2 has recovered Rs.11,63,876/- from the complainant. The Opponent No.2 has usurped the benefit of special offer and has recovered excess amount of Rs.1,38,877/-. The complainant No.2 has usurped the same. Agreement is over on 3.9.08. Car is delivered to the complainant. Amount has been paid. Full and final payment has been made. Thereafter if any advertisement has been published between 6.9.08 to 9.9.08, the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit. Because the agreement was over and price was paid before that. No special offer was published in newspaper on the dates on which agreement of car was over. The complainant is therefore not entitled to get benefit of offer. It is the say of the complainant that had the Opponent No.2 informed about such offer, the complainant would not have purchased the car as is purchased. He would have purchased the car at a lesser price under the offer. So we do not agree with the contention of complainant that opponents have resorted to unfair trade practice. Because the seller is not bound to declare the secrets of his trade. Again the seller is not bound to inform the consumer about the date of advertisement of the scheme. There are no such rules. If the seller is kept in ban like this then seller cannot do business before the scheme. Under these circumstances, we do not agree with the contention of complainant that Opponent No.2 is bound to inform about future scheme and by not doing so, opponent No.2 has resorted to unfair trade practice.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 94 OF 2012 (From the order dated 22.09.2011 in Appeal No.491/2010 of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad) Shri Shankerlal L. Sachdev, Advocate Meera, 36/C/A, Bhuj – Kachchh, Gujarat …….. Petitioner Vs. 1. The Managing Director, Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. A/1/1, M.I.D.C., Five Star Industries Area, Shendra, Aurangabad – 431 201 2. The … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 