advocatemmmohan
Consumer Protection Act 1986
Death due to accidental fall from upstairs – No proof – claim repudiated= Life Insurance Corporation of India Branch Manager Naidupetta Branch Nellore District Petitioner Through Assistant Secretary Northern Zonal Office Jeevan Bharti, Cannaught Circus New Delhi Versus N Shanker Reddy Son of Late Sarasamma Resident of Malakalapudi Village Respondent Chittamuru Mandal District Nellore, Andhra Pradesh- published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131011133657827RP38692008html1.htm
Death due to accidental fall from upstairs – No proof claim repudiated = Death due to accidental fall from upstairs – no medical report, no police report and to say negative the report submitted does not belong to deceased as evidenced by reply of M.R.O. – No supporting affidavit who witnessed the incident filed – District consumer … Continue reading
Fire accident= When there is no clause not to make any constructions to the building with out permission – No claim should be rejected when fire accident was occurred due to short – circute – not concerned with building works = the petitioner issued an insurance policy number 201002/11/03/00372 called ‘Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy’ in favour of the complainant / respondent for a sum of Rs.20.50 lacs for the period 17.3.2004 to 16.03.2005. Out of this amount of Rs.20.50 lacs, Rs.20 lacs was meant for stocks of all kinds of sofa material, curtains cloth, mattresses, pillows, cushions, towels, bed sheets, etc., and Rs.50,000/- was the coverage for furniture, fixtures, fittings and electrical items. During the currency of the policy, fire occurred on 19.09.2004 at about 3:30 a.m. and the respondent estimated the loss to be Rs.20,68,090/-. An intimation was given by the respondent to the local police on the date of the fire and the insurance company was also intimated. The petitioner insurance company appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. Vide his report dated 29.01.2005, the surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.10,80,770/-. The surveyor also pointed out that at the time of loss, there was construction going on in the shop on the first and second floors of the building. In order to supply electric current to first and second floor, electric wires had been put on the main electric meter for the shop, which resulted in probable short-circuiting, leading to fire. The petitioner repudiated the claim, saying that there was violation of conditions of the policy, because construction was going on in the premises. = construction activity was being carried out at the premises in question and as per the surveyor’s report, the probable cause of fire could be due to short-circuiting, but we agree with the findings of the District Forum and State Commission that in this case also, the insurance company cannot escape responsibility to pay the claim under the Policy. We do not agree with the contention of the petitioner that the construction activity had resulted in increased risk for the insured stocks in question. It has also been made clear that there are separate electric connections for the ground floor and first floor and there are separate electricity meters for the same. It is not clear anywhere that the insured was required to obtain permission of the insurance company before starting the construction. The District Forum in their order have rightly assessed the value of the total stocks, in question and the value of the stocks lying safe in the godown, and allowed the claim after taking into consideration both these values. We, therefore, find no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission which reflect true appreciation of the facts and circumstances on record. These orders are, therefore, upheld and the present revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130807112019251RP23812012.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2012 (From the order dated 30.03.2012 in First Appeal No. 970/2008 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Regd. & Head Office 24, Whites Road Chennai – 600014 Through its Regional office No. 1 Kanchenjunga Building … Continue reading
Retd. Employee can not file a complaint before the consumer forum for his retirement benefits as he is not a consumer nor the dispute is consumer disputes comes under the jurisdiction of consumer forum = though the complaint was not maintainable as the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of the appellant as he was not a “consumer” and the dispute between the parties could not be redressed by the said Forum, but in view of the fact that the opposite party (State) neither raised the issue of jurisdiction before the District Forum nor preferred any appeal, order of the District Forum on the jurisdictional issue attained finality= 2(d) ‘consumer’ means any person who- (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person; [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose;= by no stretch of imagination a government servant can raise any dispute regarding his service conditions or for payment of gratuity or GPF or any of his retiral benefits before any of the Forum under the Act. The government servant does not fall under the definition of a “consumer” as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. Such government servant is entitled to claim his retiral benefits strictly in accordance with his service conditions and regulations or statutory rules framed for that purpose. The appropriate forum, for redressal of any his grievance, may be the State Administrative Tribunal, if any, or Civil Court but certainly not a Forum under the Act. 17. In view of the above, we hold that the government servant cannot approach any of the Forum under the Act for any of the retiral benefits. 18. Mr. Hooda has made a statement that all the dues for which the appellant had been entitled to had already been paid and the penal rent has also been dispensed with and the State is not going to charge any penal rent. If the State has already charged the penal rent, it will be refunded to the appellant within a period of two months. In view thereof, we do not want to pass any further order. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of. Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Shri Prateesh Kapur, learned Amicus Curiae. He is entitled for full fees as per the Rules.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40564 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5476 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 11381 of 2012) Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat …Appellant Versus Dir. Health Services, Haryana & Ors. …Respondent O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. This … Continue reading
whether complaints filed by the respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were maintainable and; b) whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003.= (i) In case of inconsistency between the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act will prevail, but ipso facto it will not vest the Consumer Forum with the power to redress any dispute with regard to the matters which do not come within the meaning of “service” as defined under Section 2(1)(o) or “complaint”as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (ii) A “complaint” against the assessment made by assessing officer under Section 126 or against the offences committed under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before a Consumer Forum. (iii) The Electricity Act, 2003 and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs parallel for giving redressal to any person, who falls within the meaning of “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Central Government or the State Government or association of consumers but it is limited to the dispute relating to “unfair trade practice” or a “restrictive trade practice adopted by the service provider”; or “if the consumer suffers from deficiency in service”; or “hazardous service”; or “the service provider has charged a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law”. 48. For the reasons as mentioned above, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders passed by the National Commission. They are accordingly set aside.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40487 Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5466 OF 2012 (arising out of SLP(C)No.35906 of 2011) U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. … APPELLANTS Versus ANIS AHMAD … RESPONDENT With C.A.No. 54675468 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No. 1828418285 of 2008) C.A.No. 5469 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No.14306 of 2009) C.A.No. 5470 of 2012 (@ SLP(C) No.33557 of 2011) C.A.No. 5471 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33558 of 2011) C.A.No. 5472 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33559 of 2011) C.A.No. 5473 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33560 of 2011) C.A.No. 5474 of 2012( @ SLP(C) No.33561 of 2011) C.A.No. 5475 of 2012 ( @ SLP(C) No.33562 of 2011) J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The questions involved in these appeals are; a) whether complaints filed by the respondents before the Consumer Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were maintainable and; b) whether the … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 