advocatemmmohan
consumer protection act
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
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
APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 193 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL – REFUSED AS THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLEGATION THAT HIS COUNSEL NOT INTIMATED = It is surprising to note that the application does not mention the name of the earlier counsel. There is nothing on record to show that any complaint has been filed before the Bar Council or any legal notice was served upon earlier counsel. There is also nothing on record to show that petitioners have initiated any action against their earlier counsel for deficiency in services, under the Act. Affidavit of earlier counsel also did not see the light of the day. The petitioners are supposed to explain the ‘day-to-day’ delay but the needful was not done. Such like stories can be created at any time. To our mind, in such like cases, false allegations are often made against the counsel so that the delay should be condoned. It is the duty cast on the petitioners themselves to find out as to what has happened to their case and why appeal has not been filed. They cannot put entire blame upon their counsel. The facts of this case rather reveal negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioners themselves. – It is well settled that Qui facit per alium facit per se. Negligence of a litigant’s agent is negligence of the litigant himself and is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/001306101 14937239RP20512013.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2051 OF 2013 with I.A. No.3375 of 2013 (Stay Application) (From the order dated 25.3.2013 First Appeal No.193/2013 of the State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) 1. DLF Home Developers Limited DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Shri Atul Srivastava, S/o Shri H.C. Srivastava, DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi … Continue reading
TELE Brand articles were damaged in transit by the local delivery agent of the TELE Brand worth Rs.40,000/- Claim allowed by both lower forums. Their Lordships also confirmed the same= It is also submitted that the damage to the goods might have been caused due to defective/improper packing and in any case, it was not declared by the consignor complainant that the packages contained fragile items like dinner set, coffee set, tea set, glassware and Microwave Oven etc. This submission too is liable to be rejected because these items find a clear mention in the list attached with the goods receipt issued by the petitioner. Thus, looked from any angle there is no escape from the conclusion that the damage to the aforesaid goods was caused after the goods were entrusted to the petitioner for carriage and delivery at the place of destination. The petitioner as a cargo carrier was obliged to take proper care and to ensure that no damage was caused to the consignment. The Fora below have therefore, rightly held the petitioner guilty of deficiency in service in that behalf. We have also no reason to differ from the concurrent findings and orders recorded by the Fora below. In this connection, we may refer to a letter /certificate issued by TELE Brands (India) Manufacturing dated 05.12.1997, which has been issued by a certain Mahtesh Bassapa Gudi, who appears to be working as the agent of the petitioner for the purpose of delivery of the various consignments received by the petitioner for carriage and delivery. In this certificate, the above named Bassapa Gudi had certified as under: “I, Mahtesh Bassapa Gudi, aged 18 years, state that I, today, dated 05.12.1997, came to deliver three packets. Packet bearing No. T/R No. AW70449 dated 05.012.1997 in the name of Hiteshi Ishrani. These packets were open in my presence. I observed that all Goods were broken, which includes One Dinner Set, some Glasses, One Microwave and other Kitchen Crockery broken, the Goods which were received by Gati Cargo at Jaipur and in Mumbai, I have come to deliver the same on behalf of Gati Cargo. These Goods broken on the way from Jaipur to Mumbai. Value of these broken Goods are approx.. Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only). Along with me, Ratan Kamble came to deliver these goods. Broken Goods, Crockery etc., returned to me by Hiteshi Ishrani.”
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2011 (Against the order dated 31.10.2011 in Appeal No. 2007 of 2008 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) M/s. Gati Limited, Having its Registered Office at 1-7-293, MG Road, Secunderabad – 500 003 And Concerned Branch Office At Gati Desk to Desk Cargo, Janta Colony, … Continue reading
whether the first respondent who functioned as the President of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Madhya Pradesh (“State Commission” for short) for a period of about 4 years and 11 months, after his retirement as a High Court Judge, was entitled to receive pension for this subsequent period in the = Insofar as the order dated April 5, 2002 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh according sanction for counting the service of the respondent on the post of President, State = In view of divergence of opinion in terms of separate judgments pronounced by us in this appeal today, the Registry is directed to place the papers before Hon’ble the Chief Justice for appeal being assigned to an appropriate Bench.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5322 OF 2005 The Accountant General, M.P. …. Appellant Versus S.K. Dubey & Anr. ….Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. Lodha, J. The Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh is in appeal, by special leave, aggrieved by the judgment and order … Continue reading
mere pleadings are not enough, one has to file affidavit to prove the case. absence of affidavit is fatal=No evidence has been filed before us through this revision petition to rebut the ground on which the appeal came to be dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned order. Coming to the merits, so far as the order of the District Forum is concerned, we find that as per the well-established procedure the District Forum has to settle the consumer disputes on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the opposite party, where the opposite party denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint. Since the petitioner failed to prove its submissions through affidavit in evidence, the same could not be accepted by the District Forum. It is seen from the order of the District Forum that after filing its reply containing submissions not supported by any affidavit, the petitioner also chose to remain absent and was proceeded against ex parte. In the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum or dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the State Commission through the impugned order.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2864 OF 2011 (From the Order dated 31.05.2011 in FA No 738/2011 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur) Indian Institute of Professional Studies Through Mr. Anuj Kumar Goyal Petitioner Assistant Director Deep Bhawan, Polytechnic Chauraha Faizabad Road, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.) Versus Smt. … Continue reading
goods damaged in transit = compensation = consumer foram=”……Any civilized system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from, another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognized to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.”
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3546 OF 2006 M/s Nagpur Golden Transport Company (Regd.) … Appellant Versus M/s Nath Traders & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 