district forum

This tag is associated with 18 posts

whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible. = Neither there is any averment in the complaint about the suffering of punitive damages by the other consumers nor the appellant was aware that any such claim is to be met by it. Normally, punitive damages are awarded against a conscious wrong doing unrelated to the actual loss suffered. Such a claim has to be specially pleaded.-The National Commission in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was only concerned about the correctness or otherwise of the order of the State Commission setting aside the relief given by the District Forum and to pass such order as the State Commission ought to have passed. However, the National Commission has gone much beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the relief which was neither sought in the complaint nor before the State Commission. We are thus, of the view that to this extent the order of the National Commission cannot be sustained. = 2014- Oct. Part – CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8072-8073 OF 2009 GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ….. APPELLANT VERSUS ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. ….. RESPONDENTS


Sec.25,26 and 27 of Consumer Act = Builder failed to provide amenities , Club House etc., and made constructions against the rules of Municipal Nagara Palika – Deficiency in service – consent decree to pay interest on failure to full fill obligations – Executions filed – Appeal lies but not revision – On merits also the builder is at deficiency of service = M/s. Sunny Brooks -vs – Aparajitha Bhandary = published in

Sec.25,26 and 27 of Consumer Act = Builder failed to provide amenities , Club House etc., and made constructions against the rules of Municipal Nagara Palika – Deficiency in service – consent decree to pay interest on failure to full fill obligations – Executions filed – Appeal lies but not revision – On merits also the builder is at deficiency of service =  The State … Continue reading

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

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

Non allotment of site as per allotment letter even after 11 years after depositing entire amount for constructing Jain temple by Authorities on lame excuses is nothing but deficiency of service = 1. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority through its Chief Administrator, PUDA Bhawan, Sector-62, SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2. The Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority, SCO 41, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar(Now JDA) …Petitioners Versus Sh. Atmanand Jain Shabha (Regd.), Chowk Jain Mandir Bazar Kalan, Jalandhar, through its President …Respondent – published in

Non allotment of site as per allotment letter even after 11 years after depositing entire amount for constructing Jain temple by Authorities on lame excuses is nothing but deficiency of service = District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Jalandhar (for short, ‘District Forum’) vide its order dated 26.2.2007, allowed the complaint and passed the following directions; “We … Continue reading

Damage to the crop due pesticides – not proved; Claim by other persons whoes names not mentioned in the purchased Bill = (2012) 2 SCC 506 – National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. in which it was held that not only the purchaser of goods, but also beneficiaries who use the goods with approval of the person who purchased goods fall within purview of consumer. We agree with the proposition of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, but in the case in hand, complainants have submitted in paragraph 1 of the complaint that they have purchased pesticides for a sum of Rs.9,000/- whereas bill dated 12.12.2006 is in the name of only Complainant no. 2. Further, perusal of complaint reveals that nowhere complainants have alleged that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant nos. 3 to 9 used aforesaid pesticides with approval of complainant no.2. In such circumstances, it cannot be inferred that Complainant No. 1 and Complainant Nos. 3 to 9 sprayed purchased pesticides on their crop with the approval of Complainant No. 2 who purchased pesticides from OP No. 2 and 3, and in such circumstances, Complainant No. 1 and Complainant 3 to 9 do not fall within purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in holding that except Complainant No. 2, rest of the complainants do not fall within purview of consumer.- Complainants have not placed on record any laboratory report to substantiate that crops were damaged 100% due to application of pesticide. Report of Agriculture Development Officer only reveals that there was 100% damage to the wheat crop. These officers have not carried out any test to ascertain whether 100% damage to the wheat crop was due to application of purchased pesticides or not. They have mentioned damage as told by the complainants meaning thereby without carrying out any test regarding application of pesticides on the wheat crop. They have given report regarding damage to the crop due to application of purchased pesticides. 8. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

published in NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 4446 OF 2012 (From the order dated 13.07.2012 in Appeal No. 859/2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) 1. Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Khicchu 2. Radha Charan S/o Sh. Puran Lal 3. Mahendar S/o Sh. Heti 4. Devraj S/o Sh. Puran Lal 5. Parkash S/o Sh. Khema 6. Chander S/o Sh. Khajan Singh 7. Nand Kishore S/o Sh. Shiv Charan 8. Shyam S/o Sh. Uttam Singh 9. Rajender S/o Sh. Bhagmal All R/o of Village Mohna, … Continue reading

Accident claim = when the drivers licence was not valid and was not renewed at the time of accident, petitioner is not entitled to 75% of the claim on non-standard basis and respondent has not committed any error in repudiating claim.

published in NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 75-76 OF 2013 (From the order dated 08.11.2012 in Appeal No. FA/12/95 & FA/12/98 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur) Alok Waghe S/o Shri S.D. Waghe R/o LIG, Tatibandh, Raipur, Ditrict Raipur (C.G.)                                                                   …Petitioner/Complainant Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager, Shimangal Bhawan, Pandri Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)                                                               …Respondent/Opp. Party … 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 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

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 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

Complainant/respondent submitted application for sanction of loan to OP/petitioner and deposited Rs.39,326/- as process fee. Loan was not disbursed to the complainant; hence, complainant served notice on the OP for refund of process fee, but OP did not refund process fee. Complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP filed complaint before District Forum. Respondent/OP did not appear before District Forum. During pendency of complaint, OP refunded Rs.39,326/- to the complainant. Learned District Forum after hearing complainant allowed complaint and directed OP to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.39,326/- from 5.10.2007 till date of payment and further awarded Rs.11,000/- for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. = Perusal of record reveals that as per Annexure P-5, loan was sanctioned by the petitioner, but disbursement of loan was subject to certain conditions, as mentioned in sanction letter. It appears that respondent did not avail loan facility due to technical difficulty as mentioned by respondent in letter dated 16.5.2010. Thus, it becomes clear that there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner. After filing of the complaint, process fee though non-refundable was refunded by the petitioner to the respondent and respondent vide Annexure P-7 dated 16.5.2010 apprised petitioner that now respondent has no grievance and he assured to withdraw all legal proceedings, which he has filed, meaning thereby, it was obligatory on the part of respondent to withdraw complaint filed before District Forum after receiving process fee. It appears that respondent has not acted with clean hands before District Forum. He has also mentioned wrong fact that loan was not sanctioned.- Once the respondent received process fee in full and final satisfaction, he should have withdrawn complaint as assured and he was not entitled to receive any interest on that amount as well compensation and cost as apparently there was no deficiency on the part of petitioner

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI     REVISION PETITION NO. 4797 of 2012 (From the order dated 14.09.2012 in Appeal No. 158/2012 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur)     I.D.B.I. Bank D-24, Durlabh Niwas, Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan through Branch Manager             …   Petitioner/Opp. Party (OP) Versus 1. Subhash Shah S/o Om Prakash Shah R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Sarika Shah W/o Subhash Shah R/o B-5, Hari Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, … Continue reading

the Bank had failed to insure the property.=The State Commission was also informed that in all cases of house loan advanced in Tiruchirapalli by the OP/Bank, during 2003-09 period, the bank itself had insured all houses. In none of the cases, premium was directly paid to the insurance company by the borrower. Clause 13 in the loan agreement needs to be viewed in this background. Had the OP/Bank acted with promptitude and insured the house in time, the benefit of insurance would have been available when the floods came and damaged it. This lapse was further compounded by belated effort on the part of the Bank to ensure it, at the cost of the complainant. The State Commission has therefore rightly held it to be a case of deficiency of service.- the decision of the Tamilnadu Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 194 of 2011 is bases on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. There is no case for intervention by this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision petition is therefore dismissed and the impugned order is confirmed. Further, considering the conduct of the revision petitioner an additional cost of Rs 25,000 is awarded to the respondent/complainant. The same shall be paid by the revision petitioner within three months. Failing this, the amount shall carry interest at 9% for the period of delay.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO.4645 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 24.07.2012 in First Appeal No.194/2011 of the State Commission, Tamil Nadu)   1. The Chairman Indian Bank Chennai   2. The Manager Indian Bank, Thillai Nagar, 10th Cross, Tiruchirapalli- 18                                                                                                                                       ……….Petitioners     Versus 1. Consumer Protection Council Tamilnadu, No.2, RMS Building, … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,913,905 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com