This tag is associated with 2 posts

3. We have heard Mr. Balraj Malik, Advocate at the stage of admission, after the revision petition was restored by our order dated 16.12.2011. We specifically enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant if any documentary evidence had been filed before the District Forum (a) to substantiate that 60 kg of paddy seeds were sufficient for sowing over an area of 15 acres; (b) regarding the likely average yield of paddy in that area; and (c) regarding the prevalent market (Mandi) rate of paddy at the relevant time. He accepted that no such document/evidence was filed by the petitioner before the District Forum in support of his contentions regarding the amount of loss suffered by him on account of the alleged defects in the paddy seeds but contended that the claims of the petitioner/complainant on the loss, etc., were not denied by the opposite parties before the District Forum. It is settled law that it is for the complainant to establish the loss, if any, suffered by him on account of any defect in the goods supplied (or deficiency in any service availed of) by producing acceptable evidence, supported by documents. Mere claim of loss and/or compensation of a certain amount cannot be accepted at face value. It is thus clear that the award of the District Forum was more a conjecture than being based on any cogent evidence. The State Commission was, thus, fully justified in modulating the award in the manner it did, particularly because the technical team reported that the quality of the seeds appeared to be one of the factors responsible for poor germination of the seeds – it was thus not the sole or predominant factor.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION No. 1808 of 2011 (From the order dated 24.01.2011 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Appeal no. 732 of 2007)   Suresh Kumar, son of Sadhu Ram Resident of Village Dumara Tehsil and District Kaithal, Haryana                                Petitioner   versus   1. Indian … Continue reading

“Till disruption of joint family status takes place no coparcener can claim what is his exact share in coparcenary property. It is liable to increase and decrease depending upon the addition to the number or departure of a male member and inheritance by survivorship. But once a disruption of joint family status takes place, coparceners cease to hold the property as joint tenants but they hold as tenants-in-common.”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7179 OF 2005 Man Singh (D) By LRs. …… Appellant Vs. Ram Kala (D) By LRs. & Ors. …… Respondents JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, J. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment dated January 7, 2004 passed by the High … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,200 hits



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

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com