advocatemmmohan
Panchkula
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 http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/0013092511533404RP444612.htm 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
Patient admitted as Dengue later said as“aplastic anaemia” which is called blood cancer = patient died within 24 Hours – No Medical treatment Case record produced – Medical negligence proved – No expert need be examined = “It is admitted case of the opposite parties that as per the above tests, the disease suffered by the patient is known as ‘Aplastic Anemia’ which is called Blood Cancer in common language and not Dengue. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the patient was given the treatment of cancer or that the complainant was advised to shift his minor son (patient) to some other hospital for better treatment of cancer where the treatment of cancer was available. The patient was brought to the hospital of the opposite parties on 14.10.1998 and died on 15.10.1998. Thus, the opposite parties have rightly been held negligent and deficient in service while treating the minor son of the complainant. Though the opposite parties have taken the plea that they had given proper treatment to the patient, but before the District Forum the opposite parties failed to produce the treatment chart of the patient which proves the act and conduct of the opposite parties with respect to the treatment given to the patient. It is the case where the complainant has lost his hope due to death of his son aged about 10 years.” = expert opinion is not necessary in all cases where the negligence and deficiency in service of the treating doctor is established from the facts and circumstances of the case. Treating doctor can be involved in a criminal offence of medical negligence when there is some evidence of higher degree but the civil liability of the treating doctor for the wrong treatment given to a patient can be fastened on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case.= Following observations of the Apex Court in the case of V. Kishan Rao (Supra) may be reproduced to clarify this aspect further:- “50. In a case where negligence is evident, the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself. In such a case it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence.” 10. In view of the above enumerated position in law, the least that can be expected of the petitioner / opposite parties was to produce the treatment record of the deceased child so as to enable the foras below to conclude if the petitioners had taken a reasonable care of the deceased patient or they were negligent in their duty to treat the child. From the observations of the State Commission reproduced above, it is evident that the petitioners failed to produce the treatment chart of the deceased patient in their evidence. In the absence of the treatment record, which could have thrown light on the issue of medical negligence, we are of the view that the foras below have rightly concluded that the petitioners were negligent in the treatment of the deceased child. Thus, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in liminie with no order as to costs.
published in http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00130816112150467RP46842012.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO.4684 OF 2012 (From the order dated 12.09.2012 in First Appeal No.238/2005 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) WITH IA/1/2012 IA/2/2012 (C/COPY & STAY) 1. Sun Flag Hospital Research Centre ..…. Petitioners … Continue reading
Service matter – whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for short “the Regulations 1990”], is it obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a full fledged departmental inquiry even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which no departmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations.= Sub-regulation 8 of Regulation 7, which reads as follows: “7(8). Where an employee has been charge-sheeted under this regulation and the Competent Authority, on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet is of the opinion that no major punishment as laid down in Regulation-4 (vi to x) is called for, it may dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight-away any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.” 12. Above referred regulations, especially Regulation 7(8) clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Minor penalty, as per the Regulation, can be inflicted without holding any departmental inquiry, by giving only a show-cause-notice and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation to the show-cause-notice. Personal hearing can also be afforded and also can be dispensed with by a speaking order.= The delinquent officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a conscious decision to impose only a minor penalty, i.e. barring one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated. Learned District Judge as well as the High Court, in our view, has committed a grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Board which, in our view, is perfectly legal, going by the regulations referred to herein before. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned District Judge as well as that of the High Court is set aside. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, by virtue of the punishment imposed, he has not been given his due promotion. We are of the view that if imposition of a minor penalty is not a bar in granting promotion to the respondent, due promotion be granted to him in accordance with the Rules and Regulations applicable to him.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40611 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6150 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5230 of 2013] D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & Others .. Appellants Versus Yashvir Singh Gulia .. Respondent J U D G M E N T K. S. Radhakrishnan, … 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
Hawa Singh Meel, the complainant in this case desired to purchase the seeds of Ashwagandha (Winder Chery) from M/s Adinath Trading Company, Mandi Prangan, Neemuch (M.P.). Opposite Party No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2 was to supply the seed of Ashwagandha on 24.06.2003 through Transport Corporation of India,the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to deliver the goods to the complainant after obtaining the demand draft and thus the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 clearly stands established is without any flaw. The opposite Party No.1 could not explain why it had not given the consignee copy to the complainant. This was not denied that the opposite party No.1 had received the demand draft. The complainant had also placed the bilty which showed that M/s Addinath Trading Company, Mandi Prangan, Neemuch (M.P.) sent the bag containing seed to the Opposite Party No.1 for the complainant. The complainant rightly refused to take the seed in the month of November as the sowing season was already over. 5. The revision petition is without merit and therefore the same is dismissed.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1826 OF 2012 (Against the order dated 12-01-2012 in Appeal No. 1890/2005 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) WITH I.A./1/2012 (For stay) Transport Corporation of India …….. Petitioner (s) Mohana Mandi, Hisar, Haryana Through its Zonal Manager, Shri Rohit Pant Versus 1. Hawa Singh … Continue reading
Tube well repairs = mere filing of an affidavit of the petitioner/complainant in the absence of any written agreement/contract which normally incorporates the kind of service to be rendered and under what terms and conditions, mere filing of affidavit ipso facto without corroborative/other supportive material would not constitute sufficient evidence. It is not the case of the petitioner/complainant that the job work entrusted to the respondent/opposite party was pursuant to any written agreement/contract which incorporated the conditions of payment/supply of material. In the absence of any such written agreement/contract, mere submissions and contentions would not be sufficient to hold the respondent/opposite party liable and that is precisely what the State Commission has done. We further notice that the respondent/opposite party in his written version to the complaint had very emphatically denied the allegation and on the contrary had stated that the complaint has been filed to avoid payment of more than Rs.20,000/- outstanding against the complainant against the electric motor purchased on loan from one of his relatives. The possibility of a false claim as a counter-blast therefore cannot be ruled out especially when the complainant has filed no rejoinder. 7. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity much less any jurisdictional error calling for our interference in the impugned order and dismiss the revision petition in limine.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4228 OF 2011 [Against the order dated 07.09.2011 in First Appeal No. 159/2006 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula] Lachhman Dass alias Lachhman Ram S/o Ajmer Singh R/o Village Devi Nagar Tehsil and District Ambala … Petitioner Versus Joginder Singh Mistry S/o Chanan Ram R/o Village Mehdoodan Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala … Respondent BEFORE : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE … Continue reading
The perusal of the inspection report dated 25.9.2001 reveals that the meter was got installed by the complainant inside the hospital whereas as per rules it was to be installed at the front portion of the hospital. In other words the complainant was getting benefit of the hole in the meter by getting the meter installed inside so that theft of energy could be easily made. It is well settled principle of law that a consumer in whose custody the meter is provided by the Nigam is under a legal obligation to keep it intact and any tempering with it directly or indirectly shall be termed theft of energy under the circumstances of the case. In the present case admittedly the checking was conducted by the Vigilance staff in the company of other officials of the Nigam and their report cannot be disbelieved without any cogent, convincing and corroborating evidence contrary to it. The complainant in the present case has miserably failed to disclose as to what was the reason for developing a hole inside the meter. Checking report dated 25.9.2001 which is signed by the complainant as well as the members of the checking party, is sufficient to prove it a case of theft of energy. The observations of the District Consumer Forum, Sirsa that the seals were found intact and therefore, there was no question of committing theft of electric energy but this observation of the District Forum is not sustainable for the reason that it is a novel way of committing theft of energy because consumer inserts some hard object through the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc in order to abstract energy dishonestly without tempering of the seal. It is further observed that by drilling a hole it is the complaint who is to be benefited with respect to committing of theft of energy by inserting some hard object in the hole of the meter to stop the movement of the disc. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of installation of the meter the said hole was there. It is also not the case of the complainant that the hole has developed due to any climatic change or with passage of time. The appellants-opposite parties have produced the meter in question which has a drilling hole in it. Admittedly the drilling process is the outcome of the nefarious and illegal designs of complainant to commit theft of energy through the hole. No person would drill a hole in the meter unless he gets any benefit from it. Hence this case is distinguishable from the observation made in Gautam Plastic and Ram Nath case (supra).
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 2390 OF 2010 (From the Order dated 11.05.2010 in Appeal No. 2994/2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula) Dr. Laxman Dass Bansal Petitioner C/o Bansal Hospital Old Bus Stand, Rania Tahsil Rania Rania District Sirsa Versus 1. Executive Engineer Respondents (OP) Division Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Sirsa Distt. Sirsa 2. SDO (OP) Sub-Division Ph-1, Sas Nagar Branch … Continue reading
the complaint is barred by limitation and also it is a voluntary surrender of plot on his failure to pay required instalments=The petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation that he was compelled to surrender the plot allotted to him by the respondent in view of HUDA’s failure to carry out the necessary development works. On the other hand, the HUDA pointed out that the complainant had voluntarily surrendered the plot under his letter dated 08.05.2003 and received the refund of Rs.1,80,723/- from the HUDA by cheque no. 1030653 dated 25.08.2003. There was no protest by the allottee/complainant. However, he filed a complaint on 14.09.2006 alleging that his surrender of the plot was not voluntary but due to the non-completion of necessary development works.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4529 OF 2010 (From the order dated 05.07.2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in First Appeal no. 2161 of 2006) Puran Chand Son of Jaisha Ram House no. 485, Ward 7 Near Gurdwara Bahi Sant Narain Singh Petitioner Panipat, Haryana Through G.P.A holder Mukesh Kumar, son of Bihari Lal House no. 530, Sector 8 Panipat, Haryana versus 1. … Continue reading
supression of material fact of heart problem while reviving the policy, not entitled for assured sum on the death of policy holder=The complainant was the son and nominee of the life assured (Sarbati Devi) who had obtained a life insurance policy from the respondent for the sum of Rs.48,000/-. This policy lapsed because of non-payment of half-yearly premiums due on 28.09.1999 and thereafter. However, it was revived for the full assured amount on 04.12.2000 after necessary payment and on the basis of personal declaration dated 04.12.2000 of the life assured. The said life assured, however, died of heart attack on 09.12.2000, i.e., within one week of revival of the insurance policy. The LIC repudiated the insurance claim by its letter dated 08.06.2002 on the ground that at the time of revival of the policy,Sarbati Devi withheld material information regarding the status of her health.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2749 OF 2006 (From the order dated 20.07.2006 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula in Appeal no. 246 of 2004) Lal Chand, son of Shri Birbal Resident of village Kutipur P.O. Bhood Kalan, Khizerabad East Petitioner Tehsil Chhachhrauli District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana versus Life Insurance Corporation of India Through its Manager (L & HPF) Respondent Divisional Office, Chandigarh … Continue reading
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION=though the site is purchased in public auction, he can be treated as consumer as the terms and conditions are like that and the auction is not an out and out sale, later terms saddled with some obligations on the HUDA =..In a situation like this, the auction purchaser of an existing site/plot/house will certainly be a “consumer” of, in accord with the provisions of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, the promised developmental “service” of the Authority in question, from the date of the letter of allotment till such time the promised service/s is/are delivered to the satisfaction of the purchaser, in accordance with the service provider’s, i.e., the Authority’s commitment in this behalf. The ruling of the Apex Court in the UT Chandigarh case does not, in my respectful view, cater for a situation where an auction purchaser buys an existing plot of land, not on “as is where is” basis but with an explicit commitment on the part of the original owner/auctioning entity to offer possession after completion of development works in the area”. (v) In the Suneja case, this Commission further observed that the Apex Court itself did not find it fit to disentitle an auction purchaser to his simultaneous identity as a “consumer” under the Act in two cases decided in quick succession after the U.T. Chandigarh Administration case, viz., the cases of Haryana Urban Development Authority and Another vSatish Hans [(2009) 7 SCC 282] and Madan Kumar Singh vs District Magistrate, Sultanpur [IV (2009) CPJ 3 (SC)]. 5. It need not be emphasised that in this case too, clause 6 of the allotment letter is identically worded as that in the Suneja case referred to above. Therefore, by the same logic, the status of the petitioner as a “consumer” under the Act and consequently, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate on the dispute cannot be ousted by mechanical application of the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in the U T Chandigarh Administration case on the ground that the plot of land in question was sold by the respondent HUDA in an open auction, unmindful of the provisions of clauses of the letter of allotment, particularly clause 6. Further, the fact of deficiency in service in terms of failure of the respondent HUDA to carry out the assured development works in the area is amply established by evidence led before the District Forum in not one but two complaint proceedings, a point conceded by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 729 OF 2011 (From the order dated 26.11.2010 in Appeal no. 1146 of 2002 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Panchkula) Rajil Khod Son of Hait Ram Khod Resident of 143, C Block Petitioner Near New Anaj Mandi Sirsa versus Haryana Urban Development Authority Through Estate Officer, Respondent Hisar BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. C. … Continue reading
