Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc aurangabad Page 11 of about 120 results (0.138 seconds)

Jan 21 2014 (TRI)

Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Dhule partly allowing the consumer complaint No.335/2009 directing appellants/opponents to provide new electric connection to the respondent/complainant to issue electricity bill for the period of six months preceding date of disconnection of electric connection which was in the name of brother of respondent/complainant etc. Further appellants/opponents are directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent as complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Shri.Bajirao Patil is owner of field Gut No.81/1/1 admeasuring 60R of village Mandal, Tq.Shindkheda, Dist.Dhule. There is common well in the same field having shares of complaina...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2014 (TRI)

Sanjay Mihomal Godhwani Vs. Union Bank of India, Bhusawal Branch and A ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original complainant against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon in C.C.No.43/2007 whereby complaint is dismissed. Respondent No.1 is the original opponent No.1 whereas respondent No.2, 2a to 2d are original opponents No.2 and 2a to 2d. For the better understanding appellant is hereinafter termed as complainant whereas respondent No.1 as opponent bank and respondent No.2, 2a to 2d are collectively termed as opponent borrowers. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, the complainant had invested under fixed deposit scheme of opponent bank amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively for period of two years on 31.3.2000. This fixed deposit receipts were bearing number as 2656477 and 2656478 respectively. That, the said fixed deposit receipts were renewed again for a period of further two years on 31.3.2002 to 31.3.2005. It was contended by the complainant that since he w...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2014 (TRI)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., Through Junior Eng ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 19.09.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded partly allowing the consumer complaint No.158/2007 directing opponents/appellants to pay to the complainant damages of Rs.24,200/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental agony and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent as the complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Balaji Shinde is an agriculturist having field Gut No.88 admeasuring 20R and Gut No.89 admeasuring 40R of village Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded. Complainant is a consumer of opponents having electric connection in his field. In the year 2006-07 he had grown sugarcane in his field. On 9.5.2007 due to loose hanging electric wires of the electric lines passing from the field of complainant there was sparking and d...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 21 2014 (TRI)

Dr. Uday Sureshrao Shastri Vs. Proprietor, Malani Traders and Another

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 20.06.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad dismissing consumer complaint no.692/2008. For the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as œcomplainant? and the respondents as œopponents?. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, opponent no.2 H. R. Jonsons India Limited is a tiles manufacturing company. Opponent no.1 proprietor Malani Traders is a dealer of opponent no.2. On 15.07.2008 complainant Dr. Uday Shashtri purchased 50 boxes of tiles of premium quality from opponent no.1. The price of each box was of Rs.495/-. Thus the complainant has purchased tiles worth Rs.24,750/- from opponent no.1 vide purchase voucher no.3683. It is alleged by the complainant that after purchasing the tiles when those tiles were used by fixing in his newly constructed building, it was noticed that the tiles are of sub-standard quality. It is also a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 17 2014 (TRI)

Ashok Dyanoba Ubale Vs. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electric ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 20.9.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalna dismissing consumer complaint No.57/2008. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Ashok Ubale is an agriculturist having agriculture field bearing Gut No.41/2002 at Partur, Dist.Jalna. It is irrigated land. He grows sugarcane in his field. In the year 2006-07 he had grown 4 acres of sugarcane in his field. L.T. electric line is passing through his field. It is alleged that the electric wires of L.T. lines were hanging loose. But despite complaints of complainant, opponent has not taken any steps to maintain electric lines by tightening electric wires. 3. On 5.12.2007 due to loose electric wires there was sparking and due to sparking the sugarcane from the field of complainant caught fire. Complainant and ne...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2014 (TRI)

M/S JaIn Irrigation Systems Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. M/s Jain Irrigation System Ltd. situated at Jalgaon through its Vice President Mr.Dongarmal Inderchand Desarda preferred this complaint claiming insurance amount from opponent United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Mumbai. 2. Adv.Dhananjay Deshpande appeared for complainant. It is stated in the complaint that complainant is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act. Complainant is engaged in trading of agriculture inputs, manufacturing and supplying of wide range of quality agricultural inputs to enhance farm productivity, including water piping systems, on-farm irrigation system and superior biotech products etc. Complainant is well reputed company and pioneer in water creation, sourcing, storage structures, water distribution and water conservation devices like micro irrigation system and other agro products. 3. Complainant had obtained Marine Cargo insurance policy on estimated Annual Sales turn over basis from opponent. Policy was for the period 1....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2014 (TRI)

Manager, Wasan Automobiles and Another Vs. Sadashiv and Others

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original opponent no. 3 and 4 against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the District Forum, Ahmednagar in consumer complaint No. 332/2007, whereby complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No.1 is the original complainant (hereinafter termed as œcomplainant?), whereas the respondent no.2 and 3 which are financial companies are the original opponent no.1 and 2 (hereinafter jointly termed as œopponent finance company?) 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the complainant is a farmer and has purchased a Sarpanch-DI new tractor bearing registration No.MH.17-T-449 from the appellant no.1 for the total consideration of Rs.4,26,668/-. It is contended by the complainant that he sold his old tractor to the appellant no.2 for Rs.1,75,000/- and the said amount was paid to the appellant no.1 i.e. dealer of the tractor. In addition, he paid Rs.7...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2014 (TRI)

Regional Manager, Modi Agrogenetics Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Anil Vithal Dalavi an ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar partly allowing C.C.No.451/2007 directing appellant/opponent No.1 to pay to the complainant/respondent damages of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. and Rs.1000/- more towards compensation for causing mental agony. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent No.1 seed manufacturing company and respondent No.1 as the complainant and respondent No.2 as opponent No.2) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Complainant Anil Dalvi is an agriculturist having agriculture field at village Shendi, tq and Dist.Ahmednagar. Opponent No.1 is seed manufacturing company and opponent No.2 is a dealer. On 4.4.20007 complainant purchased 20 bags of groundnut seeds of Kamala Variety from opponent No.2, each bag was containing 20 Kg. groundnut seeds. It was manufactured by opponent No.1. Thereafter c...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2014 (TRI)

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Vs. Sayanna ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by original opponent against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Nanded in C.C.No.25/03 whereby the complaint is allowed. Respondent is legal heir of the original complainant. For the better understanding appellant which is insurance company is hereafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as the complainant. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, mother of complainant Smt.Bhojabai w/o Sayanna was the member of œGodjewali Seva Sahakari Society Ltd.,Tq.Kinwat, Dist.Nanded?. That, the said society had obtained Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy for its members from opponent insurance company. Sum insured under the said policy was Rs.1 lakh. It is the case of complainant that on 7.7.2002 said Bhojabai had left the house for collecting firewood from the forest but did not return till the evening and even after two days inspite of making search by her family members and...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 09 2014 (TRI)

M/S Sunil Somvanshi and Company, Through Its Prop. Mr. Sunil Laxman So ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. These are the cross appeals filed against common judgment and order dated 4.11.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Aurangabad in C.C.No.18/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed. Appellant in appeal No.1254/2008 is the original opponent who is promoters and builders whereas appellant in appeal No.1256/2008 is the original complainant. For the better understanding the appellant in appeal No.1254/2008 who is respondent in appeal No.1256/2008 is herein after termed as œopponent builder? and appellant in appeal No.1256/2008 who is respondent in 1254/2008 is hereinafter termed as the original complainant. 2. Appeal No.1254/2008 filed by opponent builder is for setting aside the impugned judgment and order, whereas appeal No.1256/2008 filed by original complainant is for the enhancement of the compensation. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is same we have decided to dispose them off by a common judgment. 3. The facts of the complainants case...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //