Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc aurangabad Page 2 of about 120 results (0.370 seconds)

Apr 30 2014 (TRI)

Mehboob MuniroddIn Shaikh Vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd. and Another

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant against the judgment and order dated 19/03/2014 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Parbhani in CC.No. 31/2014 whereby the complaint came tobe dismissed. The respondents herein are the original opponents. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the complainant had purchased Nano car bearing No. MH-22-U-2784 from the respondent No. 2 which is a dealer of Nano Motor as manufactured by Tata Company which is hereinafter termed as the œopponent dealer?. That, the complainant had obtained loan for purchase of this Nano car from the respondent No. 1 i.e. Tata Motors Finance Ltd hereinafter termed as the œ Opponent finance company?. It was contended that since the said Nano car had some manufacturing defects, it was given to the opponent dealer for repairs on 01/08/2012 and the same was in the possession of the opponent dealer till the date of filing of the complaint. That, during the possessi...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 25 2014 (TRI)

S.S. Kantilal Ishwarlal Securities Private Limited Vs. Manju Suresh Mu ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals are directed against the separate judgments and orders dated 16.1.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon partly allowing complaint case No.262/07 and 261/07. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent No.3 S.S.Kantilal Ishwarlal Pvt.Ltd. and respondent No.1 in both the appeals as complainants and respondent No.2 and 3 as opponent No.1 and 2). As the appellant as well as respondent No.2 and 3 i.e. original opponent No.1 and 2 are common and facts of both the appeals are common, we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- Shri.Tushar Vijay Shinde is Managing Director of opponent No.1 Soni Investment. Opponent No.2 Shri.Vijay is father of Shri.Tushar Vijay Shinde, opponent No.3/appellant S.S.Kantilal Ishwarlal Securities is a company incorporated under the Company Act and depository participant register...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 23 2014 (TRI)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Vs. Ramlal Uttam Pa ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Assistant Engineer of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Jalgaon on 2.9.2008 while allowing consumer complaint No.301/08. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are under: Complainant Ramlal Uttam Patil resident of village Dalwel, Tq.Parola, Dist.Jalgaon is small land holder. He is running hotel business on the land Gut No.17 situated on State High way No.6. For running said hotel he had obtained electric connection from the appellant. There was continuously load shedding therefore he applied for single phase connection by changing his three phase connection. Said was sanctioned by Divisional Office and accordingly material for installation the said connection was arrived on the spot. But suddenly one day said single phase was refused on the ground that complainant is in arrears of electricity bills. Therefore complainant approached to Forum....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2014 (TRI)

Aman Gruha Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jalgaon, Through Its Chai ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. Both these appeals have been originated from common judgment and order dated 29.8.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon in C.C.442/2007 whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding appellants as liable for deficiency in service . Appeal No.1058/08 is filed by the original opponent No.1 to 3. Opponent No.1 is housing society, opponent No.2 is the Chairman of Society and opponent No.3 is the Secretary of the Society whereas appeal No.1110/08 is filed by original opponent No.5 who is Ex.Chairman of the said housing society. Respondent No.1 in both the appeals is original complainant , respondent No.2 in appeal No.1058/2008 and respondent NO.5 in appeal No.1110/08 is original opponent No.4 and he is contractor. For better understanding appellants in both the appeals who are office bearers of the society are hereinafter collectively termed as "opponent office bearers of the society", respondent No.1 in both the appeals is herein after termed as 'complain...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 22 2014 (TRI)

Santoshi Mata Vit Karkhana Vs. Manager, Cholamandalam M.S. General and ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This complaint is filed by Shri.Rajendra Thakare who is proprietor of Jai Santoshi Mata bricks factory situated at Gut No.204/1 of village Dighave, Tq.Sakri, Dist.Dhule against the Cholamandalam Insurance Company alleging deficiency in service. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that, the complainant is running brick industry for which he had obtained loan from Central Bank of India i.e. opponent NO.3. That, he had obtained insurance policy through opponent No.1 and 2 bank by name Fire and Special Perils on 4.9.2010 for the total insured sum of Rs.50 lakhs covering period of policy from 28.8.2010 to 27.8.2011. That, on 28.2.2011 there was untimely heavy rain associated with stormy wind due to which complainant had sustained damage of his raw-material of the bricks and also finished product of bricks. It was submitted that raw bricks were 7 lakhs which were damaged, value of which was Rs.13,25,000/-, in addition cement concrete wall measuring 10 X 20 ft. was...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (TRI)

i.C.i.C.i.Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vilakshana Chakradha ...

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 30.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad allowing consumer complaint directing opponent/appellant insurance company to pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs.1 lakhs with interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 7.2.2005 and further amount of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as the complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Chakradhar Khawale who was the husband of complainant Smt.Vilakshana was an agriculturist and died in motor-accident on 18.12.2005. The Government of Maharashtra had obtained insurance policy for the farmers under "Farmers Accident Insurance Policy" from opponent insurance company covering risk of Rs.1 lakh for each farmer. Therefore after the death of husband of complainant she submitted insurance claim...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 11 2014 (TRI)

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Through Supdt. ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is preferred by the original opponents who are the officeRs.of the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 16/01/2009 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum Nanded in CC.No.326/2008, whereby the complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants as liable for the deficiency in service. The respondent is the original complainant. 2. Factual aspects of this case in a nutshell are that the respondent is a farmer having ancestral agricultural land bearing Gut.No. 474 of village Barad Tq. Mukhed Dist. Nanded. That, there is a well in this Gut.No. on which electric pump is installed for which the father of the complainant had obtained electric connection from the appellants. It is further submitted that during the year 2006-07 he had planted sugarcane in the said land admeasuring 3 and half acre. That, 11 kv electric line had also passed from the said G.No. 474 having one cut point in the land of the c...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (TRI)

NitIn Maroti Kale Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad and Another

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This complaint is filed by Shri.Nitin Maruti Kale against the opponent No.1 and 2 alleging deficiency in service against the opponents. 2. The brief facts of this complaint are that, complainant runs a business of ginning and pressing at village Nathapur, Tq. and Dist. Beed. That, he had obtained cash credit loan of Rs.4 crores against the receipt of 2300 cotton bales which were deposited with opponent No.2 i.e. National Bulk Handling Corporation Ltd., Beed (hereinafter referred as NBHC). The terms and conditions of the loan were that the margin of the said loan was agreed up to 25%, rate of interest was fixed at @ 12% p.a. and period of repayment was 12 months as applied to cash credit loan. That, the complainant after availing loan had deposited amount of interest and loan with the opponent No.1 i.e. State Bank of Hyderabad to the tune of Rs.77 lakhs and thus loan account of complainant was regular. However, opponent bank started demanding entire amount of loa...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 04 2014 (TRI)

Ramesh Vs. M/S. Scoda Auto India Pvt.Ltd. and Others

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. This is a complaint u/s. 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the œAct?). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are that, complainant Shri. Ramesh Ramprasad Mantri who is a retired Judicial Officer and now legal practioner was in a need of luxury car. Therefore in the month of Nov.- December, 2009 he was in search of luxury car which suits to his needs and status. During that process he found that respondent No.1 who is a manufacturer and trader of Scoda Superb Elegance Top-class car has been advertising which would give uninterrupted service for years together. Opponents-2 and 3 are the authorized dealers of opponent No.1 M/s. Scoda Auto India Pvt. Limited. Therefore, complainant Shri. Mantri contacted opponent No.3 who impressed upon him that the Scoda Superb Elegance car is a top class luxury vehicle and would be giving smooth service without any complaint for years together. Relying on the representat...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 03 2014 (TRI)

Kishor Laxminarayan Mantri and Others Vs. Prabhavati Vijaykumar Kulkar ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. Both these appeals have been filed by the original opponents 1 and 3 to 5 against the common judgment and order dated 14/07/2008 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum Nanded, in CC.No.82/2008 whereby complaint is partly allowed holding the appellants in both these appeals as liable for deficiency in service. The respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is the original complainant whereas other respondents in both the appeals are the original opponents. For better understanding the appellants in appeal No. 948/2008 who are the buildeRs.and developeRs.are herein after termed as œ the opponent builders? and the appellant in appeal No. 1403/2008 which is HDFC Ltd, herein after termed as œopponent HDFC Ltd? The respondent Sow. Sunanda w/o. Maruti Dande is hereinafter termed as œthe opponent No.2? and the respondent No. 4 in appeal No. 948/2008 which is ICICI bank is termed as the œOpponent ICICI bank? and the respondent No. 5 in appeal No. 948 and re...

Tag this Judgment!


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