Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: maharashtra state consumer disputes redressal commission scdrc aurangabad Page 3 of about 120 results (0.184 seconds)

Mar 19 2014 (TRI)

Syngenta India Ltd. Vs. Rohidas Kishan Jadhav and Others

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Appeal No.31/2010 arising out of complaint case No.317/2009 while appeal No.32/2010 arising out of C.C.No.431/2009 and appeal No.230/2010 is arising out of C.C.No.593/2009. All these appeals are filed by Syngenta India Ltd. through its Regional Sales Manager Shri.Sangle, Pune challenging the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar partly allowing above mentioned three complaints. All the appeals are related to common subject matter. Hence we are deciding these appeals by common judgment and order. 2. Complaints were filed regarding the defective seeds of tomato manufactured by Syngenta India Ltd. Complainant Rohidas Kisan Jadhav, resident of Ambad, Ahmednagar had purchased 7 packets of 10 gm tomato seeds on 30.10.2008 for the consideration of Rs.4480/-. Said seeds were sown in 60R of area of land Gut No.90/06. Complainant Sunil Rambhau Walunj resident of Aurangpur, Tq.Akole, Dist.Ahmednaagr had purchased two packets of 10 gms each on 26.1...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2014 (TRI)

Kapoor Herbal Products Vs. Balaji Allianz General Insurance Company Lt ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant who is the proprietor of Kapoor Herbal Products, against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 30/09/2009 passed by the Dist.Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in CC.No.829/2008. The respondent herein is the original opponent. For better understanding the appellant is hereinafter termed as the œComplainant? and the respondent which is insurance company is hereinafter termed as the œOpponent Insurance Company?. 2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are as under :- That, the complainant Shri.Santosh Kapoor is the proprietor of the firm by name and style as œKappor Herbal Products?. That, this firm is engaged in the activity of manufacturing and trading of various herbal products within an outside country, which is situated at MIDC Chikalthana Aurangabad. It was submitted that the complainant had received order from M/s. Julian Greaves Ltd, a United Kindom Based Company for herbal products worth Rs.44...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2014 (TRI)

i.C.i.C.i. Lombard, General Insurance Co. Ltd., Thorugh Its Legal Mana ...

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 16.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar allowing consumer complaint No.24/2009 directing appellant/opponent insurance company to pay to the complainant amount of insurance Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 10% p.a. and further compensation of Rs.1200/- for causing mental agony etc. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponent insurance company and respondent as complainant) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Kailas Kadlag who was husband of complainant Vandana was agriculturist by profession. Government of Maharashtra had obtained insurance for agriculturists from opponent insurance company. It was under the Farmers Personal Accident Insurance Policy insuring the farmers of Rs.1 lakh each. 3. On 9.11.2005, insured Kailas died by falling in the bath room. After his death his widow complainant Vandana submitted insurance cla...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2014 (TRI)

Superintending Engineer and Others Vs. Jalindar and Others

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Appeal No. 273/2008 is filed by Superintending Engineer M S E D Co. Ltd. and others against the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Osmanabad on 13.01.2008 while deciding consumer complaint No.264/2007. 2. Appeal No.291/2008 is filed by Jalindar Vitthal Kawale and others praying for enhancement of compensation granted by District Forum Osmanabad while allowing consumer complaint No.246/2007. Both these appeals are related to common subject matter we have therefore decided to dispose of these appeals by common judgment and order. 3. Facts giving rise to these appeals are as under: Complainant Shri. Jalinder, Shridhar and Murlidhar are real brothers. All the complainants are agriculturists and owners of land Gut No.217,218 and 222. In the season of 2006-07 all the complainants sowed sugarcane in 1 hector and 40-R area. On 05.03.2007 there was sparking on the electric line passing through the field of complainant. The circuit fuse on the transformer was no...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2014 (TRI)

Shaikh Bashir Shaikh JainuddIn Vs. Manager, Ganraj Nagari Sahakari Ban ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Both these appeals impugn the judgment and order dated 16.2.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Beed partly allowing consumer complaint No.146/2007 directing opponent bank to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/-towards loss of income and Rs.5000/- more for causing mental agony etc. Complainant Shaikh Bashir filed appeal No.524/2008, whereas opponent bank filed appeal No.1070/2008. Therefore we have decided to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment. (For the sake of brevity complainant Shaikh Bashir who is respondent in appeal No.1070/2008 is herein after called as complainant and appellant bank in appeal No.1070/2008 who is respondent in appeal No.524/2008 is called as opponent bank) 2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that:- On 15.4.1999, complainant borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- from opponent bank mortgaging his land Gut No.130 admeasuring 1 and acre. Prior to that on 23.9.1997 complainant ha...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2014 (TRI)

Vishwanath Automobiles and Another Vs. Raghunath Vittal Girnar and Ano ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

K.B. Gawali, Member: 1. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 27/03/2008 passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum, Nandurbar in CC. No. 02/2008 whereby complaint of the complainant is allowed and both the appellants have been held liable for deficiency in service. The appellant in appeal No. 451/2008 who is the authorized dealer of the tractor manufactured by appellant No. 2, and the appellant in appeal No. 457/2008 is a manufacturing company of the tractors are the original opponents, whereas and the respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is the original complainant. For better understanding the appellant in appeal No. 451/2008 is hereinafter termed as œ the opponent dealer? whereas the appellant in appeal No. 458/2008 is hereinafter termed as œOpponent manufacturing company? and the respondent No. 1 in both these appeals is hereinafter termed as the œComplainant?. 2. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is the same, we have decide...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 2014 (TRI)

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Through Its Divisional Office Vs. the M ...

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 4.3.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad allowing consumer complaint No.261/2007 directing appellant/opponent No.2 insurance company to pay to the complainant/respondent No.2 insurance amount of Rs.1 lakh with 9% interest and further Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is herein after referred as opponent insurance company, respondent No.2 as complainant, respondent No.1 as opponent bank) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- Late Yogesh who was the son of complainant Vibhishan died in motor accident on 30.12.2003. He was having motor-cycle bearing registration No.MH-25/E-1255. His motor-cycle was insured with opponent insurance company obtaining motor-cycle/scooter package policy covering risk of own as well as vehicle to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. The policy was in force for the period from 2.12.2003 to 01.12....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 07 2014 (TRI)

Rajendra Badrinarayan Panchariya Vs. the Branch Manager, I.C.i.C.i. Ba ...

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 30.4.2008 passed by District Consumer Forum Dhule dismissing complaint case No.422/2007. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as complainant and respondent as opponent) 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:- On 10.10.2005, complainant Shri.Rajendra has purchased the Indica car from opponent No.4 dealer by availing finance of Rs.3 lakhs from opponent No.1 ICICI bank. Opponent No.5 Tata Motors Ltd. had floated the scheme for giving discount of Rs.5000/- to the prospective purchaser of Indica car. Complainant had agreed to repay the amount to the opponent No.1 bank by 36 monthly equal instalment of Rs.9200/-. It is alleged that though the opponent No.1 bank sanctioned loan of Rs.3 lakhs it disbursed loan amount by retaining discount amount of Rs.5000/-. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent No.1 bank, complainant has f...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 06 2014 (TRI)

Shushila Purushottam Modak Vs. Executive Engineer Maharashtra State El ...

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

Uma Bora,Presiding Member: 1. Smt.Shushila Purushottam Modak Secretary of the Church of the Lamb, Ahmednagar appellant herein original complainant preferred this appeal against judgment and order passed by the Dist. Forum, Ahmednagar on 15/02/2008 dismissing the complaint case No. 453/2007. 2. Brief facts arising in the present appeal are as under :- Complainant is a Secretary of the Church of Lamb and for the said Church electric connection had obtained on 15/06/1996 consumer number was 162011114393. Since the date of connection of electricity said Church was using the electricity but bills for electricity charges were not issued by opponent No. 1 Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd, Ahmednagar. It is stated by the complainant that complainant many time orally and by telephone asked the respondent to issue the bills of electricity but bills were never issued and lastly on 23/02/2007 electricity bill for Rs 34,520/- was issued which was for the pe...

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 05 2014 (TRI)

Raosaheb Vs. Dy. Executive Engineer, Msedcl Beed

Court : Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Aurangabad

Uma S. Bora, Member: 1. Raosaheb Annarao Nagargoje appellant herein/original complainant challenges in this appeal dismissal of consumer complaint No.31/2007 by District Forum Beed on 28.11.2007. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: Complaint was filed against Dy. Executive Engineer, MSEDCL, Urban, Beed. Complainant is residing at officer colony Beed and had obtained electric connection for domestic purpose. Consumer number of complainant was 576010208521 and his meter number was 9000148237. It is the case of the complainant that he was regularly paying the electricity bills, but as his electric meter was burnt he applied with the respondent on 12.07.2000 for replacement of the meter, but his application was not responded. In Dec.2003 digital meter was installed. Complainant had deposited regularly electricity charges even though bill of Dec.2005 and 2nd Jan.2006 for Rs.10,550/- was issued. Said bill was of exorbitant amount and therefore complainant got the shock. Therefo...

Tag this Judgment!


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