Search by Keywords x
Indlaw Home                                                                                          contact us contact us | home help
 Welcome Guest | Sep 1 2014
 

HOME

Search By Databases
  

Subject Modules
  down

State Modules
  down

Legal Focus
  down

 

Login

  Subscribe


Latest Updates
Search by Databases
Indlaw Resources
Indlaw Channels

indlaw updates


Judgments

(1) State of Delhi; (2) Rahul; (3) Ravi; (4) Vinod @ Chhotu vs (1) Ravi Kumar and others; (2) State of Delhi  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 26 Aug 2014]

(1) Abhishek Sarkar S/o Late Anindya Kumar Sarkar and another; (2) Cox and Kings Limited, Mumbai vs (1) Cox and Kings Limited, Mumbai; (2) Abhishek Sarkar S/o Late Anindya Kumar Sarkar and another  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 26 Aug 2014]
Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Award - Legality - Complainant No. 1 got from his employer a gift of holiday voucher to the tune of Rs.92,000/- endorsed in favour of OP so as to enable complainants to enjoy tour - Complainants on their return journey from Malaysia, they were kept waiting at the hotel wherefrom representative of OP was to pick up complainants and to drop them at airport for their return journey to Kolkatta - Inspite of reasonable waiting as representative of OP did not turn up, they could not board the flight and had to purchase tickets for return journey and incurred expenses of Rs.1,39,043/- - Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainants filed complaint - District Forum allowed complaint - On appeal filed by OP State Commission vide impugned order reduced amount of Rs.1,03,943/- to Rs.42,050/- - Hence instant revision petitions filed by both the parties - Whether Foras below were justified in passing the impugned orders -

Held, e-mail communication revealed that driver reached to the hotel at 11 a.m. to pick up (complainant) and other couple, but as complainant was not found there, driver left the hotel after leaving message - Driver could not have waited as he was to drop other passengers also sitting in taxi to airport in time - Assignment order given by Tourland also revealed that driver was to pick up one couple at 10:45 a.m. and complainant at 11 a.m. and in such circumstances, it could be inferred that after picking another couple, driver of taxi reached to the hotel to pick up complainant, but as he was not found there, driver left the hotel - Even if it was presumed that driver of OP did not reach to hotel, complainant should not have waited there for one hour right upto 12:00, as he was well aware that his international flight was to leave airport by 2:30 p.m. and he was supposed to reach to the airport well in time - Complainants should not have waited for a long time for the taxi and should have proceeded to airport after hiring another taxi to avoid consequences of missing flight - There was no deficiency on the part of OP and District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and State Commission further committed error in allowing appeal partly - Revision filed by complainant was dismissed and revision filed by OP was allowed and impugned order passed by State Commission and District Forum was set aside and complaint was dismissed - Revisions disposed of.


Premier Shield private Limited, Delhi Through Authorized Representative vs Tata-AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 26 Aug 2014]
Consumer Protection - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Entitlement of - Petitioner/complainant got its vehicle insured from respondent/OP - Said vehicle met with an accident, matter was amicably resolved - Thereafter, petitioner was asked to provide the driving license of the driver, valid on the date of accident as the earlier license pertained to the period subsequent to the date of accident - Respondent repudiated the claim of petitioner, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident was not holding an effective and valid driving license - It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the respondent amounted to deficiency in rendering service as also indulgence into unfair trade practice - On complaint District Forum dismissed the complaint - On appeal State Commission dismissed the appeal - Hence instant revision petition - Whether Foras below were justified in passing the impugned orders -

Held, State Commission has travelled beyond the pleadings and concluded that the revisionist's driver was not holding the valid driving license - Further, it was submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the claim of revisionist was not liable to be repudiated because the revisionist's driver was holding one effective license at the time of accident and even otherwise, he was not disqualified from obtaining any such effective driving license - It was an admitted fact, that the driver employed by petitioner was having two driving licenses at the relevant time - Commission failed to understand as to how a person could have two different driving licenses issued by two different transport authorities at one time - In instant case, there were concurrent findings of fact given by both the fora below - Revision dismissed.


Rama Shankar S/o Khayali Prasad and others vs Union of India Through Divisional Railway Manager, Jabalpur and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 26 Aug 2014]

Ismati Devi W/o Late Chhotu Prasad and others vs Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Defence Production, Government of India, New Delhi and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 26 Aug 2014]

S. Mangala vs Airports Authority of India Through its Chairman, New Delhi and others  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 26 Aug 2014]

M. K. Rashad S/o A. P. Abdul Rahman vs Kannur University, Represented by its Registrar and others  [KERALA HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

P. K. Sarin S/o S. N. Sarin vs Ashok Khurana and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 25 Aug 2014]

Rajender Singh S/o Late G. R. Yadav vs V. K. Gupta and others  [CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 25 Aug 2014]

Puneet Gaur vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Shrinivas Adiwasi vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Hemlata Vyas vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Balram Rajak vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Mahesh Kumar Chauhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh  [MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Dr. Nilesh G. Nimavat vs Medipicks, Maharashtra and another  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]
Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Entitlement of - Petitioner had filed a complaint against respondents/OP's that he purchased a C-Arm Image Intensifier X-Ray Machine from them for a sum of Rs.6,30,000/- - It was alleged by petitioner that during the usage of the machine, he felt dizziness and suffered nausea, headache, redness of eyeballs and swelling, which were symptomatic of having absorbed excess quantity of X-Rays - It was alleged that the respondent had supplied defective machine and not rectified the machine - Therefore, there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents - On complaint District Forum dismissed the complaint - On appeal filed by complainant, which upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal - Hence instant revision - Whether Foras below were justified in passing the impugned orders -

Held, petitioner had not placed any expert evidence on record, so as to show about the defects in the X-Ray machine and also to show since when, there was extra emission from the X-Ray machine which has caused health problem to petitioner - Petitioner had not placed on record any prescription slip with regard to the treatment taken by him - Thus, certificate in the absence of any prescription slip was of no help to petitioner - Moreover, there was no expert evidence on record to show that X-Ray was emitting excess radiation - Both the Fora below have given finding of facts, that petitioner failed to prove any defects in the X-Ray machine and have also failed to establish that X-Ray machine was emitting excessive radiation due to which petitioner had suffered ailments - Impugned orders passed by the foras below, did not call for any interference, as the same are well reasoned and there is no jurisdictional error, infirmity or illegality in the impugned order - Revision dismissed.


Delhi Development Authority Through Director (H-1), New Delhi vs Sandeep Khatri S/o Jagdish Khatri  [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]
Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Allotment of flat - Delay - Compensation - Entitlement of - Complainant applied for flat by depositing earnest money - OP issued him demand cum allotment letter - Complainant deposited requisite documents needed before the delivery of possession with petitioner - It was alleged that petitioner Authority by delaying the delivery of possession has committed deficiency in service - As such, he was entitled to interest on the consideration amount from 18-4-2007 till 7-4-2008 when the possession was delivered - On complaint District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay to complainant interest on the deposited amount of Rs.18,30,786/- @ 15% from the date of deposit till the date of delivery of possession of the flat to complainant - Petitioner preferred an appeal and the State Commission while maintaining the order of District Forum reduced the amount of interest payable for the delayed payment - Hence instant revision petition - Whether Foras below were justified in passing the impugned orders -

Held, respondent complainant was allotted ready built MIG flat on 'as is where is basis' for consideration - Petitioner Authority had not promised to render any service in respect of the subject flat to complainant - As such, there being no element of service in the contract Respondent was not covered under the definition of consumer reproduced - Relationship between the parties in Commissions view was of purchaser and seller of the flat, which would be governed by the law of contract and not under the Act - It was clear that respondent complainant was not a consumer as defined u/s. 2 (1) (d) of the Act - As such he could not have maintained the consumer complaint - Both the foras below have assumed the jurisdiction ignoring the aforesaid aspect of the matter - Impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction, were not sustainable - Commission set aside the orders of the foras below and dismissed the complaint - Revision allowed.


Jawahar Singh vs United Bank of India and others  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Sube Singh vs Revenue Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]

Sushil Kumari Bhatia vs A and U Tibbia College  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]

Dharam Pal vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Narela), Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]

Sanjay Kumar vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Patel Nagar), Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]

P. T. Valli vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Seemapuri), Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 25 Aug 2014]

Satish Chand Kasan and another vs Chandra Shekhar Yadav and another  [DELHI HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Shravan Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 25 Aug 2014]

Sangam Prints Private Limited vs CCE Surat-II  [CUSTOMS EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 25 Aug 2014]



 Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer