GLORIOUS PLASTICS LTD. vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR dated 2008-09-18
Insurance claim---a major fire broke out at the garment factory situated on the first floor of the building which consisted of ground floor and one storey. For extinguishing fire on the floor of the building where the garment factory was, the Fire Brigade spread water continuously--- Due to excessive use of water, the flooring of the first floor was also damaged leading to seepage and leakage of water on the ground floor factory of the complainants---the complainant is entitled to have reimbursement for the loss suffered by him to the moulds, when loss admittedly not assessed by the surveyor---In this set of circumstance, it is difficult for us, in this complaint, to assess the loss suffered by the complainant---the Insurance Company is directed to appoint another competent surveyor for assessing the loss on the basis of the documents which are produced on record. read more +
Ranjit Singh vs. Secretary, Department of Posts dated 2008-09-17
Deficiency in service---a registered envelope sent by him from the Head Post Office, was not received by the addressee, as a result of which the demand draft contained in that envelope was not paid to an unknown person/party---For a liability to be fastened on that Department for deficiency in service in this regard, it is thus necessary to allege and establish wilful act or default on the part of the Department. Careful perusal of the complaint would show that no such allegation was made, leave alone established by the complainant. Even the legal notice so promptly sent by the complainant to the Department of Posts does not allege any “wilful” negligence. As observed by the State Commission, it has been held by this Commission in the past that in the absence of allegation of wilful negligence, the Department of Posts or its employees cannot be held liable for misdelivery of registered letters in view of the provisions of section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898---It is quite clear that the attempt of the petitioner/ complainant in trying to fasten the responsibility for deficiency in service on the part of the respondents is not supported by acceptable evidence nor is it in accord with the statutory provisions cited above---The State Commission was, therefore, fully justified in setting aside the order of the District Forum holding the respondents guilty of deficiency in service---Revision petition is dismissed. read more +
Smt. Santosh Kanwar vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India dated 2008-09-09
Appeal against order of State Commission affirming the order of Consumer Forum---Claim was filed and repudiated by LIC on the ground that he had suffered from Myalgia, URI APD, Br. Dysp. Lsc, Urticaria, Neuritis, Amaenia, Pyrexia, Amoebic Colitis for which he had consulted a medical man and had taken treatment from him/in a Hospital and was also on medical leave for 3 days and 12 days and had also drawn medical reimbursement for the above diseases---He did not however, disclose these facts in his Proposal/Personal Statement---Instead he gave false answers therein as stated above---There is nothing on record to show that the insured was required to take treatment for more than a week---No doubt, with regard to the question whether the insured has been on leave on the ground of sickness in last five years, the answer given by him was incorrect---With regard to the question whether insured had suffered from a disease relating to stomach, heart, liver, lungs, brain and nerves and whether he was suffering at the relevant time, the answer was ‘no’---it cannot be said that the insured was suffering from such diseases---the repudiation of the claim has caused serious prejudice to the widow of a teacher for years together---Revision Petition Dismissed with cost of Rs/- 50000. read more +
RAMA MILK PRIVATE LTD. vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION dated 2008-09-09
The Complainant wanted to set up a milk processing plant with the financial help from Maharashtra State Finance Corporation As the Complainant became defaulter the Corporation initiated recovery proceedings against it u/s 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951---Aggrieved by the action of the Corporation complainant knocked the doors of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court but without success. The Corporation had also given an offer for one time settlement to the complainant---After issuing a notice to the Corporation on 27.05.04 for payment of huge compensation the complainant filed complaint before us in October, 2005---The main issue to be decided by us is as to whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Corporation and if so what relief the complainant is entitled to?---The main issue is whether there is any deficiency in service by the Corporation. Despite of the short-comings and negative action by the complainant, the Corporation in all fairness has given an One Time Settlement offer to the Complainant asking the complainant---No deficiency of service---complaint dismissed. read more +
Society of Catalysts vs. Star Plus TV dated 2008-09-11
Star TV broadcast a programme by the name of “Kaun Banega Crorepati”---Star Plus TV and Bharti Airtel Ltd. are held to have violated the provisions of section 2 (1) (r) (3) of the CP Act in conducting the “Har Seat Hot Seat” contest which was in conjunction with the main television show, “Kaun Banega Crorepati” and thereby adopted unfair trade practice---From the facts and on the basis of the admitted fact that Bharti Airtel Ltd. received 58 million SMS text messages, it goes without saying that this practice resulted in to increase their business. Further, normal charge of the 58 million SMSs would have fetched only a maximum of Rs.58 million, i.e., Rs.5.8 crore--As against this, they received a large amount of Rs.13.92 crore from SMS messages. Further, the excess revenue (Rs.13.92 crore minus Rs.5.80 crore) comes to Rs.8.12 crore. Out of this, they distributed prizes amounting to Rs.1.04 crore. Still, the surplus revenue comes Rs.7.08 crore---Considering the large amount of profit earned and the large number of consumers affected, this would be a fit case for imposing punitive damage of Rs.1 crore which only comes to approximately 14% out of the surplus revenue of Rs.7.08 crore---the Star Plus TV and the Bharti Airtel Ltd are directed to pay jointly and severally damages of Rs.1 crore. read more +
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors vs. Megh Raj dated 2008-09-11
Whether under the Electricity Act, 2003, the officers of the electricity company are empowered to arbitrarily direct the consumers to deposit the amount according to their whims with a threat that failure to deposit the said amount would result in disconnection of electricity power or they would be prosecuted?---the Electricity Act, 2003 nowhere empowers the officers concerned to adopt such an arbitrary procedure. Under the Act, in the case of alleged unauthorized use of electricity, procedure prescribed under Section 126 of the Act is required to be followed---If that procedure is not followed, it is to be highlighted that the Act nowhere empowers the officers of the electricity company to act according to their whims and harass the consumers at large---Without issuing any Notice as contemplated under Section 126 or without passing any provisional order as contemplated under Section 126 of the Act, the officers straightway issued an order contemplated under Section 152 of the Act, which provides for compounding of offences---Bare reading of Section 152 indicates that power under Section 152 is to be exercised if any consumer or person has committed or who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of theft of electricity punishable under this Act, applies for compounding of the offence, the officer is empowered to compound the offence by charging the amount as provided in the table stated under section 152---This would also establish that such power may be exercised when complaint as provided under Section 151 is pending. Further, sub-section (3) of Section 152 declares that acceptance of the sum of money for compounding an offence would amount to acquittal within the meaning of section 100 of the Cr.P.C. meaning thereby that there must be some prosecution pending before the court. read more +
