Both the bank and insurer blamed each other for the non-payment of premium which was due to floods, and not insufficient funds. The State Commission, however, ruled that both had given deficient service and asked them to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakh
A person can also change his mind over a period of time, due to various circumstances
Meenakshi Saxena, proprietor of M/s Creations, used to export handloom goods. The Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India (ECGC) had accorded approval for export of these goods to the Society Ivoirienne de Commerce et de Representation (SICOREP) up to a sum of Rs 64.86 lakh ($135,125).Saxena despatched two consignments and declarations of these shipments to ECGC. The letter of credit and other documents were routed through Punjab National Bank (PNB). The contract provided that the foreign importer would get the goods released after making payment through his banker within 60 days. Surprisingly, a third party who was unconnected with the transactions, procured the documents from the bank without making payment and got the goods released. So, the genuine overseas importer, SICOREP, did not make payment.When the issue was not resolved after four months, Saxena lodged a claim with ECGC. As it was not settled, she filed a complaint before the Panipat District Forum, which directed ECGC
The district and state forums rejected the claims earlier because there was a delay of 15 years in filing the complaint
Failure to communicate the rejection on policy revival application within 15 days would mean approval
The loan agreement confers a right to the bank - not an obligation - to insure goods. If the lender fails to insure them, it cannot amount to a deficiency in service
SC has observed that a clause in an insurance policy must be interpreted in a manner which benefits the insured only when the wording is ambiguous
The builder must get occupancy certificate on time. In case of any delay, the builder must compensate the buyer with rent for that period
Those who are not consumers cannot get a back-door entry into consumer courts
Once the terms are agreed upon, any breach would render a claim non-payable
The Commission considered the statements of the warehouse supervisor and the security guard recorded when the Corporation investigated how the loss
Showing leniency to those who obey orders of consumer fora would send a wrong signal
If a company parks surplus money for a short time, it can be considered as a consumer
When a case is delayed, even favourable order and compensation cannot make up for the losses suffered
Naren and Sudha Sheth booked a residential flat in a housing-cum-commercial project known as Lodha Luzuria at Thane, being constructed by Sri Sainath Enterprises, belonging to the Lodha Group. The price of the flat, measuring 1,118 square feet carpet area on the second floor, was Rs 1.04 crore.Out of the agreed consideration, Seths paid Rs 1.02 crore in instalments from September 27, 2010, to November 2, 2010. The remaining amount of Rs 2.6 lakh was to be paid at the time of possession. To pay for the purchase of this flat, Seths had to break their fixed deposits, losing Rs 3 lakh towards interest and other charges.The builder avoided executing the agreement for sale. No heed was paid to the correspondence made by the Seths in this regard. On December 22, 2010, the builder demanded an additional sum of Rs 3.96 lakh for car parking. The Seths questioned this demand. Since no heed was paid to their e-mail, they had a legal notice issued. In response, the builder's representative informed
Ramachandran had booked a duplex apartment in a building to be constructed by Atul Realty at Belapur in Navi Mumbai. The total cost was Rs 13.06 lakh payable in instalments.Ramachandran paid in instalment. The total amount paid till March 12, 1996, was Rs 12.08 lakh. On December 12, 1997, the builder said his booking would be shifted to some other project. Ramachandran objected to this. The builder promised to refund the amount with interest at 24 per cent a year, in case the project was abandoned for any reason.Since the builder defaulted, and neither gave possession or refunded the money, Ramachandran filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Commission against Atul Realty and its directors, Atul and Rakesh Agarwal. He claimed a refund of Rs 12.08 lakh along with interest at 24 per cent a year and Rs 2 lakh as damages for severe hardship caused to him.Atul Realty contested and explained the building could not be constructed as the plot on which it was to be built was allotted by
Trade Guarantee Fund can be used for meeting commitments, obligations and liabilities to clearing house
Builder can't escape liability by merely assigning development rights to another developer
The loss of important documents constitutes negligence, entitling consumers to make a claim for deficiency in service. Even though certified copies are valid, consumers should be compensated