Kin of rail mishap victim to get Rs 30 lakh compensation

Kin of rail mishap victim to get Rs 30 lakh compensation
Kin of rail mishap victim to get Rs 30 lakh compensation

A local court has directed the South Central Railway (SCR) and an insurance firm to pay Rs 30 lakh as compensation to the family members of a businessman, who was killed in a mishap in 2009.

District and Sessions Judge V S Deshpande in a recent order has directed the SCR to pay a compensation of Rs 30 lakh to the kin of Hiralal Agrawal, who was killed at an unmanned level crossing in March, 2009.

According to the claimants’ counsel, Agrawal was travelling in a car along with trader Anil Jindal, Narayan Thombre and driver Pandrinath Budwant, from Shendra in Aurangabad district to Jalna.

Their vehicle was hit by a train and dragged till about half a kilometre at the unmanned Karmad-Chikalthana railway crossing in Aurangabad.

Later, family members of Agrawal and Jindal filed a writ petition with the District and Sessions Court here against the Railways and insurance firm Oriental Insurance Company, and demanded the compensation.

The claimants’ counsel argued before the court that under the Motor Accident Act, Agrawal was a passenger in the car and was covered under insurance policy, and hence, his wife, mother and daughter were entitled for the compensation.

After hearing arguments, the judge ordered SCR and the insurance company to pay Rs 30 lakh to Agrawal’s family and also pay an interest of Rs 15 lakh.

The judge also ordered that SCR would pay 70 per cent of the compensation amount, while the insurance company would pay the remaining 30 per cent.

The court, however, rejected the claim of Jindal, stating that he was the owner of the car and was not covered as per the norms of the insurance company.

( Source – PTI )

Unitech to refund Rs 3.33 crore to homebuyer

Unitech to refund Rs 3.33 crore to homebuyer
Unitech to refund Rs 3.33 crore to homebuyer

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Hi-Tech Developers Ltd to pay over Rs three crore to a couple for failing to give them possession of an apartment booked under one of its housing projects at Noida in 2010.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the firm to refund the payment of Rs 3.33 crore made by the complainants while purchasing the flat and compensate them in the form of interest at 10 per cent per annum with effect from 2012.

The commission, while deciding the complaint, rejected the claim of Unitech group of companies that the delay in handing over the flats to the buyers was on account of agitation by farmers and shortage of labour.

According to the complaint, the couple had booked a residential flat in project Burgundy, developed by Unitech in Sector 96-98 in Noida and were allotted the apartment on Level 6 in Tower-1 on August 27, 2010 for a total consideration of Rs 3.39 crore, out of which the complainants had already paid Rs 3.33 crore to the firm.

“As regards the alleged shortage of labour, no material has been placed on record to show that it (Unitech) could not get adequate work force to complete the construction of the flats despite efforts having been made in this regard,” the NCDRC said.

Regarding the claim of delay due to farmers agitation, the commission said, “…there is no evidence of the work at this particular site having been halted by farmers. No affidavit of the contractor engaged by the opposite party for construction of the flats in this project has been filed to prove that he had to halt the work on account of agitation by farmers.

( Source – PTI )

Mason gets compensation for unborn child killed in mishap

Mason gets compensation for unborn child killed in mishap
Mason gets compensation for unborn child killed in mishap

In a significant judgement, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal here has awarded a compensation of Rs 1.52 lakhs to a mason after his unborn child was killed in a road mishap that also left his wife dead in January 2007.

President of MACT and Principal District Judge S M Gavhane recently ordered the four respondents in the case to make a payment of Rs 1.52 lakh jointly and severally to claimant Prakash Balu Dandekar, then 25, of Rahanal in Bhiwandi, with nine per cent interest from the date of filing of the claim in January 2012.

Appearing for the claimant, counsel Advocate Baldev Rajput told the Tribunal that the applicant was the father of the male foetus in the womb of his wife Tai Prakash Dandekar who died in the accident on January 27, 2007.

Tai was travelling pillion on a two wheeler driven by her cousin brother Sandip Bhoye.

The Tribunal was told that on the fateful day Bhoye was going on his motorcycle alongwith deceased Tai to Asangaon railway station when they met with a accident resulting in her death on the spot.

At the time of death, Tai was carrying a 16-18 week-old foetus in her womb.

A car from the opposite direction hit the two wheeler which in turn hit a tempo and overturned. The cousin who was driving the bike also died in the mishap, it was stated.

The respondents in the case were: Nayan S Parekh of Nilkamal Plastics from Sinner, who was the owner of the Toyota Car, The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Ahmed Kudrat Khan, driver of the tempo and Rais Chhotan Baksh Qureshi owner of the tempo.

While the owner of the car and tempo and the insurer were represented and contested, the driver of the tempo remained absent and case was decided ex-parte against him.

In his order the judge said, “It is not disputed that Tai Dandekar was pregnant at the time of her death. In her autopsy report it is mentioned in the column of organ of generation that uterus was enlarged and male foetus of 16 to 18 weeks weighing 400 grams was found.

She succumbed to the injuries sustained in the above said accident. Also, the still born male child died in the womb of Tai Dandekar. There is a link between the accident and death of child in the womb. This is also clear from the PM report. Therefore applicant being father is entitled to compensation for his still born baby in the womb of his wife,” the judge ruled.

( Source – PTI )

Brookline man gets 20 months in jail for insider trading

A Brookline man will spend 20 months in prison for giving friends illegal insider trading tips that netted them $1 million in illegal profits, federal prosecutors said.

Amit Kanodia, 49, of Brookline, was also given two years supervised release, 100 hours of community service, a fine of $200,000 and forfeiture of $242,500, which represented his share of the illegal trading profits.
In October 2016, Kanodia was convicted of one count of conspiracy and 10 counts of securities fraud.

“In the spring of 2013, Kanodia tipped off his two friends, Iftikar Ahmed and Steven Watson, about the contemplated acquisition of Cooper Tire & Rubber Company,” prosecutors said. “On the day of the announcement, Cooper Tire’s share price increased 41 percent, and Ahmed and Watson began selling their interests in the company for a combined profit of more than $1 million.”

Ahmed and Watson paid Kanodia a portion of their illegal profits, prosecutors said. In November 2016, Watson was sentenced to two years probation, fined $25,000, and ordered to forfeit almost $170,000 in illegal trading profits. Ahmed is a fugitive, prosecutors said.

 

Couple gets Rs 13.2L for death of their children in mishap

Couple gets Rs 13.2L for death of their children in mishap
Couple gets Rs 13.2L for death of their children in mishap

A couple from the district who lost their two children in an accident in 2014 have been awarded a compensation of Rs 13.2 lakh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here.

MACT member and District Judge N N Shrimangale, absolving the insurance company of the liability, held that the owner of the offending vehicle was liable to make the payment to the claimants with 12 per cent interest from the date of the claim, filed on April 26, 2014.

The tribunal ordered that the couple be paid Rs 6.60 lakh each for the death of their two children.

The claimants, Sudam Kashinath Pardhi (35) and Sonali Sudam Pardhi (30), informed the tribunal that their two children — daughter Jyoti and son Sameer (then aged 7 and 5 respectively) — were playing at an open space next to their house at Katkaripada under Umbarkhand village in Bhiwandi township of Thane on April 19, 2014.

At that time, a tempo came near their house. When the vehicle was being reversed to unload rice bags, it dashed against a wall. As a result, the tempo and the wall fell on the two kids and they were buried alive in the debris.

The claimants’ advocate, S Y Tawde, informed MACT that both the deceased were students, and lodged a claim of Rs 10 lakh for each of them against tempo owner Gopal Sitaram Gharat and Reliance General Insurance Company Limited.

The insurance firm’s advocate, Alka Phadtare, told the MACT that the vehicle owner fabricated the policy period in the cover note showing it to be from March 22, 2014, to March 21, 2015, while it was actually signed on April 21, 2014.

She said the vehicle owner did this to establish that the policy period was covering the date of the accident.

She also contended that the tempo owner did not produce all documents pertaining to the policy. Also, the vehicle owner did not come in the witness box to face cross-examination by the advocates of the insurance company and the applicants, Phadtare argued.

The applicants’ counsel submitted that the future of his clients is ruined with the death of their children.

Therefore, he sought compensation which may be sufficient for the applicants to pass their remaining lives.

The judge, in a recent order, observed that the policy filed is fake. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the claim of the applicants legally does not stand against it.

While disposing of two separate claims (one for each kid, the judge said the tempo owner is liable to pay Rs 6.6 lakh for each of the child to the applicants.

( Source – PTI )

Education not commodity, student not consumer’

A youth’s plea against an institute for allegedly not providing him with an internship or job as promised at the time of admission, has been rejected by a consumer forum here which observed that “education is not a commodity”.

A Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (West) rejected the plea of the youth who sought refund of the Rs 3.52 lakh fee paid by him to pursue PG Diploma in Event Management and Public Relations at a private institute here.

The complainant, a Noida resident, had also sought compensation of Rs 40,000 on account of mental pain and agony and deficiency in service from the institute and its Executive Director.

“The complainant took admission with the opposite party, an education institution for pursuing PG Diploma in event management and Public Relations on payment of requisite fee.

“The opposite parties (institute and Executive Director) are imparting education. Therefore as held by Supreme Court, National Commission and State Commission of Chandigarh consistently, education is not a commodity and they are not service providers and the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,” a forum bench headed by Presiding Officer R S Bagri said.

The forum accepted the assertion of the institute and its executive director that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant “does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided under the Consumer Protection Act.”

It observed that “education is not a commodity”.

The bench, while deciding the matter, considered various verdicts of the Supreme Court, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and a state commission, all of which had held that students are not consumers.

The youth had approached the consumer forum after he was refused a refund from the institute, which denied the allegations of any unfair trade practice.

Kin of man killed in mishap get Rs 21.8 lakh compensation

Kin of man killed in mishap get Rs 21.8 lakh compensation
Kin of man killed in mishap get Rs 21.8 lakh compensation

The UP-based family of a man, who died in a mishap here in 2011, has been awarded Rs 21.81 lakh compensation by the Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

Niyaz Ahmed Khatab Ansari (then aged 42), who worked as ‘mukadam’ (supervisor of labourers) at a private firm in Bhiwandi town of Thane, was going on a motorcycle towards Ghodbunder road when a speeding dumper coming hit his two-wheeler at Kashimira in the district on January 7, 2011.

Ansari and the pillion rider fell from the bike. Ansari received serious injuries in the mishap and succumbed later that day.

An offence was registered against the dumper driver under IPC sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) and 338, and section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Later, Ansari’s family comprising wife Tahira Banu Niyaz Ahmed Ansari (34), five minor children Mausamali Niyaz Ahmed Ansari (14), Mubashra Banu Niyaz Ahmed Ansari (13), Nusara Banu Niyaz Ahmed Ansari (11), Bushra Banu Niyaz Ahmed Ansari (9), Mushrafali Niyaz Ahmed Ansari (7), and his parents Khatab Hussain Wali Mohammed Ansari (67) Sawaliyabanu Khatab Hussain Ansari – all residents of Allahabad district in Uttar Pradesh, approached the MACT seeking compensation.

They said that at the time of his death, Ansari’s monthly income was Rs 11,200, and sought compensation from the dumper owner and the insurance company.

Advocate V K Singh appeared for the claimants, while advocate Kalpana Trivedi represented the insurance company which contested the case. However, the case was decided ex-parte against the dumper owner as he failed to appear before the tribunal.

Also, since Ansari’s mother, who was a claimant, died in July 2016, her name was deleted from the claim papers.

After hearing both the sides, MACT president and Principal District Judge S M Gavhane recently ordered the two respondents – dumper owner Mahalakshmi Enterprises and the New India Assurance Company – to make payment to the applicants with 9 per cent interest per annum from the date of application in January 2011.

The tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs 21,81,864, including for loss of dependency and funeral expenses. It also directed that the compensation awarded to the deceased’s children be invested in FDs for them.

( Source – PTI )

“Death due to mosquito bite an accident”

"Death due to mosquito bite an accident"
“Death due to mosquito bite an accident”

In a ruling that will benefit many insurance holders, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that death due to mosquito bite causing malaria is an accident.

“It is difficult for us to accept that the death due to a mosquito bite would not be a death due to an accident,” Justice V K Jain said.

“It can hardly be disputed that a mosquito bite is something which no one expects and happens all of a sudden.

“As per the information available on the website of the insurance company, an accident may include events like snake bite, frost bite and dog bite. Hence it would be very difficult to accept the contention that malaria due to mosquito bite is a disease and not an accident,” the commission said.

The order came on a claim filed by Mousami Bhattacharjee whose husband, Debasish, died in January 2012.

He had taken a housing loan from the Bank of Baroda and availed of an insurance policy of the National Insurance Company. The sum insured was payable in the event of his death.

When Mousami approached the insurer to enable them to liquidate the housing loan, the claim was rejected.

She then moved the district consumer forum in West Bengal in February 2014.

The insurer submitted before the forum that Debashish had died due to a mosquito bite and not due to an accident.

The forum had passed an order in Mousami’s favour following which the insurance company approached the West Bengal Consumer Commission, but the appeal was dismissed in February.

Later, the insurance company had moved the National Commission.

( Source – PTI )

Health club to compensate man for false promise

Health club to compensate man for false promise
Health club to compensate man for false promise

A district consumer forum here has asked a city-based health club to refund over Rs 77,000 and compensate a man for adopting “unfair trade practice” by promising to reduce his body weight by 10 kg within a month.

The forum also directed the East Delhi body clinic to pay Rs 25,000 as compensation to Janak Puri-resident Vinod Sharma, who allegedly lost only 100 grams, for mental and physical pain, agony and suffering.

“The OP (health clinic) is directed to pay Rs 77,500, cost of body reduction treatment, and a compensation of Rs 25,000 for mental and physical pain, agony, suffering and litigation expenses,” the forum said.

According to the complaint, Sharma, weighing 93.5 kg, had visited the body clinic on February 17, 2013. He had claimed that the employees promised him 10 kg weight loss within a month, for which he paid Rs 77,500.

However, after a month, his body weight had reduced only by 100 grams, it said.

“The OP (clinic) has charged Rs 77,500 from complainant (Sharma) for weight reduction programme for one month from February 17, 2013 to March 15, 2013 but there was no weight reduction of the complainant. Therefore, the OP has adopted unfair trade practice,” the forum observed.

Denying the allegations, the health club claimed it had never promised to reduce the weight by 10 kgs within a month.

( Source  PTI )

2016 saw several pro-consumer verdicts

2016 saw several pro-consumer verdicts
2016 saw several pro-consumer verdicts

Sale of packaged drinking water above MRP, medical negligence cases and delay in handing over of flats by builders were some issues that led the consumer fora to take sellers and service providers to task in 2016.

Union minister Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore had to knock the doors of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to secure possession of a furnished home from Parsvanath Builders.

Though he got the relief, Rathore had to rush to the Supreme Court which directed the real estate major to complete his flat within eight months, besides compensating the ace shooter-turned-politician for the delay.

As the apex consumer body continued delivering pro- consumer verdicts through the year, issues like poor infrastructure, lack of skilled and impartial members of the bench in these panels across the country affected its functioning and were highlighted in an interim report of a Supreme Court-appointed committee.

The apex court, while considering the report, passed a slew of directions for a “systemic overhaul” of the Consumer Protection Act and its courts noting their infrastructural inadequacy and asked the Centre to frame model rules for adoption by the state governments.

“A systemic overhaul of the entire infrastructure is necessary if the Consumer Protection Act, is not to become a dead letter. With the proliferation of goods and services in a rapidly growing economy, Parliament envisaged the enactment to be the corner-stone of a vibrant consumer movement. Reality has been distant from the aspirations of the law,” it said.

Besides taking judicial note of unkept promises by real estate firms, the apex consumer forum acted proactively to deliver justice to the common man, which was evident when it came down heavily on a Jaipur-based multiplex by imposing a fine of Rs 5 lakh on it for selling packaged drinking water above the maximum retail price (MRP).

A number of hospitals and doctors across the country also came under the scanner in several cases of medical negligence.

AIIMS too bore the brunt for alleged deficiency in services as a south Delhi district consumer forum asked it to compensate a girl for alleged negligence during transplantation of cornea in her eye.

Similarly, Indraprastha Apollo Hospital was also pulled up and asked to pay compensation for the wrong treatment.

Another private hospital and three of its doctors were ordered to pay Rs 64 lakh to a woman by the NCDRC for their negligence in giving requisite treatment to her premature baby resulting in the infant becoming blind.

The apex consumer commission asked two Himachal Pradesh doctors to pay Rs 10 lakh to the family of a woman who died after they had performed an “unwanted” operation removing her uterus in “haste” 13 years ago.

( Source – PTI )