Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Kamla Kumari vs Branch Manager, United India Insurance ... on 15 March, 2024 cites

Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank on 22 February, 2022

14.    While elaborately discussing the impact of amendments made to the definition of 'Consumer' in relation to exclusion of categories of activities envisaged under the exception of commercial activity, particularly after the 2002 Amendment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shrikant G. Mantri Vs. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.11397 of 2016 decided on 22.02.2022, held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 20 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute on 4 April, 1995

46. In the present matter, it is not in dispute that the appellant was already engaged in the profession of stockbroker, much before he availed of service of the overdraft facility from the respondent­Bank. It is also not in dispute that he was also acting as a stock­broker for the respondent Bank. It is also not in dispute that the appellant took the overdraft facility and also sought enhancement of the same from time to time in furtherance of his business as a stockbroker and for the purpose of enhancing the profits therein. As   already   held   by this Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works (supra), the terms "services availed by him", "exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood" and "by means of self­employment" will have to be given its meaning, as intended by the legislature.  The said terms will have to be construed in context with the purpose for which the said Act is enacted. We have elaborately discussed the legislative history as to how Section 2(1)(d) of the said Act has come in its present form from the original form. The amendments incorporated by the 1993 Amendment Act as well as by the 2002 Amendment Act would clearly show that the legislative intent is to keep the commercial transactions out of the purview of the said Act and at the same time, to give benefit of the said Act to a person who enters into such commercial transactions, when he uses such goods or avails such services exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self­employment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 950 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Pradeep Jain vs Prabandhak City Hospital G.E.Road ... on 3 October, 2017

"7.      Having considered the submissions of parties, grounds of appeal, material available on record and on perusal of the order passed by the District Forum, it appears that the complainant obtained Rs.9,50,000/- (Rupees nine lacs and fifty thousand only) K.V.I.C. loan to run a Chimni of Bricks.  The Bank deducted Rs.2,888/- from the loan account of the complainant which was deposited to the Insurance Company on 06-05-2002 and this amount was cleared by the Insurance Company on 13-06-2002. But the flood came in August 2002, Pucca Chimni of the complainant nor by the O.P.-Bank. Hence, the Insurance Company could not settle the claim of the complainant, though the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 9,71,500/-(Rupees nine lacs, seventy one thousand and five hundred only). District Forum held responsible the O.P.-Bank for not deducting the premium amount for next year in which the flood damaged the Chimni of the complainant and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-, litigation cost Rs.2000/- to the O.P.-Bank. It was the responsibility of the complainant as also the O.P.-Bank to get insured the Chimni for next year by deducting premium amount from the loan account of the complainant. But, the Bank neither informed the complainant for that nor got, it insured. It is deficiency on the part of the Bank as held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Bank of India vs. Annu Vastrayala and anothers reported in 2008 (2) CPR 321 (NC) in the case of Allahabad Bank vs. JDS Electronics reported in I (2007) CPJ 270 (NC) in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sain vs. City Bank reported in II (1999) CPJ 7 (SC). We do not find any reason to take a different view in this case. Hence, the District Forum order is affirmed and the Appeal No. 299 of 2008 for enhancement of compensation is dismissed as the complainant did not take action to get the Chimni insured for that period. The Appeal No. 318 of 2008 to set aside the District Forum order is also dismissed in view of the Hon'ble National Commission above referred orders.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1