.....of imagination, it can be said that this question is barred by the principle of res-judicata. the district forum had the power to decide all the matters. 6. last but not the least, the question of jurisdiction can be decided and can be raised at any stage even at the execution stage. the court can itself suo moto take notice of the same and decide the matter in accordance with law. again the decree passed by the district forum is a nullity because it was decided without jurisdiction. the authority relied upon by the state commission reported in sonie surgical vs. national insurance company ltd. (supra) neatly dovetails with the facts of this case. the revision petitions are therefore dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....state consumer disputes redressal commission, panchkula (for short as state commission) petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 2. brief facts are that petitioner/complainant was allotted plot no.2738 in sector “ 2, faridabad, vide allotment letter dated 11.11.1998 at a tentative price of rs.2,13,127/-. petitioner deposited a sum of rs.2,63,199/- with respondents/opposite parties. however, respondents failed to offer possession of the plot as the same was deleted from the plan. respondents vide letters dated 31.10.2000 and 22.4.2002, demanded the enhanced price of the plot. instead of depositing the enhanced price, petitioner moved an application to estate office, huda, faridabad, on 25.2.2004 seeking refund of the deposited amount and preferred not to retain the plot. application of the petitioner was under process but in the meantime, he filed a complaint under section 12 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (for short as act) before the district consumer disputes redressal forum, faridabad (for short as district forum) on 18.3.2004. later on, petitioner amended his complaint and made the following prayer ; œ1. to pass an order to directing the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant affirming the order passed by the district forum by which claim of rs.77,569.38 was allowed. 2. the brief facts of the case are that ronak ram, respondent no. 2 was the sole proprietor of respondent no.1 owned jeep no. hr 24/c/6300 which was insured by the petitioner vide cover note no. 76529 for a period of one year commencing from 8.9.1999 to 7.9.2000. the jeep met with an accident on 26.3.2000 and suffered extensive damage. fir no.67 was lodged at ps, ding on the same day and the matter was also reported to the petitioner-insurance company which appointed mr. harish sethi, surveyor to whom necessary documents were submitted. but, ultimately the claim was repudiated. hence, the complaint was filed. petitioner-respondent submitted written statement and alleged that at the time of the accident, the jeep was being plied on hire basis. hence, the claim was rightly repudiated and there being no deficiency in service, the complaint may be dismissed. the learned district forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner which too was dismissed. 3. heard the learned counsel for the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....order dated 15.1.2010, passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum, jaipur-ii( for short as district forum) was dismissed. 2. brief facts are that the respondent no. 1/complainant on 2.7.2007 bought a 29? colour tv from respondent no.2/op no. 1 under exchange scheme against his akai ctv 27. the aforesaid tv was represented by respondent no. 2 to be of 29?. on that basis entire payment was made by respondent no.1, under aforesaid exchange scheme. when respondent no. 1 measured the screen of the aforesaid tv at his home, he was shocked to find that the size of screen of tv was 27? instead of 29?, that is, size of screen was 2? smaller. whereas, respondent no. 2 had represented at the time of sale of aforesaid ctv that screen of ctv was 29?. in this regard, respondent no. 1 wrote in the engineers report book of respondent no. 2, that aforesaid tv was sold by representing the same as of 29? whereas, it was actually only of 27?. when respondent no.1 asked respondent no. 2 to replace the aforesaid tv of 27? with a t.v. of 29?, respondent no. 2 asked him to make a complaint to customer care. accordingly, complaint was made on 16.7.2007. it is further stated that only.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT..... we have also perused the policy document a copy of which is placed on record and we agree with the view taken by the state commission. the wordings of the policy document in question are such which do not leave us with any doubt about the non-coverage of mushrooms beds inside the building. we do not see any reason to differ from the finding of the state commission. the respondent/insurance company has not challenged the impugned order as such it has already become final against the insurance company. there is no scope for any further relief to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case. we have therefore no option but to dismiss the revision petition and to confirm the impugned order, which does not call for any interference. no costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and as stated earlier he was referred to various medical experts and given the required treatment on the basis of detailed diagnostic tests. in fact, it was the patient who was negligent in not following medical advice and not returning for follow-up review/treatment at respondents/institutes. the state commission after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence recorded before it, concluded that there was no medical negligence on the part of the respondents and dismissed the appeal. the relevant part of the order of the state commission reads as under: œwe are of the view that the opposite parties have conducted necessary tests and there is no negligence on their part in treating the patient but he patient did not go back for review or follow up as directed. he did not also produce the previous prescription or treatment sheet in s.v.r.r. hospital when he visited the second opposite party hospital for a second time on 03.05.1997 four months after the first visit and came with a new o.p. ticket no.26628 and with a different complaint i.e. fever for 5 days duration. he did not inform the previous history or treatment. even when diagnosis was made by cmc, hospital,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....completed. the petitioners failed to deliver the plot within two years and were liable to pay 18% of the interest for the delayed period. on these facts and circumstances of the case, the complainant filed a complaint wherein he claimed that the possession of the plot be delivered to him on his depositing rs.1215/- and œno dues certificate? be issued. it was further requested that the petitioner should be directed not to deposit any interest or extension fee till the expiry of two years and withdraw the notice dated 21.3.2003. the complainant also demanded compensation in the sum of rs. 1 lakh and rs.11,000/- as amount of escalation in the price of construction material. 3. on the other hand, estate officer, haryana issued a notice dated 21.3.2003 against the complainant to show cause as to why penalty in the sum of rs.93,160/- be not imposed him. the case of the petitioner is that the possession was offered to the complainant on 19.12.1995 after completion of development works. the present complaint filed in may, 2003 is time barred. the complainant has to pay a sum of rs.93,000/- because he has been defaulter. 4. the district forum held that the development works before.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the ops filed an appeal before the haryana state consumer disputes redressal commission, panchkula (state commission for short) which vide its order dated 8.12.2010 set aside the order of the district forum and allowed the appeal. the petitioner has now filed this revision petition challenging the order of the state commission. 4. we have heard mr. madhurendra kumar, advocate for the petitioner and perused the record placed before us by the petitioner. it is seen from the impugned order that the state commission found that the complaint of the petitioner before the district forum was filed after more than four years and hence it was barred by limitation prescribed under section 24a of the consumer protection act, 1986. since this important aspect was not considered by the district forum while deciding the complaint, the state commission following the law settled by the apex court in the case of state bank of india vs. b.s. agricultural industries [(2009) ctj 481 (sc)] set aside the order of the district forum and allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. the state commission has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order:- œat the very.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim till realization. rs. 10,000 were awarded by way of costs. facts: 2. complainant/respondent, gurinder kaur, wife of late karaj singh filed a complaint on 4th february, 2003 claiming that her husband had obtained policy bearing no. 470619681 dated 5th november, 1999 for a sum of rs. 5 lacs at an yearly premium of rs. 17,197. unfortunately, he died on 20th february, 2001 (within 13 months) from the date of signing the proposal. that after the death of her husband she had lodged a claim with the appellant which repudiated the same on the ground that the insured had suppressed material facts regarding his health. being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the state commission. 3. on being served, appellant entered appearance and filed written statement refuting the claim of the respondent. it was submitted that the insured was suffering from hypertension and blood pressure and that he had suffered a paralytic attack three years prior to the taking of the policy. it was stated that life insured was not keeping good health at the time of signing the proposal and had taken treatment from.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and conditions of the csa because the staff was neither adequately qualified nor trained/experienced in this line of activity. the complainant, in fact, wrote in detail in july 1996 suggesting ways and means of overcoming the problems being faced by the op in performing according to the terms of the csa. when this did not lead to the desired improvement, it filed a complaint before the state commission. (iii) the complainant listed in the complaint the following instances of deficient service by the op: (a) abb ltd - delivery of 600 shares of the company to the complainants broker with outdated transfer deeds resulted in the auction of the shares for delivery and consequent loss to the complainant, in violation of clause 3, schedule ii of the csa. (b) padmini polymers ltd - extraordinary delay in procuring and transferring 14,100 shares of the company to the complainant resulted in substantial drop in the market price of the shares by the date on which these shares were finally received by the complainant after follow-up through letters and telephone calls. this delay violated clause 3.2.3, article iii of the csa and also caused loss to the complainant by receiving the dividend.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT