Patna Court August 1992 Judgments
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Prasad.
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Aug-31-1992
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This application in revision has been filed against order dated 21st August, 1991 passed by the District Forum, Samastipur in complaint case No. 6 of 91 rejecting the plea taken by the petitioner here who is opposite party before this Commission that the complaint of the complainant before the District Forum who is respondent before this Commission is not maintainable and hence it should be dismissed at its very thresh hold. 2. The facts of the case for the disposal of this application may be briefly stated. The complainant who is the owner of a shop had got his goods ensured with the opposite party National Insurance Company. There was a theft in his shop and goods worth Rs. 5,467.10 were stolen away and, there fore, the complainant lodged the claim before the opposite party, Insurance Company for Rs. 51,000.00. But the opposite party Insurance Company did not pay the claim made by the complainant in spite of several reminders by the complainant. Hence the co...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Amar Medical Hall Vs. Moti Ram, Advocate.
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Aug-28-1992
K.P. Sinha, Member: 1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 28.1.92 holding that the appellant was to pay to the complainant respondent a sum of Rs. 1.80 ps. as refund for excess price charged for the medicines purchased by the complainant - respondent along- with a compensation of Rs. 500/- and another sum of Rs. 50/- as cost of the suit. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainant (Respondent) purchased two bottles of (20 tablets) Laviest prescribed to him, for which the appellant (opposite party before the District Forum) charged him Rs. 28.80. The price mentioned on each bottle was Rs. 13.50 and, therefore, a sum of Rs. 27/- only should have been charged for this purchase against which a sum of Rs. 28.80 was charged and paid by the complainant. For this excess charge the respondent (complainant before the District Forum) moved the District Forum for redressal of his grievance of having been overcharged. The appellant appeared and filed written stat...
Tag this Judgment!Life Insurance Corporation Class I Officers' Sahakari Grih Nirman Sami ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-10-1992
Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these two writ applications which in terms of order dated 4-3-1992 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 1991 have been together, are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In C.W.J.C. No. 380 of 1990 the petitioners pray to quash the communication dated 2-4-1987 (as contained in Annexure-5) of the Sub-Registrar, Danapur (Respondent No. 4) addressed to the Collector, Patna (Respondent No. 2) impounding the sale deed dated 30-3-1987 of the petitioners under Section 33 of the Stamp Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and for restraining the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from proceeding further with Impound Case No. 43 of 1988-89 started against petitioner No. 1. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 5878 of 1991 the petitioners pray to quash a similar communication, though dated 20-3-1987 of Respondent No. 4 addressed to the Collector, Patna (Respondent No. 2) impounding the sale deed dated 19-3-1987 of the petitioners u...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Kumar Vs. Managing Director, Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Others.
Court: Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Decided on: Aug-07-1992
B.N. Sinha, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.1.91 passed by the District Forum, Patna in complaint case No. 305 of 1991. 2. The appellant before this Commission was the complainant and respondent in this case was the opposite party before the District Forum. The complainant-appellant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Patna claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- on account of cost incurred by him for getting his Maruti vehicle repaired as well as for the losses suffered by him in not fulfilling his normal official and domestic duties to the non-working of his Maruti vehicle. The complainant-appellant also claimed interest @ 15% on the amount from the month of March, 1991 till the payment of the same. The opposite party-respondent filed written version of the case and it was mentioned therein that as the clutch plates was badly handled, it was damaged for which the company was not liable to pay any compensation. 3. It appears from the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›