Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and another, appellants (In short the appellants) have filed this appeal against the order dated 16.09.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Balbir Singh, respondent/ complainant (hereinafter called as the respondent) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the appellants, pleading that he purchased a second hand tractor bearing No.PB-05-N-6331 which was insured vide policy bearing No.OG-08-1213-1811-00000071 and the said insurance policy was transferred in the name of the respondent. 3. On the intervening night of 27/28.01.2009, the said tractor was stolen from the premises of the respondent. The respondent got registered the FIR with the Police Station, Sadar, Ferozepur vide FIR No.22 dated 29.01.2009. The respondent approached...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Chandigarh
Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member: 1. M/s Mangla Motors, appellant/opposite party (In short the appellant) has filed this appeal against the order dated 08.04.2009 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar (in short the District Forum). 2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Davinder Verma, respondent/complainant (hereinafter called as the respondent) filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the appellant, making the averments that he purchased one E-Luxury Bicycle from the appellant on 22.11.2007 from Shri Muktsar Sahib, at the time when the appellant organized exhibition regarding the sale and propaganda of the said vehicle. The vehicle was with one year guarantee and during this one year guarantee period, the above mentioned vehicle started giving problems such as starting problem, increasing and decreasing of Race automatically, suspension problem and the respondent suffered lot of mental t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd which is the opposite party has filed the appeal. The respondent filed complaint seeking for indemnification of the cost of his vehicle, Motor Cycle bearing registration number AP 30L 6167 which was insured with the appellant under insurance policy bearing number 417005/31/11/010274 valid for the period from 13.10.2010 to 12.10.2011 for a sum of Rs.43,415/-.The respondent has submitted that the vehicle was stolen by unknown persons on 10.3.2011 from the parking place at his office at Tekkali and the appellant informed the incident over phone to the appellant immediately as also to the police on 11.03.2011 and the police had registered case in Cr.No. 48 of 2011. The police issued a certificate to the respondent and closed the case referring to the vehicle as non-traceable. The appellant repudiated the claim on the ground that the respondent had violated the terms of the insurance policy. The respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The appellant is an agriculturist. He insured his she buffalo with the respondent-insurance company under Insurance Policy bearing No.550902/47/10/01/9400000156. The she buffalo died on 4.10.2011 and the veterinary doctor, Guttikonda conducted postmortem examination on the dead she buffalo and issued report of postmortem examination. The appellant submitted claim along with the relevant documents. The respondent insurance company repudiated the claim on the premise that the ear tag tagged to the she buffalo was not submitted by the appellant. 2. The claim is resisted on behalf of the respondent insurance company on the premise that the respondent entered into Memorandum of Understanding with the Chief Executive Officer, Andhra Pradesh Livestock Development Agency Hyderabad on 30.10.2010 and issued Master Policy and as per Clause 10 of MoU, for settlement of claim, the insured should submit ear tag tagged to the insured animal and if the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant was directed to replace CPU of the computer purchased by the respondent or in the alternative to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- ad costs. 2. The respondent claimed for replacement of CPU on the premise that the computer he purchased on 12.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.22,000/- posed problem as its hard disc whose life period as informed by the appellant is one year, required repair on 28.05.2012 which the appellant informed him that would take three weeks as it was to be sent to their service centre for which the respondent demanded for replacement of hard disc since it would not be possible for him to wait for a period of three days. 3. The appellant contended that it is a partnership firm which has to be represented by its managing partner and not by its authorized signatory and the respondent had not complained of any technical defect i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
Smt. A. Radha, Member Appellant is the complainant who preferred this appeal against the order dated, 02/11/2012 in I.A.No.266/12 in C.C.No.257/2008 on the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The complaint was dismissed on 01/08/2011 on the ground of non-representation on behalf of the complainant. The reason stated in the petition is that the complainant was abroad on account of urgent business matters and he could not personally contact his Advocate and give necessary instructions. A delay of 204 days occurred in filing the restoration petition, I.A.No.266/12 and I.A.No.267/12 to condone the delay of 204 days dismissed by the Forum Below stating that no valid contentions raised by the petitioner. 2. The respondent strongly objected in admitting the appeal as it is a belated application. 3. The complainants case is that an additional bill was issued by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.61,357/- and the bill was challenged by the complainant which could not be prosecuted due to his personal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The appeal is challenge to the order of the District Forum whereby the appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs.one lakh with interest and costs. 2. The respondent filed complaint stating that her husband obtained postal life insurance policies for a sum of Rs.one lakh each on 31.3.2010 and paid premium on the same day. Her husband died in an accident on 15.4.2010. She lodged claim which was repudiated on the ground that policy was not delivered during the life time of the insured. 3. The appellant resisted the claim contending that the husband of the respondent by paying first instalment premium on 31.3.2010 obtained Postal Life Insurance policy bearing No.AP-416219-CS and another postal life insurance policy bearing No. AP 416408-CS. The husband of the respondent died on 15.4.2010 on which date the insurance policy was issued and on coming to know about the death of the insured the appellant addressed letter to the effect that accep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed complaint claiming for replacement of Hero Honda Motor Cycle or in the alternative for repayment of the cost of the vehicle, Rs.53,698/- with interest @24% p.a. and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs. 2. The appellant purchased Hero Honda Motor Cycle on 24.12.2010 from the 1st respondent for consideration of Rs.53,698/- and the 2nd respondent issued delivery challan on 27.12.2010 and the vehicle was registered with registration number AP 07 AZ 7550 and was furnished with warranty for a period of 2 years or 30000 kms whichever is earlier from the date of its purchase. 3. The case of the appellant is that vehicle posed frequent repairs due to manufacturing defect. The 4th respondent, the manufacturer of the vehicle issued Brochure and Users Manual. The 1st respondent represented that the fuel consumption of the vehicle is 65 kms per litre and it is actually 39 kms per liter. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. She filed complaint claiming the sum assured under the life insurance policy obtained by her deceased husband which was refused to be paid by the respondent-insurance corporation on the premise that the insured suppressed the fact that he had undergone surgery for treatment of Glioma prior to taking the insurance policy. 2. The appellants husband during his lifetime obtained life insurance policy bearing number 688511762 from the respondent-insurance company for the period of 21 years commencing from 18.03.2009 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellants husband died on 10.07.2010 and after the death of her husband, the appellant lodged claim with the respondent -insurance company. The respondent has not paid the claim amount on the premise that the insured concealed the fact that he was suffering from Glioma. The appellant submitted that her husband did not suppress any material fact wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Oral Order: (R. Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member) 1. The opposite party no.2 is the appellant. The respondent no. 1 to 4 filed complaint claiming an amount of `5 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum and costs. 2. The fifth respondent sanctioned loan an amount of `5,00,000/- under loan account bearing number 62093841013 and in favour of the first respondent husband and the appellant issued insurance cover under Master Policy No.83001000507 in favour of the respondent no.5 and individual insurance policies to the loan account holders who included the husband of the respondent no.1. The risk cover tapers down as the EMIs get paid. The first respondent husband died on 23.06.2010 and the outstanding loan amount as on the date of his death is Rs.4,80,175/- and to the extent of the same amount is the ambit of risk cover on the date of his death. 3. The appellant issued the insurance policy on submission of Membership Form by the husband of the respondent no.1. After the death of her husband, the fir...
Tag this Judgment!