Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... hospital was given to him at an even later stage. the complainant after his discharge from hospital duly represented his case with the third party administrator medsave (op no. 1) acting on behalf of insurer (op no. 2) and lodged his claim for reimbursement of the amount incurred by him on his treatment. the complainant represented his case to the ops ..... taking treatment under the medical insurance policy. the complainant approached and requested the ops time and again for the redressal of his grievances but to no avail. the above said act of ops amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed. 3. reply was filed by ops no. 1 and 2 and stated that complainant is not entitled .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... /respondent asked for the no due certificate but even then they tried to linger on the matter till he applied for information under the rti act. the imposition of rs. 30,000 is, therefore, fully justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. since this payment is ..... 4), no reply was sent to him. ultimately he moved an application (annexure c-5) to obtain information under the right to information act and was informed vide annexure c-6 that his case was under process. annexure c-7 is the letter dated 12.10.2006 showing ..... 8.11.2005 and 10.1.2006. he then applied on 17.8.2006 vide annexure c-5 under the right to information act upon which he received a reply vide annexure c-6 dated 19.9.2006 informing him that the case was under process. the ..... jagroop singh mahal, member: 1. this is ops appeal under section 15 of the consumer protection act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the act) against the order dated 30.11.2009, passed by learned district consumer disputes redressal forum-ii, u.t .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... on behalf of appellant and mr. satvir tandon, respondent in person. 7. in appeal, the learned district forum has wrongly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant and acted with material irregularity and totally illegally while proceedings ex parte. it is pertinent to mention here that complaint was instituted against the appellant and notice issued to the appellant ..... to the category of permanent immigration, for which stringent requirement existed and that is why he had asked only for a work permit. therefore, the op did not act according to his directions and the op is guilty of mishandling and by not pursuing his case properly as well as cheated him by talking such a huge amount ..... op did not forward the same to the concerned authorities. 13. in this view of the matter, we are of the view that op is guilty by not acting according to the directions of the complainant, mishandling the case of the complainant and not pursuing his case properly. the op is also at fault on the ground that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the OP (Standard Chartered Bank) against order dated 4.3.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1146 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant availed the Credit Card facility from the OPs and the OPs issued a Credit Card bearing No. 4129037083944041 and a Supplementary Credit Card bearing No. 4129039280201324. The complainant got ceased the facility and entered into one time settlement with the OPs with regard to credit card dues. The OPs issued letter dated 15.5.2007 to the complainant wherein the OPs offered settlement of account on payment of Rs. 22,500 against the outstanding dues of these credit cards but the OPs never issued any statement of outstanding dues to the complainant. The complainant against the said settlement, deposited Rs. 27,610 with OP Bank till February, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... in the atm. the complainant also sought information regarding the above facts from sbi under rti act, 2005. the sbi in their reply dated 22.7.2009 stated that as per provisions of rti act, 2005 the information sought was not covered under the definition of information under section 2(f), rti act . thereafter, the complainant tried to seek information from the appellate authority of sbi on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. By this order of ours we are disposing of 2 appeals received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Honble National Commission as these are arising out of the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala, Punjab (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 249 of 5.5.2003. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was having an electric connection bearing account No. MS 33/110 with sanctioned load of 61.393 KW. He is running a Briquetting for earning his livelihood by self-employment. The OP vide its letter bearing No. 823 dated 30.4.2003 raised a demand of Rs. 1,77,669 from the complainant within two days as the ME Lab had detected scratches on the meter, readings having been upset and the hole on the upper side of the meter. The checking was conducted on 29.8.2001 but nothing incriminating was observed by the OP and it was mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... one month from the date of this order. the order be complied with by the ops within one month from the date of this order, otherwise action under section 27 of the act be initiated against the ops. 6. aggrieved by the order of district forum, the present appeal has been filed by the op. sh. navin kapur, advocate ..... motor car as well as omnibus while motor car as defined in section 2(26) of the said act specifically excludes an omnibus. the driving licence of the driver was verified from licencing authority and the said licence was reported to be valid for motorcycle, ..... was registered as a maruti omni having a seating capacity of eight persons and this vehicle in question falls within the definition of omnibus as per section 2(29) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 which defines as omnibus to mean any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver. a light motor vehicle includes .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 17.9.2009 passed in complaint case No. 662 of 2009 : Sh. Satish Bansal v. ICICI Bank. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he opened an account bearing No. 091001502265 with the OP Bank. The case of the complainant is that on 3.4.3009, when he withdrew the amounts of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 at 15:54:09 and 15:55:18 on 3.4.2009 from SBI ATM at Chandigarh Railway Station, the said amounts did not came out of the ATM but the same were debited from his account. The complainant, it was averred, made a complaint with the OP Bank on 6.4.2009 who told him to wait for five days. As per the complainant, the matter was being lingered on by the OP Bank on pretext or the other and finally, the said amounts were received by the complainant on 6.5.2009. Alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... the respondent and carefully gone through the file. the main point for consideration before us is whether the complaint filed by the complainant falls within the preview of consumer protection act, 1986. 7. in the appeal, the appellant pleaded that the impugned order passed by the learned district forum is patently erroneous and illegal inasmuch as the same has been based ..... wait for sometime. but later on after a lapse of quite sometime it was conveyed that the company had refused to give money to the complainant. on the above said act of the op the complainant has filed a complaint for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op. 3. reply was filed by the op and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
..... was conducted in accordance with the rules on the subject. in such a situation, complainant cannot be covered under the definition of consumer as defined under the consumer protection act. in support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon an authority of honble supreme court titled u.t. chandigarh administration and anr. v. amarjeet singh and ..... the auction purchaser as there is no relationship of buyer or seller and it does not amount to hiring of service to fall within the ambit of consumer protection act. 1986. the said para-14 is reproduced as under: 14. where there is a public auction without assuring any specific or particular amenities, and the prospective ..... a complaint can be filed. therefore, any grievance by the purchaser/lessee will not give rise to a complaint or consumer dispute and the fora under the act will not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide any complaint by the auction purchaser/lessee against the owner holding the auction of sites. 7. in this view .....
Tag this Judgment!