Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Decided on : Mar-17-2011
G.S. Hora, Presiding Member. This appeal arises out of order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum (DCF), Nagaur whereby the Appellant Insurance Co. has been directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 20.7.2009 to the date of payment besides Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation. The Life Assured (LA) was Late Shri Bhanwar Singh Choudhary who had obtained three policies by filling the proposal forms on 25.5.2006, 15.3.2007 and 30.3.2007. The policy amount was Rs. 3,50,000/-, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- respectively. The policy holder died on 24.11.2007. A claim was filed by Smt. Radha Devi being the nominee but the claim for all the three policies were repudiated vide separate letters dated 7.4.2008 on the ground that the LA before submitting proposal forms had suffered from Kidney stone for which an operation was performed but he did not disclose this fact while taking the insurance policies, rather he gave fal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
Decided on : Apr-08-2011
1. Both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the award dated 19.06.2003, passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,14,200/- and has apportioned the compensation amongst the appellant-claimant, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar, claimant-respondent, Smt. Suraj Parihar, respondent No.5, Mr. Raghav Parihar and respondent No.6, Smt. Bhawna Patel. Smt. Sangeeta Parihar has filed the appeal before this Court, while Mr. Raghav Parihar has filed the cross-objection. Since both the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same award, they are being decided by this common judgment.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.12.1994, Mr. Ravindra Parihar and his wife, Smt. Sangeeta Parihar and an another lady, Smt. Aruna Swami, were travelling in a Fiat Car, bearing Registration No. RNI 45, from Bheror to Jaipur. Around 9:00 PM, when they reached near the village Aantela, one of the back tires was punctured. Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-15-2011
1. The important question which requires consideration in the present case is as to whether the first appellate authority, namely, Commissioner of the Income-tax (Appeals) or Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) under Income-tax Act, 1961, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) have power to grant stay and decide the stay application filed along-with appeal/s filed before them under Section 246/246A of Act respectively or not. The concomitant question, which would arise is whether the power of the Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act of 1961 to grant stay is there with the Assessing Authority during the pendency of the appeal before the appellate authority; and how such powers of ‘treating the assessee as not being in default in respect of amount in dispute in the appeal’, have to be exercised by such Assessing Officer under Section 220(6) of the Act. 2. Before coming the provisions of the Act and interpretation thereof, a brief look at the facts in ...
Tag this Judgment!