Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... 86, started injection dubutamine 2 amp in drip 20 mint. ..... pulse 120, respiration 20 mint., b.p. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... malik (one of us) stated in strong words that the appellant has definitely tried to mint money by leading the gullible people up the garden path and held petitioner responsible for huge deficiency in service which has resulted in playing with the careers of young children?. 12. ..... it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner / (ops) intention was to mint money. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... , a unit falling under sme sector for the purpose of setting up of its project of mint of gold and silver coins and manufacturing of semi precious and precious stones studded jewellery. ..... shiv shankar lal gupta, the complainant in this case is a promoter of clarity gold mint ltd. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... one fails to understand as to how only one out of the 3 temperatures was continued to be monitored by the operator for 70 mints. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
justice v.b. gupta, presiding member petitioner by way of present revision has challenged order dated 27.4.2011, passed by state consumer disputes redressal commission, raipur (for short, state commission). 2. brief facts are that petitioner/complainant being the owner of truck no.c.g.17-h/8111, had insured the same with respondent/o.p. under policy no.61602 for period from 22.06.2007 to 21.06.2008, having insured value of rs.7,00,000/-. said vehicle met with an accident on 12.07.2007 resulting in its extensive damage due to collusion with another truck. intimation about loss caused to the truck, was sent to the respondent, which appointed an investigator/ surveyor, who conducted spot survey of the site of accident. intimation of accident was also given to the police. petitioner averred that claim form along with relevant documents was subsequently filed with respondent which entrusted m/s sunil and company for assessment of loss caused to the vehicle. petitioner cooperated with the surveyor in assessment of loss and also provided him relevant bills, who submitted his report to the respondent on 31.10.2007. petitioner averred that he had suffered loss of rs.5,79,137/-, whereas respondent without any proper reason assessed the loss as rs.3,10,000/-only. it is further alleged by the petitioner that on 21.7.2008 he wrote a letter to the respondent and raised objection that the total loss in the vehicle is of rs.5,79,137/-. even thereafter, respondent has sanctioned rs.3,10,000/- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
v.b. gupta, presiding member 1. present revision petition has been filed under section 17(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 (for short, act) against order dated 23.2.2007, passed by state consumer disputes redressal commission, bihar, patna (for short, state commission). 2. petitioner/complainant, filed a complaint before district consumer disputes redressal forum, patna(for short, district forum) stating that he purchased second hand maruti car which was insured with respondents/o.ps for rs.2,10,000/-. after two days after the purchase of the car, on 11.2.1999 the same was stolen. petitioner lodged claim with the respondents. after about two and half years, respondents decided his case and paid rs.1,15,000/- only. it is alleged by the petitioner that he accepted this amount under protest, since he is entitled to get the insured amount of rs.2,10,000/-, besides compensation for late settlement of the claim. 3. respondents in their written statement admitted the factum of insurance of the car in question. it is stated that after receipt of the information of theft of the car, they appointed surveyor who assessed the value of the car as rs.1,15,000/-. this amount was paid to the petitioner on 17.10.2001 as full and final settlement of his claim. petitioner signed the discharge voucher and accepted this amount. thus, there is no merit in the complaint. 4. district forum, vide order dated 4.2.2004 allowed the complaint and directed respondents to pay to the petitioner a sum .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
rekha gupta, member revision petition no. 881 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 challenging, inter-alia, the impugned final judgment and order dated 12.07.2012 passed in first appeal no. 918 of 2012 by the karnataka state consumer disputes redressal commission, bangalore (the state commission). the brief facts of the case as stated by the respondent/complainant are that on 09.11.2008, his skoda car bearing registration no. ka 03 mg 3025 met with an accident on 07.00 p m on n h 4 road, near thathikallu village, mulbagal taluk, kolar district. due to the accident the above said vehicle was fully damaged. the nangali police station has registered a case in crime no. 191 of 2008 against the said vehicle. the fir is herewith produced for kind perusal of this honble court. as the skoda car bearing registration no. ka 03 mg 3025 was fully damaged in the accident and was got repaired by vinayaka cars pvt. ltd., authorised dealer of skoda auto india pvt. ltd., revack building, no. 50/ 2 tc palya cross, old madras road, bangalore 560 049. the respondent/complainant spent rs.10,46,961/- including tax towards repair. the said fact was conveyed to opposite party and all necessary document i.e., driving licence, r c book, cost of repair bills etc., for settlement towards repairing the vehicle were produced to them. to his utter surprise respondent/ complainant received a letter dated 27.08.2009 sent by the opposite party stating that person .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
rekha gupta, member revision petition no. 2547 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) against the order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the punjab state consumer disputes redressal commission, chandigarh (the state commission) in appeal no. 1332 of 2007. the respondent no. 1/complainant has filed a complaint alleging therein that he had purchased a life insurance policy for a sum of rs.4,00,000/- by paying premium of rs.10,000/- per annum from the petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 through respondent no. 2/ opposite party no. 2, the authorised agent of petitioner on 11.10.2004. that the above said policy bearing no. 0005870798 was in the name of smt anita kumari, mother of respondent no. 1. smt anita kumari died on 04.04.2005 due to heart attack and an insurance claim was lodged with the petitioner through opposite party no. 2 along with the original policy. but this claim was repudiated by the petitioner on 27.09.2005. alleging deficiency in service respondent has prayed for a direction to the petitioner to pay an amount of rs.4,00,000/- along with interest and rs.50,000/- as compensation. on notice, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 appeared and filed separate written versions. petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 in its written version has submitted that complaint is not maintainable in the present forum as the deceased had played a fraud on the petitioner by filing a fake driving licence regarding her age proof in which the age was understated. petitioner further submitted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
rekha gupta, member revision petition no. 2547 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (b) against the order dated 28.08.2012 passed by the punjab state consumer disputes redressal commission, chandigarh (the state commission) in appeal no. 1332 of 2007. the respondent no. 1/complainant has filed a complaint alleging therein that he had purchased a life insurance policy for a sum of rs.4,00,000/- by paying premium of rs.10,000/- per annum from the petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 through respondent no. 2/ opposite party no. 2, the authorised agent of petitioner on 11.10.2004. that the above said policy bearing no. 0005870798 was in the name of smt anita kumari, mother of respondent no. 1. smt anita kumari died on 04.04.2005 due to heart attack and an insurance claim was lodged with the petitioner through opposite party no. 2 along with the original policy. but this claim was repudiated by the petitioner on 27.09.2005. alleging deficiency in service respondent has prayed for a direction to the petitioner to pay an amount of rs.4,00,000/- along with interest and rs.50,000/- as compensation. on notice, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 appeared and filed separate written versions. petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 in its written version has submitted that complaint is not maintainable in the present forum as the deceased had played a fraud on the petitioner by filing a fake driving licence regarding her age proof in which the age was understated. petitioner further submitted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
v.b. gupta, presiding member petitioner/opposite party being aggrieved by common order dated 29.6.2010, passed (in appeals no. 2035,2036,2037 and 2038 of 2010) by karnataka state consumer disputes redressal commission, banagalore (for short, state commission) has filed above noted petitions. alongwith these petitions, applications for condonation of delay of 360/390 days have also been filed. 2. respondents/complainants applied for allotment of residential sites in vagragiri township?, bangalore. they paid money for that purpose to the petitioner. however, petitioner did not allot the sites nor registered the sale deed in their favour. the reason given by petitioner for not allotting the sites is that due to the legal hurdles in respect of the land in which the layout to be formed, the petitioner is unable to allot the sites. 3. respondents, therefore filed complaints before the additional district consumer disputes redressal forum, bangalore (for short, district forum). 4. district forum, vide its common order dated 23.04.2010, allowed the complaints and directed petitioners company to refund the total amount deposited by the respondents alongwith compensation of rs.3,50,000/- each, with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the order. it further awarded rs.5,000/- as costs to each of the respondents. 5. aggrieved by the order of district forum, petitioner filed appeals before the state commission which dismissed the same at admission stage itself, vide its impugned order. .....
Tag this Judgment!