Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
J.B. Garg, President: 1. There was an order for recovery of Rs. 83,190/against M/s. Auto Tractors Ltd., New Delhi. On 26.2.96, warrants of arrest were issued by the District Forum, Union Territory, Chandigarh, in the recovery proceedings. Aggrieved against it, Ramesh Sipani approached this Commission. A perusal of the impugned order dated 26.3.96 shows that the specific name of Ramesh Sipani does not find mention therein. It shall be useful to refer to prayer made in this appeal and it is reproduced as under : "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the execution/issuance of arrest warrant and arrest of Sh. Ramesh Sipani, thereof may kindly be stayed in the interest of justice and law of equity till the decision and final disposal of application for setting-aside ex-parte order. It is further prayed that the District Forum may kindly be directed not to activate the execution proceedings and the issuance of warrants of arrest of Ramesh Sipani thereof. AND Any other relief for which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
J.B. Garg, President: 1. As a consequence of a complaint instituted by Shri Ramesh Chander Sethi, Superintendent of Police, Punjab, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT, Chandigarh, ordered on 11.9.96 that the price of the HIG (II) flat as prevalent in July, 1991 was recoverable from him and not the enhanced price of 27.10.93 when the subsequent so-called correct allotment letter was issued to the officer. Besides this, it was ordered that Shri Sethi was entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and costs Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved against it, the Chandigarh Housing Board has attempted the present appeal. 2. Shri Ramesh Chander Sethi was associated with anti-terrorist operations in Amritsar and other parts of the State of Punjab in April, 1988. He had been recipient of police medals and commendation certificates. As a consequence of a bomb blast by terrorists in Ludhiana, the officer received a grievous injury and his left leg was amputated. There was a scheme by the Chandigarh Housing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sada Nand, Member: 1.Shri Vidya Sagar retired Joint Director, Punjab State, the President of Retired Officers Ground Floor Allottees Welfare Association, Chandigarh on his behalf and 19 others (six more persons added later on) filed a complaint in the District Forum, Chandigarh on 7.9.93 alleging that the houses allotted to them by the Chandigarh Housing Board were to have 1330 sq.ft. covered area and that the tentative cost of each unit was fixed at Rs. 2.25 lacs; that the draw of lots was held in 1988 and the allotment letters issued in August, 1989; that the covered area of the ground floor flats is only 1250 sq.ft. as against the promised 1330 sq.ft.; that the allottees have been made to pay Rs. 2,83,700/- per unit as against the estimated cost of Rs. 2.25 lacs; that correspondingly there has been a reduction in the cost of upper floors which have been brought down from Rs. 2.25 lacs to Rs. 2,22,300/- and Rs. 2,22,500/- for first and second floor flats respectively. They prayed tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
J.B. Garg, President: 1.Stocks of automobiles, spare parts, accessories, machine equipments and tools, etc. belonging to the complainant were insured to the extent of Rs. 18 lacs with M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited for the period 11.5.93 to 10.5.94. It was on 6.8.93 that the burglary at the permises of the complainant took place and a claim for Rs. 4,175.76 was made, but it was repudiated. As a consequence of the complaint instituted by M/s. Chandgothia Brothers, Industrial Area, Panchkula, the District Forum ordered on 11.9.96 that a sum of Rs. 4,175.76 along with interest @ 18% p.a. shall be payable w.e.f. 6.5.93. Aggrieved against it, the present appeal has been attempted. 2. On behalf of the appellant, it has been stressed that no force of any kind was used and the occurrence in question could not be considered as burglary covered by the insurance policy. It is always the skill and choice of the culprit where and in what manner he was to operate. Even if there was a bo...
Tag this Judgment!