Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26.07.2011, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja. Ambikapur (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short) in complaint case No.172/2009, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been dismissed on the ground that the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of the insurer, has not been proved. 2. In nutshell the facts of the case are that the vehicle bearing No.CG-15A-8190, of the registered ownership of the appellant, was insured by the respondent / insurance company under comprehensive insurance policy as a goods carrying commercial transport vehicle. The said vehicle suffered damages in a road accident on 01.06.08. Claim was preferred by the appellant before the insurance company, which was repudiated by the insurance company on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. This repudiation of claim was alleged as deficiency in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S.C. Vyas, President: 1. This order will govern disposal of appeal Nos.406/2011, 407/2011 and 408/2011, which have been preferred by the same OP Nos.1 and 2 / appellants, against different complainants / respondent No.1 and the same OP No.2 / respondent No.2 of complaint case Nos.38/2007, 39/2007 and 40/2007 respectively, which have been decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short), vide similar order dated 20.06.2011. 2. Mrs. Preeti Dawda was complainant of complaint case Nos.40/2007 and 38/2007, whereas one Mr. Rajesh Sanghani was complainant of complaint case No.39/07. The case of complainants of all the complaint cases before District Forum was that plot No.867/2 is situated at Baijnath Para, Raipur and an agreement was executed between the appellants as well as respondent No.2 on 15.06.1991 for construction and development that particular plot and then construction of apartment house was carried out on that plot and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against order 22.10.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korba (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short) in complaint case No.51/2003, whereby the appellant herein has been directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of payment, on the allegation that he committed negligence while performing surgical operation on the eye of the complainant, resulting in total loss of vision. In addition to it, he has also been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. Indisputably, the respondent / complainant reached to the Hospital of the appellant on 23.11.2000 with complaint of having cataract in the right eye. The appellant after examination advised for surgical operation for removal of cataract and for implantation of artificial lense. The complainant was admitted on 26.11.2000 in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of Appeal No.533/2011 as well as Appeal No.540/2011, which have been preferred respectively by the complainant and O.P.No.2 of Complaint Case No.59/2011 decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short) vide order dated 30.08.2011, directing the O.P.No.2 to return the vehicle in question after removal of the rusts and after fresh denting and painting and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.700/- as cost of litigation. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred in this order in their capacity, as they were enjoying before the District Forum. Original of this order be retained in record of Appeal No.533/2011 and a copy thereof be placed in the record of Appeal No.540/2011. 2. The grievance of the complainant before the District Forum, was that a motorcycle, which was sold by the OPs to him was not new one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This order will govern disposal of appeal Nos.279/11, 280/11, 281/11 and 282/11, which have been preferred by unsuccessful complainant of complaint case Nos.64/09, 66/09, 63/09 and 67/09, respectively, decided by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Korea. Baikunthpur (hereinafter called .District Forum. for short) vide separate orders dated 08.04.2011, in favour of the respondent / Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called .LIC. for short). The complaints have been dismissed on the ground that the deceased insured was guilty of suppression of material facts, at the time of making proposal for insurance and so the appellant is not entitled for any benefit under the life insurance policies, issued in favour of the deceased, by the respondent. Apart from it, the appellant has been directed to pay cost of Rs.500/- in each complaint case, to the respondent / LIC within a period of one month, otherwise the amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. 2. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Mrs. Veena Misra, Member: 1. This Order will govern disposal of Appeal Nos. 410/2011and 436/2011 which have been respectively preferred by complainant and OPs against order dated 27.6.2011 passed in complaint Case No.108/2010 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum for short) whereby the Ops were directed to pay interest @6 % per annum from the date of each installment deposited by the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion of any sort parties will be referred in this order as complainant and OPs. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of these appeals are that the complainant had booked an MIG Delux house at Saddu, Raipur with OPs under Self-Finance Scheme. Complainant was duly informed by the OPs vide letter dated 06.07.2006 that on the basis of his application dated 16.11.2005, House No. 84 has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
V.K. Patil, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.03.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter referred for short as District Forum) in Complaint Case No.217/2007, whereby the complaint of complainant was allowed and the OPs were directed to return the vehicle No.C.G.-15 A/3646 to the complainant in running condition failing which to pay the value of the vehicle Rs.3,40,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. from 08.05.2007 till final payment, also Rs.1,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of litigation Rs.2,000/-. OPs, having been aggrieved by the impugned order, have filed this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case as averred in the complaint are that the complainant had made a sale agreement on 29.10.2005 with OPs in respect of two repossessed Swaraj Mazda vehicles having registration Nos.C.G.15-A-3646 and C.G.07-C-2210. Complainant averred that he had deposited with OPs Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque and Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Veena Misra, Member. 1. This is an appeal filed by the OPs insurer against order dated 17.01.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.416/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called District Forum for short), whereby the complaint was allowed and the OPs were directed to pay to the mother of the deceased insured, the insured sum as well as accident benefit aggregating to Rs.1,47,462/- and also to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint together with Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation. 2. The facts of the case before the District Forum are that the complainants son, Shri Ashish Jain had obtained HDFC Children Double Benefit Plan Policy bearing No.10405812 dated 21.10.2005 for a sum of Rs.73,731/- with equal sum under accident benefit, yearly premium was Rs.5,000/- and the policy was to mature on 21.10.2019. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant had regularly paid premium for 3 complete years and on 15.11.2008 he met with an acci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
S.C. Vyas, President. 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.02.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter called District Forum for short) in Complaint Case No.195/2010, whereby the appellant/Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.41,600/- (The I.D.V. of the vehicle) to the complainant/respondent on account of theft of the insured motorcycle, and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation. 2. In nutshell, the motorcycle bearing No.C.G.07.L.L.-4287 was insured with the appellant/Insurance Company for a period between 25.08.2009 to 24.08.2009 and it was of the registered ownership of the complainant/respondent. As per case of the complainant/respondent before District Forum, the said motorcycle was stolen by someone on 06.10.2009. The incident was immediately reported to the Insurance Company orally. The complainant went to Police Station for lodging police report, but he w...
Tag this Judgment!