Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.7.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only),vide which, it dismissed the complaint. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant(now appellant) took Insurance Policy bearing No. LSP1746771 from the Opposite Parties for the sum assured of Rs. 2,50,000 and paid the annual premium of Rs. 50,000. An assurance was given to him that, in case, he deposited premium for 3 years, he would get the sum assured. It was stated that due to domestic problem, the complainant made a representation to the Opposite Parties, with a request to reduce the annual premium from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 15,000. The request of the complainant was accepted by the Opposite Parties and annual premium was fixed at Rs. 15,000. The complainant deposited Rs. 15,000 in November, 2008 and another Rs. 15,000 in November, 2009 towards annual premiums. It was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.2.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only)vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant opted to take two policies as Single Paid Premium Policy, one in the name of his grand-daughter Ameek Kaur and another in the name of his daughter Gurkiran Kaur and, as such, paid Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 each) as premium. However, he did not receive the Policy documents till 18.11.2009, so he visited the Opposite Parties and requested them to issue Original Policies, whereupon, they issued him the duplicate Policies on 27.11.2009 mentioning therein the minimum surrender period as five years instead of one year. It was stated that he requested the Opposite Parties to cancel one Policy bearing No. 5003565735 issued in the name of his da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 2.9.2011, rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum)vide which it dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant. 2. The facts of the complaint, in brief, are that the complainant applied for loan of Rs. 19,50,000 from State Bank of Patiala (Opposite party No. 2) in January, 2010 together with Life Insurance Policy by paying extra premium of Rs. 27,841. He was sanctioned loan of Rs. 19,77,841 on 14.1.2010, but the opposite parties did not issue insurance policy to him. Rather opposite party No. 2,vide Annexure C-8, charged excess amount of Rs. 5,443. He made several efforts to resolve the issue, but without any result. Ultimately, he served a legal notice dated 18.9.2010, upon the opposite parties, but to no avail. It was stated that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties, amounted to deficiency, in rende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.2.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased a Life Insurance Policy bearing No. 0033020546 dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure C-1) from the Opposite Party. He paid a sum of Rs. 10,000, as first premium,vide cheque No. 317936 dated 11.12.2006. Subsequently, due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant could not continue the said policy. It was stated that as per Section 5(b) of the Agreement (Annexure C-2), the Opposite Party was supposed to pay amount equivalent to the value of accumulated units towards the first premium, paid by the complainant. However, no such amount was paid to him. The complainant made a requestvide letter dated 16.3.2010 (Annexure C-3), to the Opposite P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.10.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only),vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the opposite parties (now appellant, as the appeal has been filed by opposite party No. 1 only), as under: In view of the above detailed analysis of the case, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 6,20,000 to the complainant towards the claim of the insured vehicle. The OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000 as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony, along with Rs. 20,000 towards costs of litigation. This order be complied with by the OPs, within one month...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Neena Sandhu, Member: This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2011, rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint, filed by the complainants/respondents, and directed the appellant/OP as under:- In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the OP Company was deficient in providing proper services to the complainants. The present complaint has lot of merit, weight and substance. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP is directed to pay Rs.6,062/- to each of the complainants i.e. Rs.18,186/- which they had spent for the purchase of air tickets of Indigo Flight plus Rs.9830/- spent by them for one day Hotel Stay at Mumbai (18,186 + 9830/- = Rs.28,016/-) The OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- apart from Rs.10,000/- as litigation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.11.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only)vide which, it dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant was having saving a/c No. 036201506458, with the Opposite Parties, at Manimajra Branch, Chandigarh. He was also using the Debit Card of the Opposite Parties Bank. On 7.11.2009, at about 10.25 a.m., the complainant checked his balance account through the ATM of Opposite Party No. 2 and found Rs. 40,027 as net balance. At about 10.35 a.m., he took a token inside the Branch of Opposite Party No. 2 Bank, for withdrawal of Rs. 40,000, through cheque, but while, he was waiting for his turn, he received an SMS from the Opposite Parties, regarding withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 20,000, from the ATM, at about 10:54 A.M. The complainant immediately enquired...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: 1. This order shall dispose of the aforementioned First Appeal No. 292 of 2011, titled as M/s. Future Generali India Insurance company Ltd. v. Rakesh Mehta, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties and the Cross objections/ First Cross Appeal No. 359 of 2011, titled as M/s. Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd., v. Rakesh Mehta, filed by the cross objector/respondent/complainant (appellant in Cross appeal and respondent in First Appeal No. 292 of 2011), against the order dated 7.9.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only),vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants, in first appeal No. 292 of 2011 and respondents in Cross Appeal No. 359 of 2011), as under: Hence, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this complaint with directions to the OPs to consider the report of Sh. Kailash Chandra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.01.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed the Opposite Parties, as under:- In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the repudiation of complainants claim by the OP Company is totally unjustified. The complaint has merit. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.4,02,936/-, the loss suffered by the complainant as well as assessed by the Surveyor vide Ann.C-4, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 23.6.2011 (Ann.C-5) till it the date of order. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation costs. The order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay interest @12% p.a. on the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Sham Sunder, President: This appeal is directed against the Majority order dated 22.02.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed Opposite Parties no.1, 2 and 3, jointly and severally, as under:- (i)The OPs shall pay a compensation of Rs.35,000/- for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant, on account of not processing/ finalizing his case for the delivery of Indigo Manza Aqua Q.J. car through CSD, even after the Complainant had completed all necessary formalities, including making full payment of Rs.5,13,225/- to the OPs, required in the case, as per CSD Scheme of Govt. of India. (ii) The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant. The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall, jointly a...
Tag this Judgment!