Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the OP (National Insurance Company) against order dated 20.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passing in complaint case No. 1084 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainants car i.e. Maruti Esteem bearing registration No. CH-03-N-6521 duly insured with National Insurance Company (OP), which met with an accident near IT Park, Chandigarh on 13.12.2007 and the car was badly damaged. The car was taken to OP No. 3 (Berkely Automobiles Limited) i.e. the authorized dealer of Maruti Udyog Limited, who intimated OP No. 1 i.e. National Insurance Company whereupon the Insurance Company deputed Mr. Gulzar Singh as Surveyor to examine the vehicle and after examination of the vehicle, the OP No. 3 agreed to repair the car of the complainant on the basis of insurance policy as assured by Surveyor and assured that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. By this order we are disposing of following 281 appealsout of which 276 have been filed by United India Insurance Company Limited (for short hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company) and 5 appeals have been filed by Punjab State Agricultural Market Board (for short hereinafter referred to as Punjab Mandi Board) against the common order dated 29.9.2008 passed by the District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh. The main order had been delivered in complaint case No. 145 of 1990, The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., whereby a bunch of 298 complaints had been decided. Out of said 298 complaints, five complaints were dismissed for non-production of document Annexure P-1 while eight complaints were dismissed as the same did not fall during the period of insurance and nine complaints were dismissed as the date of injury was not mentioned therein. The operating part of the impugned order dated 29.9.2008 reads as under: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. By this order of ours we are disposing of 2 appeals received by transfer from Punjab State Commission, under the orders of Honble National Commission as these are arising out of the order dated 17.12.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala, Punjab (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 249 of 5.5.2003. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant was having an electric connection bearing account No. MS 33/110 with sanctioned load of 61.393 KW. He is running a Briquetting for earning his livelihood by self-employment. The OP vide its letter bearing No. 823 dated 30.4.2003 raised a demand of Rs. 1,77,669 from the complainant within two days as the ME Lab had detected scratches on the meter, readings having been upset and the hole on the upper side of the meter. The checking was conducted on 29.8.2001 but nothing incriminating was observed by the OP and it was mentioned in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Mrs. Neena Sandhu, Member: 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 16.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 852 of 2008. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant No. 1 (Lakhwinder Singh) working as Deputy Manager of OP No. 3 (HFCL Infotel Limited) who secured a Group Medi-claim Insurance Policy from OPs No. 1 and 2 (United India Insurance Company Limited) under which its employees and their dependents were covered for various medical expenses incurred by them on their treatment. The complainant No. 2 i.e. Gurbachan Kaur is the mother of complainant No. 1 Lakhwinder Singh and she is dependent upon her son Lakhwinder Singh. The complainant No. 2 being a patient of hypertension felt chest pain on 10.1.2006 and was immediately taken to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh from where she was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 27.3.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby her complaint bearing No. 989/2008 was allowed and OP No. 1 was directed to pay Rs. 3,000 as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which it was made liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 26.8.2008 till its actual payment and also with Rs. 1,100 as litigation expenses. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one 340 LT. ICEBERG DLX Refrigerator from the OP No. 1 on 23.4.2008 for Rs. 22,000 vide Bill Annexure A. After 15-20 days of its purchase, the said refrigerator started giving less cooling and water started to ooze out from it. The complainant then c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant for enhancement of compensation is directed against the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 739/2009 was allowed with costs of Rs. 500 and consequently opposite parties were directed to pay him Rs. 2,000 as compensation to the complainant within thirty days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which they were made liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a since the date of filing the complaint i.e. 22.5.2009 till its payment to the complainant. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased two cold drink bottles containing Coke and Lemon contents under the Buy One Get One scheme vide bill dated 28.3.2008 which were produced, bottled, and marketed by OP-1. In the first week of April 2008 some guests visited his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Pritam Pal, President: 1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby his complaint bearing No. 374/2009 was dismissed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum. 3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant was subscriber of phone No. 01762-522643 issued by OP and was regularly paying the bills. He received a bill for the period 1.9.2008 to 30.9.2008 for Rs. 549.44 which was paid by him through cheque No. 642961 dated 13.10.2008 for Rs. 550 and the said cheque was got encashed by OP on 16.10.2008. However, despite that in the next bill for the period 1.10.2008 to 31.10.2008 and the subsequent bills the amount of Rs. 549 was shown as outstanding. The complainant met the Customer Manager of the OP at Sector-34 on 10.11.2008 and handed over a written complaint. It was alleged that the complainant kept on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member: 1. This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 26.11.2009 passed in complaint case No. 151 of 2009 : Sh. Chander Vikas v. M/s. Bata India Limited. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that complainant No. 1 owned two watches, one Cartier Watch and another Baume and Mercier Watch, which costed around Rs. 1.50 lac each in the international market. It was averred that complainant came across the shop of OP, who on enquiry claimed to be the Authorized Dealer of said watches and assured the complainant for servicing the watches with one year guarantee. It was averred that the complainant gave the said watches to OP for service vide Annexures C-1 and C-2. When the complainant collected the watches from OP, it was noticed that the same were not working properly and as such, the same were again taken to OP. It was alleged that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member: 1. Vide this common order, we propose to decide two appeals bearing No. 433 of 2009 filed by the complainants i.e. Maharaj Krishan Datta and others and appeal No. 434 of 2009 filed by OP i.e. ICICI Bank Limited arising out of one and the common order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 10.7.2009 passed in complaint case No. 1469 of 2008 : Maharaj Krishan Datta and Others v. ICICI Bank Limited. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainants is that they availed Home Loan of Rs. 13,35,100 from OP Bank for purchase of Flat No. 26-B, Pine Homes, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, which was sanctioned vide letter dated 14.11.2005 at the interest rate of 7.25% p.a. It was averred that OP vide its letter dated 13.2.2006 confirmed that the interest on the drawn instalments up to March, 2006 shall be charged @7.25% and with effect from April, 2006, it would be 7.75% p.a. As per the compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Member: 1. Vide this common order, we are disposing of three appeals bearing Nos. 661, 662 and 663 all of 2009 filed by OP i.e. Tesol India arising out of one and the common order dated 7.10.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 862 of 2009 : Sanjeev Kumar v. Tesol India, vide which two similar complaint cases bearing No. 864 of 2009 and 913 of 2008 filed by Gaurav Bakshi and Ali Asghar Gakhar were also decided. 2. Briefly the facts as taken from complaint case No. 862 of 2009 are that according to the complainant Sh. Sanjeev Kumar on being attracted by an advertisement in the newspaper which stated OVERSEAS JOB GUARANTEED and job would fetch MONTHLY 1-3 LACS PLUS and after paying the full fee of Rs. 50,000, took admission in the tesol programme with the OP As per the complainant, after completing the said course, no placement was give to him fo...
Tag this Judgment!