Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: calcutta police act 1866 Sorted by: old Court: union territory consumer disputes redressal commission ut chandigarh Year: 2011 Page 1 of about 4 results (0.024 seconds)

Jan 05 2011 (TRI)

inder Dev Singh Vs. Ashok Kumar

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Jan-05-2011

..... objection certificate and has straightway approached the consumer fora by filing this complaint. the learned counsel, however, could not point out any provision in the consumer protection act, 1986 under which such a notice was necessary to be given to him before filing the complaint. the complainant has mentioned in para nos. 3, 5 ..... to mention that in the absence of ??no objection certificate and in the absence of the op complying with the requirements of section 50 of motor vehicles act, 1988, the vehicle cannot be transferred in the name of the complainant. further, the sale of the motor vehicle would not be complete unless the ..... . since the vehicle was to be transferred out of the state of punjab, a ??no objection certificate, as required under section 48 of motor vehicles act, 1988, was needed and it was the duty of the op to obtain the said certificate. admittedly, he has not obtained the same so far ..... . and the ownership was to be transferred in the name of the complainant, it was necessary for the parties to comply with the provisions of section 50 of motor vehicles act, 1988, which provides as follows: ??50. transfer of ownership ?? (1) where the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under this chapter is transferred, ?? (a) ..... s. jagroop singh mahal, presiding member: 1. this order will dispose of two appeals under section 15 of consumer protection act, 1986 one bearing f.a. no. 369 of 2010 filed by the complainant sh. inder dev singh for enhancement of compensation and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 01 2011 (TRI)

Tejinder Singh Atwal Vs. Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. and ...

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Mar-01-2011

..... said plot which was to be offered in october 2008 and till date, no intimation as regards offering of possession was given to the complainant by the ops. terming these acts of ops as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the ops to refund the amount of rs. 64,12 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 02 2011 (TRI)

Speed Motors Vs. Sanjay Kumar

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Aug-02-2011

..... -3 cannot be placed on record as additional evidence, at the appellate stage, just to fill up the gaps in evidence. neither there is any provision under the consumer protection act, 1986 to lead additional evidence nor the reasons given in the application are sufficient to allow the appellant to place the said documents. 11. after hearing the learned counsel for ..... for sale. the said vehicle was provided temporary number, prior to the number, which was given to the complainant along with insurance. it was further stated that the above said acts of the ops, amounted to deficiency, in service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. hence, the complaint was filed. 3. reply was filed by op no. 1, wherein, it was .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 22 2011 (TRI)

M/S Berkeley Automobiles Limited Vs. Biresh Chaubey and Others

Court : Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh

Decided on : Dec-22-2011

..... .2010 nor he gave him the approval letter due to which he could not get delivery of the car before 10.4.2010 it was stated that due to this act of the ops, the complainant suffered financial loses as well as mental and physical stress. hence, this complaint, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //