Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc Year: 2012 Page 1 of about 29 results (0.011 seconds)

Aug 27 2012 (TRI)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ajay Bungalow Vs. Smt. Sakorba Het ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Aug-27-2012

anupam dasgupta this revision petition challenges the order dated 10.03.2011 of the gujarat state consumer disputes redressal commission, ahmedabad (in short, the state commission) in first appeal no. 295 of 2009. by this order, the state commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. the appeal filed by the petitioner was, in turn, against the order dated 30.07.2008 of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, bhuj kachchh (in short, the district forum) in complaint case no. 171 of 2004 filed by the respondents. 2. the respondents are the legal heirs of late hetubha bharmalji jadeja. under an insurance scheme obtained by the government of gujarat from the petitioner, all registered farmers in the state were covered against accidental death and disability during the period 26.01.2002 25.01.2003. the amount assured was rs. 1 lakh in case of accidental death. hetubha jadeja, a famer died of accidental electrocution on 13.05.2002. as the legal heirs and nominees of the deceased hetubha, the respondents filed their insurance claim immediately thereafter with the designated officer of the state government. according to them, the said officer (assistant director of agriculture (extension), training and visits scheme, sub division bhachau, kachchh) examined the claim and forwarded it to the petitioner on 11.07.2002. however, despite regular follow-up on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner neither paid the sum insured nor informed them about the status of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 27 2012 (TRI)

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Ajay Bungalow Vs. Smt. Sakorba Het ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Aug-27-2012

anupam dasgupta this revision petition challenges the order dated 10.03.2011 of the gujarat state consumer disputes redressal commission, ahmedabad (in short, the state commission) in first appeal no. 295 of 2009. by this order, the state commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. the appeal filed by the petitioner was, in turn, against the order dated 30.07.2008 of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, bhuj kachchh (in short, the district forum) in complaint case no. 171 of 2004 filed by the respondents. 2. the respondents are the legal heirs of late hetubha bharmalji jadeja. under an insurance scheme obtained by the government of gujarat from the petitioner, all registered farmers in the state were covered against accidental death and disability during the period 26.01.2002 25.01.2003. the amount assured was rs. 1 lakh in case of accidental death. hetubha jadeja, a famer died of accidental electrocution on 13.05.2002. as the legal heirs and nominees of the deceased hetubha, the respondents filed their insurance claim immediately thereafter with the designated officer of the state government. according to them, the said officer (assistant director of agriculture (extension), training and visits scheme, sub division bhachau, kachchh) examined the claim and forwarded it to the petitioner on 11.07.2002. however, despite regular follow-up on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner neither paid the sum insured nor informed them about the status of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2012 (TRI)

J. Bhardwaj Vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and Ot ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jul-12-2012

r.c. jain, presiding member: 1. challenge in these proceedings is to the concurrent findings and orders passed by the district consumer disputes redressal forum, amritsar to begin with and thereafter by the punjab state consumer disputes redressal commission, chandigarh (for short the state commission) in appeal no. 1001 of 2006. both the fora below have ruled out that the petitioner-complainant could not approach a consumer fora for redressal of his grievance in relation of plot of land bearing no. 117, situated at green avenue locality of amritsar, which he purchased in an open auction held on 25.8.2000, he having paid a sum of rs. 3,87,956/-, representing the 25% of the price of the plot. however, subsequently, complainant-petitioner found certain defects / deficiencies inasmuch as according to him the plot was not found to be located in the green avenue locality and rather it was in the area of u.b.d.c. distributors and the colony known as janta colony and tanga colony being not having the requisite amenities like water and sewerage system. both the fora have non-suited the complainant-petitioner primarily on the ground that he is not a consumer and is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of a consumer fora in view of the decision of the apex court in the case ofut chandigarh administration and anotherv. amarjeet singh and others, ii (2009) cpj 1 (sc)=ii (2009) slt 736=2009 (3) cpr 97 (sc). 2. we have heard mr. saurav khurana, learned counsel for the petitioner at .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 03 2012 (TRI)

Sheo Kumar Singh Vs. Branch Manager Ashoka Leyland Chatra Road and Oth ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-03-2012

justice v.b. gupta, presiding member in this revision petition there is challenge to order dated 13.12.2010, passed by jharkhand state consumer disputes redressal commission, ranchi (for short state commission). 2. brief facts are that, petitioner/complainant obtained two tippers from ashok leyland companys showroom with finance from indusind bank and gulf ashok leyland motors ltd. on 30.10.2004. these tippers were used to serve loading and unloading works at different sites and petitioner earned his livelihood with the income generated. 3. petitioner agreed to pay back the financed amount with interest to the respondent/opposite party no.2 as emis and issued postdated cheques in this context. the tippers were further under warranty of eighteen months or 1,50,000 km, whichever is less, when it started having break downs, trouble in engine etc. respondent no.1 was approached but without satisfactory response. 4. ultimately petitioner called for a meeting with the respondents and an understanding was arrived at on 24.1.2006 to get the drivers cabins replaced. however, respondents did not fulfill this agreement and the tippers had to be laid off one by one. in result, the emis could not be deposited in time. therefore, petitioner had to approach the district forum and filed complaint. 5. it is further alleged that after the filing of the complainant, respondent no.2 forcibly repossessed those tippers alleging default. 6. respondents appeared before the lower forum and resisted .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 02 2012 (TRI)

A.K. Naikwadi Proprietor, M/S Zoom Colour Lab Zoom Colour Lab Vs. M/S ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jul-02-2012

s.k. naik, member 1. mr. a.k. naikwadi, proprietor, m/s zoom colour lab - kodak express, kolhapur, has filed this complaint alleging supply of defective goods and deficiency in service by the opposite parties. in his original complaint, he had prayed for the following reliefs :- rs.17,50,000/- as cost of refund of machine purchased gretag-740 ml (minilab); rs.6,25,000/- towards simple interest calculated @ 16.5% p.a. from 01.07.2000 to 31.08.2002 and further interest till date of payment; rs.21,84,000/- towards loss of profit @ rs.3500/- per day (actually as per kodak projections of maximum rs.10,700/- per day profit on higher side and rs.9000/- profit per day on lower side) and further payment on same basis till date of realization; rs.75,000/- towards free photography not supplied along with purchase of gretag mini lab 740+; rs.14,000/- towards two free media kits not supplied along with purchase of kodak picture maker; and rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.? 2. however, when the matter was listed for hearing before this commission on the 29th of november, 2002, the prayer for loss of profit of rs.21,84,000/- as also the prayers against free photography amounting to rs.75,000/- and towards two free media kits amounting to rs.14,000/- were not pressed.notice thereafter was issued to the opposite parties directing them to file their written version. of the four opposite parties, service of notice did not materialize with respect to gretag imaging trading ag, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 2012 (TRI)

Diverse Agro, Ludhiana Through Its Partner Sukhbir Singh of Ludhiana V ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Aug-08-2012

justice j. m. malik, presiding member 1. this revision petition has been filed by the unsuccessful respondents. the facts of this case are these. the complainant, gurmeet singh, who is an agriculturist owns 27 acres land in village dhan singh dhana, distt. bathinda. respondent diverse agro, the petitioner in this revision petition and nandan biometrics ltd. respondent no. 2 approached him for diversification from tranditional farming towards herbal farming. they allured that in case he sows safed musli seeds, there would be optimum return with their exclusive expert techniques and seeds. on 04.05.2005, the parties entered into tripartitle agreement/memo of understanding. the complainant paid rs. 79,000/- to diverse agro, petitioner at bathinda vide receipt dated 04.05.2005 for safed musli seeds. fertilizers and pesticides were also provided worth rs. 57,000/- vide another bill dated 04.06.2005. seeds were sown under their expert advice and advice of sh. iqbal singh, agricultural officer of agrucultural department. the complainant had to install another tubewell bore as per advice given by the respondents. safed musli was sown in july 2005 in an area of 5 acres. sukhbir singh from the petitioner side came to visit the complainants farm twice. sukhbir singh advised the complainant karandi treatment at the bed but the plants withered away as the seeds were not of good quality and thereafter, the respondents were asked to visit the farm but they did not pay heed with the request .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 11 2012 (TRI)

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sree Sree Madan Mohan Rice Mill a ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Sep-11-2012

k.s. chaudhari, presiding member this revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.02.2012 passed by the learned west bengal state consumer disputes redressal commission, kolkata (in short, the state commission) in s.c. case no. m.a. 179/2011 in cc no.82/2010 sree sree madan mohan rice mill and anr. vs. new india assurance co. ltd. by which application filed by the petitioner/op under section 13 (3b) of the consumer protection act read with section 4 and other relevant provisions of the act was dismissed. 2. brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed complaint before the state commission and alleged that fire took place in the insured office-cum-manufacturing unit of the complainant hence claimed compensation of rs.99,00,000/- from the petitioner/op. petitioner/op moved application under section 13 (3b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 read with section 4 (iv) of the c.p. act and submitted that claimant has used manufactured photographs to substantiate claim. it was further alleged that investigator appointed by the petitioner approached central forensic science laboratory for examination of photographs but laboratory refused to examine except on the direction of the police or judicial authority. hence, prayed that photographs marked ex.x be referred to central forensic science laboratory for examination. complainant/respondent filed reply to the application and submitted that to avoid the legitimate claim of the complainant on account of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 24 2012 (TRI)

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Chief Manager Vs. Steel and Me ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : May-24-2012

anupam dasgupta this revision petition challenges the order dated 01.02.2011 of the delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission, delhi (in short, the state commission) in first appeal no. 192 of 2010. by this order, the state commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.11.2009 of the district consumer disputes redressal forum, new delhi with the following observations: 5. the matter was contested by the applicant before the district consumer forum where order was passed on 11.11.2009. the record shows that copy of the order was sent by registered post on 19.11.2009 to the applicant. it should have been received in normal course within 7 days for which a legitimate presumption can be raised. as again, the contention of the applicant is that the certified copy never reached him. 6. however, the applicant said that he received the copy on 15.01.2010. even if we accept this contention, the appeal was not filed within 30 days, but it was filed on 04.03.2010, and as such, there was delay of 19 days in filing the appeal. the explanation given for delay even from the side of the applicant is, that there was delay because of office procedures, and obtaining the legal opinion. both these grounds do not constitute sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. delay cannot be condoned as normal routine, unless there are good and sufficient reasons, because, that is likely to set a bad precedent and impression will go around that delay will be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2012 (TRI)

Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd. Through: Chief Manager- Legal Br ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jul-12-2012

justice v. b. gupta, presiding member 1. present revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 (for short as act) challenging order dated 21.3.2011 passed by a.p. state consumer disputes redressal commission, hyderabad (for short as state commission). vide impugned order, appeal of petitioner challenging order dated 12.5.2011, passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum, praksam district( for short as district forum) was dismissed. 2. brief facts are that respondent/complainants wife and her family members joined the scheme met smart plus of the petitioner/opposite party, which is a unit linked policy with life insurance. the scheme is primarily aimed at investment. yearly premium is rs. 25,100/- and the term is for 55 years. the surrender value on maturity in the fifty fifth year is rs. 2,51,73,756/- and death benefit is rs 5,02,000/- in case within twelve years of commencement of policy. respondents wife and her family members paid rs. 25,100/- each towards premium of the policy. petitioner has conducted health tests from their panel doctors. being satisfied with the health condition of respondents wife and her family members, its issued policy with effect from 19.12.2007 and the date of maturity of is 01.07.2062. 3. it is further stated that on 31.3.2008, respondents wife suddenly fell on the ground from the cot in semi unconsciousness and immediately was taken to m/s venkatarama neuro care and trauma hospital, at ongole .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 19 2012 (TRI)

Phoolan Wanti and Others Vs. Janpriya Finance and Industrial Investmen ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Nov-19-2012

j.m. malik 1. the key question swirls around the question, whether this complaint is barred by time?. it is to be seen whether the present complaint was filed within the leeway prescribed by section 24a of the consumer protection act. if it is not filed within time whether the explanation given by the complainant under section 5 of the limitation act is lucid or lame. 2. the averments made in the application for condonation of delay are as follows. jana priya finance and industrial investment (i) limited with its head office at 113 park street calcutta, west bengal, opposite party in this case, opened its 176 branches throughout india and started collecting funds from general public. they also opened branches at karnal as well as panipat. they used to collect the funds and open bank accounts in the name of the opposite party. receipts were also issued by the head office at calcutta. on maturity, they used to make the payment of maturity amount alongwith interest. this process continued till 1988. thereafter, out of blue, they stopped making payments, regularly. as many as 335 complainants did not get their maturity amounts with interest despite several requests made to op. the legal notice sent to the op also did not ring the bell. ultimately the instant complaint by all the abovementioned consumers was filed before this commission on 11.5.1999. 3. one prafulla chandra jaina filed suit no. 529 of 1992 in the honble high court of calcutta on the plea that there was .....

Tag this Judgment!


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