SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

K.S.Chaudhari, B.C.Gupta
Lakhmi Chand – Appellant
Versus
Reliance General Insurance – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. R.P. Parashar, Advocate.
For the Respondent (s):Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

B.C. Gupta, Member—Appeared on 11.04.2013 at the time of arguments,

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1396 of 2011, vide which appeal against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat dated 18.08.2011 was accepted and consumer complaint in question, dismissed. The District Forum, Sonepat vide their order dated 18.8.2011 in consumer complaint No. 517 of 2010 had allowed the said complaint; the original complainant has therefore, filed the present revision petition before this Commission.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant / petitioner is the owner of the Tata vehicle ACE-E-3 bearing Number HR-67-7492 and the same was insured with the respondent / opp. party vide policy No. 15019923334104992 with effect from 31.07.2009 to 30.07.2010. The said vehicle met with an accident on 11.02.2010 against the offending vehicle bearing No. UP-75-J 9880 and an FIR No. 66/10 dated 11.02.2010 under Sec







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top