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

C.VISWANATH, RAM SURAT RAM MAURYA
Vinod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bajaj Allianz General and Ors. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Advocate

ORDER

Heard Mr. Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Advocate, for the petitioner.

2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore dated 11.12.2018 passed in First Appeal No.645 of 2017 (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysore dated 03.02.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 276/2015), whereby District Forum, has dismissed the complaint and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

3. The Registry has reported that this revision has been filed with delay of 88 days. The petitioner has filed an application (i.e. I.A. No. 16478 of 2019) for condonation of delay. Cause shown for delay is sufficient to condone the delay. Subject to any objection of the respondents, delay in filing this revision is condoned.

4. Vinod Kumar (the revisionist) filed Consumer Complaint No. 276/2015 claiming (a) for a direction to the respondents to process the Insurance claim of the complainant and settle it. (b) To direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards unfair trade practice. (c) To pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the cost incurred for the processing of the claim and li

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