Back
AVM J. RAJENDRA
Ashok Kumar Parjapat – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner, Haryana Roadways – Respondent
ORDER
Three Revision Petition Nos. RP/224/2023, RP/225/2023, and RP/694/2023, have been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”). These Revision Petitions challenged the Orders dated 01.12.2022, 08.08.2022, and 22.12.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, Chandigarh (the ‘State Commission’), respectively. These orders pertained to First Appeal Nos. FA/953/2018, FA/226/2021, & FA/40/2022. The State Commission, in these appeals by the Complainant, affirmed the impugned Orders, thus upholding the decisions made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal, Jind & U.T. Chandigarh, respectively (“District Forum”), in CC/395/2016, CC/76/2019 & CC/1127/2019.
2. As the facts and questions of law involved in all three Revision Petitions are substantially similar, except for minor variations in dates, events and places, these Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. To facilitate clarity and convenience, FA No. 953/2018 shall be considered as the primary / lead case, with the facts outlined below being extracted from Consumer Complaint No. 395/20
(1) Deficiency in service - Section 39(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019/Section 14(1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. empowers the Consumer Commissions to remove the deficiency in service if....
A complaint's status under consumer protection laws remains intact despite the complainant's engagement in commercial activities, requiring a thorough examination of relevant evidence.
1) Petitioner Roadways did not discharge its onus of dutifully and promptly making refund, in full, albeit, with courteous regrets or apology, when it was the service provider and was unmistakably de....
The Consumer Protection Act applies to insurance claims for employee medical reimbursements under comprehensive policies, viewing the employer as a consumer.
Well reasoned orders – Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner.
Claims for third-party property damage due to motor vehicle incidents must be adjudicated by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, not consumer forums.
(1) Evidence - The District Forum in pursuance of its mandate under Section 13 was required to have the necessary evidence produced before it prior to drawing an adverse inference.(2) Order to replac....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
