Haryana

Rohtak

CC/18/130

Mangal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. W.S. Narwal

09 Jan 2020

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Rohtak.
Rohtak, Haryana.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/18/130
( Date of Filing : 28 Mar 2018 )
 
1. Mangal
Mangal S/o Late Sh. Dharam raj, Age 27 Years. R/o Village Sanghi, District Rohtak.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. through its General Manager 1st Floor, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation HT Parekh Marg, Churchgate Mumbai. 2. HDFC Bank Delhi road, Near D-Park, Rohtak.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  Dr. Renu Chaudhary PRESIDING MEMBER
  Mrs. Tripti Pannu MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sh. W.S. Narwal, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: None for the opposite Parties, Advocate
Dated : 09 Jan 2020
Final Order / Judgement

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

 

                                                          Complaint No. : 130.

                                                          Instituted on     : 28.3.2018.

                                                          Decided on       : 9.1.2020.

 

Mangal, aged 27 years son of Late. Shri Dharam Raj, resident of village Sanghi, Distt. Rohtak.

 

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

  1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Through its General Manager, 1st Floor, 165-166 Backbay Reclamation, H.T. Parekh Marg, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.(insurer of the owner/vehicle Car Swift Dzire LDI, bearing registration no.HR-22-AA-9184, with policy Sarv Suraksha(Sarv Suraksha Plus) Period of Insurance from 28/12/2015 to 27/12/2018 and policy no.2950 2012 7807 3900 000 Dt. 28/12/2015).
  2. HDFC Bank, Delhi Road Near, D-Park, Rohtak through its Manager.

                                                          ……….Opposite party.

                            

                                     

 

Present:       None for complainant.

                   Shri Gulshan Chawla, Advocate for the OP no.1.

                   Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the OP no.2.

                  

                   Case called several times since morning. But none appeared on behalf of the complainant. It is already 3.10 P.M. No more wait is justified. As such, present complaint stands dismissed in default.

                   File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.             

 

Member                                             Member/9.1.2020

 

 

 

 

 
 
[ Dr. Renu Chaudhary]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ Mrs. Tripti Pannu]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.