NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2760/2009

NARINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HIRA AUTO MOBILES LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SANDEEP CHATURVEDI

05 Aug 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 30 Jul 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2760/2009
(Against the Order dated 08/04/2009 in Appeal No. 273/2002 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. NARINDER KAURR/o. H.NO. 1504.St, No.15. Guru Nagak Nagar. Patiala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. HIRA AUTO MOBILES LTD.Through Its. Proprietor Genrnal Manager. Incharge. Rajbaha road. Patiala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. SANDEEP CHATURVEDI
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 05 Aug 2009
ORDER

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.

 

Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum. 
 
          In brief the facts of the case are that Vikramajit Singh, Son of the complainant / petitioner purchased a new Maruti Esteem Car from respondent / Opposite Party. Opposite party floated a club known as Hira Service Club. Vikramjit Singh became a member of the club. Membership of the club entitled the members to an insurance coverage of Rupees One Lac. He died in a road accident on 21.8.2000. Petitioner filed a claim with the respondent club but club refused to pay. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. 
 
          The District Forum vide its order dated 31.01.2002 allowed the complaint and directed the respondent / opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the petitioner. Petitioner did not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum. Respondent filed an appeal against the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission dismissed the appeal by the impugned order. 
 
           Petitioner has now filed this revision petition on the ground that as per direction of the District Forum, she is entitled to get interest on the insured amount as the respondent / opposite party had failed to make the payment within one month from the date of passing of the order by the District Forum. 
 
           Counsel for the petitioner is candid enough to admit that the petitioner did not file the appeal before the State Commission. Petitioner was satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum which had not awarded any interest. Petitioner did not pray for award of interest before the State Commission. Such a plea cannot be entertained at this stage. Dismissed.


......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER