NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/970/2010

DATAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SANJAY SURI

23 Apr 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 970 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 19/11/2009 in Appeal No. 1409/2007 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. DATAR SINGHR/o. Village and Post Office Phuglana, Teh. and Distt. Hoshiarpur, At Present Resident of 16, Master Tara Singh NagarJalandhar CityPunjab ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.Through its Manager, G.T. RoadJalandhar CityPunjab2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.Through its Manager, Surya Tower, 108 5th Floor, Phase No. 1, Mall RoadLudhianaPunjab3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.ICICI, Bank Tower Bandra Kurla ComplexMumbai - 400051Maharashtra ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Apr 2010
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.

Challenge in these proceedings initiated u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is to the order dated 19.11.09 passed ..2.. by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1409/07. In our view, the petitioner should thank to his stars for the relief which he has been granted by the State Commission despite the violation of the conditions of the policies. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission which calls for our interference in revisional jurisdiction u/s 21 (b) of the Act. The revision petition is dismissed accordingly.



......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER