ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(381) NITIN AGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S THE BOMBAY DYEING & MANUFACTURING CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24-A — Limitation — Cause of action for claiming delay compensation and refund of excess amount arose on the date of offer of possession or final demand, not on the date of taking possession — Delay in filing complaint beyond two years from cause of action renders the complaint time-barred.
India Law Library Docid # 2416096

(382) VINEET KUMAR DIXIT AND ANOTHER Vs. SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission — If the State Commission's order is well-reasoned and based on facts and law, it is not subject to interference in revisional jurisdiction.
India Law Library Docid # 2416091

(383) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. KESHAR DEO AGARWALA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Policy — Fire Insurance — Coverage of basement — State Consumer Commission allowed complainant's claim for destruction of stock in basement — Insurance Company repudiated claim stating basement was not part of insured premises — High Court found State Commission's conclusion that entire building including basement was covered to be erroneous — Policy details showed nil sum insured for 'building plinth and foundation' and 'compound wall' — Total sum insur
India Law Library Docid # 2416097

(384) DR. FUL KANT JHA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-07-2024
Insurance Law — Overseas Travel Insurance Policy — Exclusion Clause for Pre-existing Conditions — Policy Exclusion for Pre-existing Disease and Related Complications — Complainant suffered a heart attack and underwent bypass surgery while overseas. The insurer repudiated the claim, citing Clause 10(c) of the policy, which excluded pre-existing conditions and their complications. The insurer's medical panel and hospital records indicated that the complainant had a history of hypertension, diabete
India Law Library Docid # 2416104

(385) DEPUTY SECRETARY, KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ESTATE (M & M ) UNIT, K.M.D.A, AND ANOTHER Vs. DR. SWAMI ANAND GIRI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction — National Commission's power to interfere is limited to cases where State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is warranted only if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse.
India Law Library Docid # 2416099

(386) SANT'S HYUNDAI. (A UNIT OF AMRIT AUTO) SANT BHAWAN Vs. S. K. SHARMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(B) — Revision Petition — Scope of — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can interfere with the order of the State Commission only if it is illegal, irregular or has jurisdictional error — In this case, the NCDRC found no such error in the State Commission's order, thus upholding it.
India Law Library Docid # 2416102

(387) ANGREJ SINGH Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 21(b) Revision Petition Scope National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upholds the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) which had set aside the District Forum's order allowing the claim on a non-standard basis in a motor insurance case.
India Law Library Docid # 2416103

(388) ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DEBENDRA KAMILA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — Petitioner sought condonation of 266 days delay in filing Revision Petition — Petitioner claimed ignorance of impugned order until receipt of execution notice and alleged non-receipt of certified copy — Petitioner also cited delays by their legal firm — Held, petitioner being appellant before State Commission was expected to follow up diligently — Plea of ignorance was not acceptable, particularly in absenc
India Law Library Docid # 2416100

(389) COMMISSIONER, NAGAR PARISHAD Vs. SHIVLAL BHAGAT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Powers of Revisional Court — Court should not interfere unless there is illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the lower forum.
India Law Library Docid # 2416101

(390) AGRAWAL TRANSPORT COMPANY THROUGH PROPRIETOR GOPAL AGRAWAL Vs. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN S/O RAJMAL JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b) Revision Petition Dismissal in default Restoration of appeal State Commission dismissed appeal for non-appearance of appellant National Commission restored appeal due to lack of adjudication on merits and to prevent miscarriage of justice Granted opportunity to present case on merits, subject to costs.
India Law Library Docid # 2416106

(391) M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. GURMEET SINGH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to correct errors of law, not to re-appreciate evidence unless finding is perverse — Partys failing to adduce evidence for crucial aspects — Forged receipts not resulting in perjury proceedings — Claim of illegal repossession of vehicle not substantiated by evidence adduced — Revisional Court setting aside erroneous findings of lower forums on facts.
India Law Library Docid # 2416107

(392) THE CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER/CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR C/O SUNDER LAL SHARMA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Revision Petition Limitation Condonation of delay Delay of 194 days in filing Revision Petition Petitioners sought condonation citing reasons related to obtaining certified copy, consulting counsel in Chandigarh, and requesting file transfer Held, reasons provided are routine and inadequate to justify protracted delay Petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for delay as required by law The object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will be d
India Law Library Docid # 2416105

(393) POST OFFICE AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESH CHAND BHATIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-07-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Consumer Commissions — Jurisdiction — Highly disputed questions of fact — Allegations of forgery and disputed deposit amounts in Post Office savings accounts — Consumer Commission proceedings are summary in nature and not appropriate for adjudicating matters involving highly disputed questions of fact such as forgery or fraud — Such matters should be decided by a Civil Court which can take elaborate evidence.
India Law Library Docid # 2426890

(394) PRABU HERBERT SAMUEL (CIVIL ENGINEER) Vs. R. RAJAMMAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-06-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — Limited — Only to be exercised when State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — No interference with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence.
India Law Library Docid # 2415660

(395) PRATAP SINGH Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-06-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission's power under Section 21(b) is limited to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is not warranted in concurrent findings of fact of lower forums unless there is illegality or material irregularity.
India Law Library Docid # 2415662

(396) BRANCH MANAGER CHOLAMANDALAM M S GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MINATI DEI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-06-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13(1)(a) — Filing of Written Version — Time Limit — District Forum proceeded ex-parte prematurely against the insurance company before the expiry of the prescribed period for filing the written version, which was 30 days from the receipt of notice (plus a further 15 days for condonation of delay).
India Law Library Docid # 2415663

(397) UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. UJALA PLASTIC & CASE COMPANY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-06-2024
Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Claim — Assessment of Loss — Surveyors' Reports — Consumer Protection — Admissibility of Evidence — Insurer's Discretion to Reject Surveyor Report — Appeal Against State Commission Order — The court must give due importance to surveyors' reports. However, insurers can reject reports if there are acceptable reasons for doing so, and arbitrary rejection can be considered a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act. The State Commission's order, which pa
India Law Library Docid # 2415664

(398) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-06-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Claims — Delay in lodging FIR — When delay in lodging FIR with police is due to police inaction and complainant has taken steps to expedite the process, such delay cannot be a ground to repudiate the insurance claim.
India Law Library Docid # 2415665

(399) MRS. PREM LATA SANGHI AND OTHERS Vs. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-06-2024
Montreal Convention — Applicability — 'Accident' as a prerequisite for liability under Montreal Convention — Interpretation of 'accident' as an unintended and unexpected occurrence external to the passenger, not an internal reaction, is crucial.
India Law Library Docid # 2415666

(400) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SHREE SAI LAXMI POULTARY FEEDS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-06-2024
Insurance Law Fire and Special Perils Policy Claim repudiation Spontaneous combustion Burden of proof of purchase and payment on insured Exaggeration of claim.
India Law Library Docid # 2415667