ive
User not Logged..
India's Biggest Headnotes Library over 53.69 Lakhs Headnotes
    Free Artificial Intelligence Drafting  

    Free Artificial Intelligence Case Analyzer  

   AI Submission Generator   

Latest Cases

(401) ISHWAR DUTT Vs. SHREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act — Deficiency in service — Insurance claim — Vehicle insured against fire claimed to be totally damaged — Insurance company appointed surveyors who assessed loss — Company failed to settle claim — Held, this amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
India Law Library Docid # 2417709

(402) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. AMNINDER SINGH[PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 39 — Requirement of Registration — Vehicle driven with temporary registration and application for permanent registration pending — Held that repudiation of claim by insurance company on ground of lack of valid registration is not tenable when the insured had paid registration fee and was in the process of obtaining permanent registration.
India Law Library Docid # 2417710

(403) BASSAPPA PARAPPA VENKTAPUR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can examine correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by State Commission — Held that substantive question of law may arise for consideration for transfer of insurance policy under Motor Vehicles Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2416969

(404) ARUN KUMAR ALIAS SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Petitioner sought condonation of 401 days delay in filing revision petition, citing non-communication of impugned order by counsel and State Commission, and personal medical treatment — Court held that reasons provided were not sufficient, rational, or realistic to explain the delay, indicating a casual approach by the petitioner — Law of limitation requires daily explanation of delay with adequate and sufficient r
India Law Library Docid # 2416970

(405) PRAVAR ADHIKSHAK AND ANOTHER Vs. PINKY WADHWA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is limited and can only be exercised when the State Commission has acted illegally or with material irregularity, or failed to exercise its vested jurisdiction, or exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. It cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence unless such findings are perverse or against the law and pleadings.
India Law Library Docid # 2416971

(406) JAMANBHAI ARJANBHAI GHEDIA Vs. H.&R. JOHNSON (INDIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Manufacturing Defect Deficiency in Service Complainant purchased vitrified tiles alleging manufacturing defect; supported by scientific test report from a reputable institute and testimony of the scientist who prepared it. District Commission relied on this evidence, finding defects in parameters. Opposite parties' evidence, including an affidavit from an official, was disbelieved due to lack of technical expertise and supporting reports.
India Law Library Docid # 2416972

(407) JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope — Limited to examining illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the State Commission's order.
India Law Library Docid # 2416973

(408) SHIV KUMAR Vs. MR. ROHIT GOSWAMI[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Substandard Seeds — Complainant failed to prove seeds were substandard through credible evidence — Horticultural report was unreliable due to procedural violations and lack of notice to the dealer.
India Law Library Docid # 2417707

(409) KISHOR V. PATIL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. MARVEL ZETA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(n), 12 — Complaint by purchasers of flats against developers for delayed possession, non-provision of amenities, and other reliefs. Held, the delay was caused by factors including government policy (demonetization), pandemic lockdown, illegal construction by complainants, and complaints filed by other buyers. Complainants were also found to be defaulters in payments. Awarded delay compensation at 6% per annum, acknowledging the partial respo
India Law Library Docid # 2416967

(410) AKSHAY DOSHI Vs. G. SUNDAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Builder's Obligation A builder accepting advance payment for a specific flat, issuing a receipt, but failing to execute a formal agreement to sell or hand over possession, constitutes a deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
India Law Library Docid # 2416968

(411) CENTRAL ACADEMY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AJMER THROUGH PRESIDENT SMT. SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA Vs. M/S. JAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH PARTNER AJAY KUMAR JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) defining 'Consumer' — Educational Institutions — Whether 'consumer' — An educational institution is not a 'consumer' if its activities are of a commercial nature, especially if it involves setting up industrial or technical institutions for profit-making by charging fees.
India Law Library Docid # 2416963

(412) UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs. MR. MUZAMMIL AND ANOTHER[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Appeal — Condontation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Appellant failed to provide adequate justification for the significant delay in filing the appeal, relying on internal bureaucratic procedures and the general statement of court vacations, which were deemed insufficient to establish a "sufficient cause" as required by law.
India Law Library Docid # 2417703

(413) M/S. VATIKA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. DR. KHOZEM A DIVAN AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 24A — Deficiency in service — Inordinate delay in possession — Allottee's right to refund — Delay in offering possession beyond a reasonable period, after receiving timely payments, constitutes a deficiency in service — Buyer can't be forced to wait indefinitely for possession — Failure to obtain Occupancy Certificate before offering possession is a breach of contract — Allottee is entitled to seek refund of deposited amount.
India Law Library Docid # 2416964

(414) BAIBHAB SUR Vs. SWAPAN SENGUPT AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Appeal against State Commission order — Delay condoned in interest of justice.
India Law Library Docid # 2416965

(415) VICE CHAIRMAN, LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS Vs. ALOK SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Development Authority's Liability A development authority allotted a house, received payments, but failed to complete construction and hand over possession. The authority attempted to refund the deposited amount after significant delay, citing contractor negligence. The consumer commission held the authority liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This established that public authorities, even non-profit entities, are not
India Law Library Docid # 2416966

(416) LATE SH. SURESH CHAND GUPTA THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024
Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Provision is peremptory, requiring complaints to be filed within two years from accrual of cause of action unless delay is condoned for sufficient cause recorded in writing — Consumer forums must take notice of and give effect to Section 24A — Failure to do so renders orders illegal and liable for setting aside — Delay must be explained with rational, reasonable, and realistic reasons.
India Law Library Docid # 2416962

(417) MR. MAHINDER SINGH Vs. M/S MAGMA LEASING LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Misplacement of file and delay in contacting counsel not considered sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeal due to lack of diligence and bonafide.
India Law Library Docid # 2417702

(418) VINOD KUMAR Vs. ROYALE EMPIRE AND OTHERS[CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024
Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Failure to deliver possession — Builder failed to deliver possession of a residential unit by the committed date despite the buyer paying the entire sale consideration — This constitutes a deficiency in service.
India Law Library Docid # 2417699

(419) MR. RAVI Vs. SARGAM INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Repeal and Saving — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Proceedings initiated under the old Act will continue under the old Act — The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective in nature — Matters pending or rights/obligations created before the implementation of the 2019 Act will be adjudicated under the 1986 Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2417701

(420) MOHAMED ABBAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-07-2024
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 — SECTIONS 2(1)(d), 22(A) — CONSUMER DISPUTE — EMPLOYEE OF RAILWAYS RECEIVING MEDICAL TREATMENT AT RAILWAY HOSPITAL — NOT A CONSUMER — MEDICAL TREATMENT PROVIDED AS A WELFARE MEASURE, NOT FOR MONETARY CONSIDERATION — LACK OF DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE — PETITIONER NOT ENTITLED TO INVOKE CONSUMER FORUM JURISDICTION.
India Law Library Docid # 2416449