ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(501) RAM CHANDER Vs. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-01-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d) and 19 – The complainant purchased a house, obtained a loan from the bank, and insured the house with the insurance company - Subsequently, the house suffered damage due to water leakage from municipal water pipes - The insurance company rejected the claim, stating it was not covered under the policy - The State Commission allowed the complaint against the municipal council, directing them to pay compensation, but dismissed it against the insura
India Law Library Docid # 2401795

(502) MAKE MY TRIP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. DEVRAJ BEHARNANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-01-2024
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 - The appeal is filed challenging an order of the State Commission - The complaint involves a travel package booked with a travel company for a tour to Jakarta, Bali, and Singapore - The complainant alleges that the travel company failed to provide timely details, resulting in a spoiled trip, health issues, and additional expenses - The State Commission ordered the travel company to pay compensation, leading to the appeal - The travel company contests j
India Law Library Docid # 2401796

(503) PARMINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. FS HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-01-2024
Consumer Law — Housing — Delay in delivery in Possession — Complainants book and apartment and paid the full amount, but did not receive possession despite multiple extensions — The main issue is the failure O.P. to hand over possession of the apartment within the stipulated time — The complainants seek a refund of the amount paid, interest, compensation for mental harassment, rental charges, and litigation costs — The complaint is partly allowed — The opposite parties are directed to refund the
India Law Library Docid # 2416767

(504) SMT. SHAKUNTLA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. M/S MVL LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-01-2024
Housing – Delay in construction and Possession beyond agreed period - The NCDRC, in its judgment dated 07.12.2015, directed MVL Ltd to - Pay penalty for delayed possession in the form of interest @ 15% per annum on the complainants' deposit, from 42 months or the agreed period mentioned in the agreements plus 6 months grace period till the date of possession - Provide possession of the flats to the complainants who had not already received it - Pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to each complainant – Re
India Law Library Docid # 2401714

(505) M/S. AJARA DESIGN LOUNGE PVT LTD AND OTHERS Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA KAPOOR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-01-2024
The opposite parties have filed above appeal against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 07.03.2023, passed in CC/120/2017, allowing the complaint with cost of Rs. 25000/- and directing the appellants to refund Rs. 7000000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund and pay compensation of Rs. 200000/- to the respondents.
India Law Library Docid # 2401715

(506) BAJA ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SIDRAMAPPA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of delay — The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging orders from 2021 related to an appeal and review application — The main issue was the significant delay in filing the petition, with a reported delay of 174 days and an admitted delay of 113 days — The petitioner argued that the delay was due to late acquisition of the order copies, internal approvals, and the COVID pandemic — The application for condonation of delay was dismissed due t
India Law Library Docid # 2416765

(507) M/S. AVLEEN MOTORS Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Shopkeepers Insurance Policy -Appellant a two-wheeler agency of TVS Motors, obtained a Shopkeepers Insurance Policy to cover their stock of motorcycles, scooters, mopeds, spare parts, and accessories - A fire broke out at their premises, causing damage to their stock - The Appellant filed a claim for the loss of spare parts and engine oil, amounting to Rs. 21,31,636.61. the insurance company repudiated the claim, stating that the policy only covered motorcycles and accessories, not spare parts -
India Law Library Docid # 2401703

(508) M/S. SAGAR PACKAGING Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Consumer Law – Insurance Claim - Fire Insurance Policy - Wrong address in the policy - The Complainant, M/s Sagar Packaging, had obtained a fire insurance policy from the Respondent for their shed No. 7. However, when a fire broke out in the shed, the insurance company refused to pay the claim on the ground that the policy was for a different shed No. 70. - The Complainant argued that the insurance company itself had made a mistake in printing the wrong address in the policy - They also argued t
India Law Library Docid # 2401704

(509) DHIRENDRA KUMAR DAS Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Consumer Law – Travel Insurance Policy - The petitioner purchased a travel insurance policy from the respondent before a trip to the USA, but fell ill and incurred medical expenses - The claim was denied due to the petitioner's lack of disclosure of a pre-existing medical condition - The petitioner filed a complaint with the District Forum, which was dismissed - The State Commission ordered the respondent to pay the petitioner Rs. 7,65,606, including Rs. 50,000 for mental agony and harassment an
India Law Library Docid # 2401705

(510) DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SRI DUNDAYYA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Consumer Law – Motor Accident – Temporary Registration of the Vehicle - The State Commission had allowed an appeal filed by a car owner, against Insurance Company's denial of his insurance claim - Car met with an accident on June 6, 2014, but insurance company refused to settle his claim on the ground that the car's temporary registration had expired on May 29, 2014 - Insurance company argued that failure to get the car permanently registered before the accident constituted a fundamental breach
India Law Library Docid # 2401706

(511) VIJAYAN P. Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Consumer Law - Chitties - The petitioner and his brother, 'M', subscribed to two chitties with the respondent each for Rs. 50,000 - 'M' defaulted on his payments and auctioned his chitty for Rs. 3,71,910 - The petitioner and 'M''s wife acted as co-sureties for 'M's chitty - The petitioner claimed that the OPs refused to pay him the maturity amount of his chitties due to his co-surety status - The District Forum ruled in favor of the petitioner and ordered the OPs to pay him with interest - Howe
India Law Library Docid # 2401707

(512) RAJESHWARI DEVI GARG Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 31.01.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No.224/2013 in which order dated 24.01.2013, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (V) (North West District), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in C
India Law Library Docid # 2401708

(513) M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. RAJIV SHARMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 22.04.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 818/2012 in which order dated 08.08.2012, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI, (Dist. New Delhi) (hereinafter referred to as District Commiss
India Law Library Docid # 2401709

(514) VIRENDER AGGARWAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the impugned order dated 06.07.2017, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 191/2011 wherein the State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.1/OP-1 against the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes
India Law Library Docid # 2401710

(515) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BIR DEI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld an order from the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) directing United India Insurance Company Ltd (UIICL) to pay Rs 2,17,344 to Dr Inder Jit Singh for the damage to his vehicle in an accident - The complainant's vehicle was insured with UIICL from May 2012 to May 2013, and the driver died in the accident - The insurance company repudiated the claim, citing the invalidity of the driver's driving
India Law Library Docid # 2401711

(516) DR. AJAY SHARDA Vs. RAKESH GULATI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Medical Negligence – While undergoing treatment for abdominal pain - The State Commission found prima facie evidence of negligence on the petitioner and directed him to pay Rs. 8 lakhs to the complainants, along with interest at 9% per annum - The insurance company UIIC was jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount - The Appellant and UIIC have filed separate revision petitions challenging the order - The Appellant argues that the State Commission erred in finding him guilty w
India Law Library Docid # 2401712

(517) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SURENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024
Car Insurance - The dispute relates to a claim filed by the Respondent, who is the insured owner of a Fiat Grande Punto car - The Petitioner's car was involved in an accident on 2nd December 2013, leading to a complaint from the Respondent - The Petitioner contested the claim, arguing that the accident was not reported within 14 days and their surveyor's assessment was less than 75% of the insured value - The District Forum dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission allowed the appeal and
India Law Library Docid # 2401713

(518) M/S. PIONEER DYEING PVT. LTD. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2024
Fire Insurance Claim - Fire broke in the godown - Quantum of the claim - The claim was initially rejected by the OP on the grounds of breach of policy conditions - The complainant then filed a consumer complaint with the State Commission - The State Commission partially allowed the complaint, but the complainant appealed this decision to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) - The NCDRC remanded the case back to the State Commission to determine the quantum of the claim -
India Law Library Docid # 2401701

(519) SARJU RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHYAM LAL Vs. SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2024
Consumer Law – Insurance Claim - Fundamental breach of the insurance policy - The petitioner's father, Sarju Ram, owned a vehicle that was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company from 23.04.2011 to 22.04.2012- The vehicle met with an accident on 21.06.2011 and was totally damaged - The petitioner filed a claim with the insurance company, but it was repudiated on the ground that the policy was renewed in the name of a deceased person - District Forum allowed the petitioner's complaint and di
India Law Library Docid # 2401702

(520) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. M/S. DUROFLEX PRIVATE LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024
The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No. 57 of 2012, wherein the Complaint filed by the Respondent was partly allowed.
India Law Library Docid # 2401692