ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(521) HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. SYED MUSHIR ABBAS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024
Revision Petition - The petitioner, HDFC Bank, challenges the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order, which partly upheld a previous decision favoring the complainant, Respondent had purchased a truck with a loan from the bank, but there were disputes leading to the repossession of the truck - The District Forum had partly allowed Respondent’s complaint, and the State Commission modified the order - The petitioner argues against the shift of liability and lack of evidence connectin
India Law Library Docid # 2401802

(522) J. PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. MANISH UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024
Condonation of Delay - Delay in filing the revision petition - The petitioner had filed the revision petition against the order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - The petitioner was appealing an ex-parte order by the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District, which directed him to repay a sum of Rs. 3,97,530/- along with interest - The petitioner argued that he had not received any summons or notices from the District Consumer Forum and that he had only learned a
India Law Library Docid # 2401803

(523) ARUN RAMKRISHNA PAWADE Vs. SHARMAN PAINTS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024
Consumer Law – Defective PVC Pipes - The petitioner bought PVC pipes from the respondent for agricultural irrigation, but they cracked during use - Filing a consumer complaint for compensation, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissed it, citing a lack of evidence and failure to request pipe testing - The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld the decision, emphasizing the absence of evidence and testing applications - The petitioner contended that the St
India Law Library Docid # 2401804

(524) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DHINGRA RICE AND GENERAL MILLS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-01-2024
Consumer Law - Loss of goods in transit - The appellant is challenging a State Commission's order that granted the respondent Rs. 24,82,520 for the loss of goods in transit - The appellant had initially settled for Rs. 10,77,747 on a non-standard basis but claims a violation of policy terms - They argue that the State Commission erred in not acknowledging the policy violation, in relying on a laboratory test report, and in denying recovery of the balance amount - The appellant contends that the
India Law Library Docid # 2401797

(525) ASSISTANT POST MASTER, ROORKEE AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. WESTERN PRECISION INSTRUMENT EMPORIUM[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-01-2024
Consumer Law – Misplace of goods in parcel - The petitioner, the Postal Department, contested an order from the State Commission that upheld the District Commission's decision in a consumer complaint - The complainant alleged that goods were misplaced from a parcel during transit, and despite multiple complaints, no action was taken - The lower fora awarded Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant - The petitioner argued that the complainant failed to disclose parcel details and did not insure it - They
India Law Library Docid # 2401798

(526) SHYAM KISHANCHAND BHATIA THROUGH LRS. Vs. MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-01-2024
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 21(b) - The complainant, who purchased a flat in 1993, faced issues with electricity bills and supply, leading to a consumer complaint - The District Forum partially allowed the complaint, but the State Commission set aside this order -The petitioner challenges this decision, arguing that they are a consumer under the Electricity Act - The State Commission's errors include disregarding evidence of bill payments and misinterpreting the complainant's consume
India Law Library Docid # 2401799

(527) ANITA KUMAR Vs. STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-01-2024
Consumer Law - Health insurance claim - Against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, related to a health insurance claim - The petitioner challenges the denial of a claim by the insurance company, asserting that the illnesses were not pre-existing and that the cancellation of the policy was arbitrary - The District Forum initially allowed the complaint, but the State Commission set aside the order - The petitioner argues that the State Commission did not prope
India Law Library Docid # 2401800

(528) 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

(529) 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

(530) 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

(531) 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

(532) 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

(533) 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

(534) 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

(535) 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

(536) 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

(537) 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

(538) 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

(539) 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

(540) 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