(541) M/S. PREMIUM ACRES INFRATECH PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. RAVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2024 The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellants against Respondents as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 26.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in CC No. 166 of 2015, inter alia praying for (a) setting aside the order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the State Commission in CC No. 166 of 2015, (b) allowing the cost of litigation, and (c) reman India Law Library Docid # 2401611
(542) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KEHAR SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2024 This Revision Petition has been filed by ‘United India Insurance Co. Ltd.’ under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 14.12.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in F.A. No. 3027 of 2003, vide which the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was partly allowed, and the Order of the District Forum was upheld with modified directions. India Law Library Docid # 2401605
(543) RAHUL RANKA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(b) – Revision Petition - Vehicle Theft - The State Commission ruled that the FIR was lodged after six days of theft, violating condition no. 1 of the Policy, and the petitioner failed to take reasonable steps to safeguard the vehicle - The petitioner argued no negligence on the driver's part and that the case was a theft where the driver was duped by his companions - The State Commission rejected the petitioner's arguments and found the District Forum's India Law Library Docid # 2401612
(544) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAM MEHAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Motor Accident - Insured Declared Value (IDV) of the vehicle - Revision petition - The respondent (consumer) violated the terms of the insurance policy by not informing the petitioner about the accident immediately - The claim should be granted on a non-standard basis, as per the Supreme Court judgement in Amlendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Corporation - The delay in informing the petitioner was due to the accident and not theft, and therefore, the consumer should not be deprive India Law Library Docid # 2401613
(545) M/S. KOHLI NURSING HOME AND MATERNITY CENTRE Vs. SONIKA KAPOOR - THROUGH LRS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Medical Negligence - The deceased patient, delivered a baby boy through caesarean section at Appellant’s Hospital - After the delivery, she suffered from abdominal pain and other health issues - A CT scan later revealed a foreign body (sponge) in her abdomen, which was surgically removed - The patient died due to her health problems - The legal heirs of the patient filed a complaint with the State Consumer Commission alleging medical negligence by the hospital and doctors - The S India Law Library Docid # 2401614
(546) MUKESH G. DHAKAN Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Fire Insurance Policy - The complainant's jeweller's shop suffered a fire on February 27, 2012, causing the loss of 1169.30 grams of gold and 892.700 grams of iron rods - The complainant filed a claim with the respondent insurance company, but the claim was repudiated - The complainant could not establish the actual loss of gold - The fire incident report and the quantity of gold claimed were inconsistent - The complainant did not maintain proper records of gold stocks and movemen India Law Library Docid # 2401615
(547) RAM TIRATH GUPTA Vs. M/S. V.N. SHARMA BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Housing – Delay in Possession - The complainant had booked a flat in the builder company's project, - The builder company was supposed to hand over the flat by December 12, 2015, but the possession was not handed over until July 24, 2018, a delay of over two years - The NCRDC found that the builder company was liable for the delay in handing over the flat and ordered the company to pay compensation to the complainant - The compensation includes - Interest at 6% per annum India Law Library Docid # 2401616
(548) M/S TATA METALIKS LIMITED, TATA CENTRE Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Marine Insurance - Whether the insurance company was liable for the loss of a cargo of coking coal- The Complainant, had purchased a Marine Open Cover Policy from the Opposite Party, to cover the transit of coking coal from Australia to India - The coal was discharged at Paradip Port in India, and then stored on a plot of land near the jetty - A cyclone caused heavy rains and flooding, resulting in the loss of a portion of the coal - The Complainant filed a claim with the insurance company, but India Law Library Docid # 2401617
(549) AMIT GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. BPTP LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Housing - Delay in possession - The NCRDC found that BPTP was guilty of deficiency in service for not offering possession of the flats on the promised dates - The Commission ordered BPTP to refund the complainants the amount they had paid for the flats, along with compensation and interest - BPTP had argued that the delay in possession was due to force majeure circumstances, such as the National Green Tribunal's ban on construction in the National Capital Region (NCR) - However, t India Law Library Docid # 2401618
(550) VIVEK DODA AND ANOTHER Vs. ESTATE OFFICER, GMADA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Housing - Auction - The complainants had purchased a plot at an auction held by GMADA and alleged that GMADA had failed to hand over possession of the plot within the time period specified in the brochure - GMADA argued that the complainants were not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because they had purchased the plot on an "as is where is" basis - The NCDRC agreed with GMADA and held that the complainants were not consumers because they had not purchased any ser India Law Library Docid # 2401619
(551) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M.M. KNITWEARS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2024 Consumer Law – Fire Insurance - Fire insurance claim dispute - In 2006, a factory fire led to a claim for Rs. 22 lakh from the insurance company - The insurance company initially paid Rs. 2,59,741 but later revised the compensation to Rs. 5,24,620 without providing any valid reason - The complainant argued that the surveyor's report was not justified and that the claim was time-barred - The NCDRC acknowledged the delay in filing the complaint but condoned it due to the complainant's reasons India Law Library Docid # 2401620
(552) SANDEEP DHANDA – PETITIONER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED – RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-12-2023 Motor Accident Claim - Violation of policy terms due to drunk driving and high speed - Car owner appeals insurance company's denial of claim for damaged vehicle due to suspected drunk driving and excessive speed - Claims Rs. 7,53,822 for total loss of insured car damaged in accident - Suspected of being under the influence of liquor based on Initial FIR - Accident allegedly caused by high speed (150 kmph) exceeding policy limits - Driver behavior exceeding policy limits regarding intoxication an India Law Library Docid # 2401435
(553) SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA – PETITIONER Vs. ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-12-2023 This Revision Petition No.1392 of 2012 challenges the impugned order of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (‘State Commission’, hereafter) dated 09.11.2011. Vide this order, the learned State Commission modified the order dated 18.12.2008 of the East Godavari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kakinada (‘District Forum’, hereafter) and allowed in part the Appeal No.463 of 2009 by fixing jointly and severally liability of the Petitioner/OP2 (‘OP2’, her India Law Library Docid # 2401436
(554) MADHULEKHA SAWHNEY - APPELLANT Vs. M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-12-2023 Ranji Bhandari (deceased) (through her LRs) and Smt. Prama Bhandari (complainants) have filed MA/512/2023, for extension of four weeks’ time to comply the order dated 29.05.2023 passed in CC/3689/2017. Operative portion of the order is quoted below India Law Library Docid # 2401437
(555) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HARISHANKAR COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-12-2023 The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 29.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint No. CC/2016/16 inter alia praying to set aside the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2016 of the State Commission in Complaint No. CC/2016/16. India Law Library Docid # 2401438
(556) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M/S. SHIVAM MEDICO [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-12-2023 This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 25.10.2013 of the State Commission in complaint no. 54 of 2010, whereby the complaint of the complainant was partially allowed and the opposite party insurance company was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 35,49,412/- along with 9% interest from 18.10.2008 till realisation and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 25,000/-towards cost of litigation. India Law Library Docid # 2401432
(557) UCO BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. SHWETA AGARWAL AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-12-2023 Banking Services – Bank Locker - Stolen of valuables - Bank appeals verdict awarding Rs. 30 lakh to locker renter for stolen valuables due to alleged security lapses - Renter claims Rs. 56 lakh worth of valuables stolen from locker due to bank's security negligence - Bank denies knowledge of locker contents and claims proper security measures - State Commission partially allows complaint, awards Rs. 30 lakh for deficiency in service – NCRDC reduces compensation to Rs. 10 lakh citing lack of proo India Law Library Docid # 2401433
(558) GANGAMAI INDUSTRIES AND CONSTRUCTION LTD. - APPELLANT Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-12-2023 Storm Damage - Sugar company appeals insurance company's denial of claim for damaged sugar stock due to storm damage - Company claims storm damaged 15,000 quintals of sugar in a temporary godown, causing a loss of Rs. 34,75,750 - Temporary godown wasn't insured as it was built after the policy was issued - No evidence of storm damage, as required by the policy - Damaged sugar sold without insurance company's approval - State Commission dismissed complaint, upholding insurance company's denial - India Law Library Docid # 2401434
(559) PRAJAKTA PRADEEP MULAY – PETITIONER Vs. VINOD GOYAL – RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-12-2023 Medical Negligence - Complainant underwent cataract surgery performed by OP doctor. Complainant alleged negligence, leading to multiple corrective surgeries - Filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation - Courts found no evidence of negligence on the part of the doctor - Residual refractive error was considered an inherent risk of cataract surgery - Doctor's choice of surgical technique (SICS instead of Phacoemulsification) was deemed acceptable - Wrong lens power measurement was attributed India Law Library Docid # 2401427
(560) SABITARANI BISWAL Vs. REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-12-2023 Passport – Delay in issuing - Filed a complaint against the Passport Department for inordinate delay in issuing her passport - Applied for passport in 2005 - Passport issued in 2007 after significant delay - Delay caused uncertainty and mental agony - Reasons for delay - State Commission found no evidence of error in the first application (wrong father's name) as cited by the department - Status report indicated delay due to "unavoidable circumstances" for the first application, not the second India Law Library Docid # 2401428