(561) SANDEEP NATHURAM NALAVADE Vs. SHIVASAHYADRI EMU FARM AND HATCHRIES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2024 This revision petition has been filed in challenge to the Order dated 06.04.2018 in Appeal No. 1028 of 2014 of the State Commission Maharashtra arising out of Order dated 08.10.2014 of the District Commission in Complaint no. 19 of 2014. India Law Library Docid # 2401687
(562) PREM KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. M/S. BESTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Consumer Law – Housing - Booking of Flat –Project was delayed – Request for a refund of his money – Respondent argued that Appellant had voluntarily cancelled the booking and was not entitled to a refund - They also claimed that he was in default of payments under the agreement - The NCRDC found that Appellant had indeed requested a refund, but that this was after Respondent had informed him of a delay in the project caused by a gas pipeline - The NCRDC also found that Respondent had not informe India Law Library Docid # 2401684
(563) DR. H.B. M. PANTH Vs. ASKARI HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Medical Negligence - The State Commission had found the doctors liable for medical negligence in connection with the treatment of a pregnant woman - The woman had suffered hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (HIE) after a caesarean section, which resulted in brain damage - The State Commission had awarded the woman and her husband compensation of Rs. 1.19 crore - The doctors appealed the decision, arguing that they were not negligent and that the State Commission had not properly considered the evid India Law Library Docid # 2401685
(564) DR. H.B. M. PANTH Vs. ASKARI HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 The present three Appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the impugned Order dated 04.12.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in Complaint No. 13 of 2006, vide which the Complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed. India Law Library Docid # 2401609
(565) VIRENDRA AGRAWAL AND OTHERS Vs. NEEPA REAL ESTATES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-01-2024 Virendra Agarwal, Shalabh Virendra Agarwal and Ritika S. Agarwal have filed above complaint, for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover physical possession of flat No.801, 8th Floor, Veronica in Vasant Oasis on the land bearing CTS No.246, 340-345/61-B, Village Marol, Taluka & District Andheri, Mumbai; (ii) execute sale deed of the flat in favour of the complainants; (iii) refund an amount of Rs.14.17 lacs with interest @ 21% p.a. w.e.f. 25.11.2011; (iv) jointly and severally pay interes India Law Library Docid # 2401608
(566) BHAJAN BHAGWANT SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2024 This Revision Petition has been filed by Complainant Bhajan Bhagwant Singh under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order dated 26.03.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh in F.A. No. 745 of 2017, vide which the Appeal filed by the Respondents was allowed, the Order of the District Forum was set-aside, and the Complaint was dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 2401607
(567) A.C. DHARMADEVI Vs. INDIAN BANK AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2024 These two first appeals arise out of a common order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission) dated 23.07.2015, where the complainant, Smt. A. C. Dharmadevi in complaint no. 3 of 2008, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Indian Bank, Chennai for not returning the original documents/ title deeds deposited with them that was transferred to the Esplanade Branch of the Bank, and were ultimately lost in their custod India Law Library Docid # 2401610
(568) 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
(569) 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
(570) 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
(571) 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
(572) 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
(573) 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
(574) 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
(575) 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
(576) 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
(577) 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
(578) 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
(579) 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
(580) 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