ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(581) PRAGATI PAPERS INDUSTRIES KALAAMB DISTT.SIRMOUR H.P. THR M.D. AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. THR BRANCH MANAGER NARAINGARH DISTT.AMBALA AND OTHERS[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2023
Consumer Law – Insurance - 'NIL Liability' - The complainant obtained insurance for a building from OPs/insurer from 23.05.2001 to 22.05.2002, covering a risk of Rs. 2,60,00,000/-. They suffered flood loss on 17.07.2001 - Despite multiple attempts for settlement, they received clarification and promptly submitted documents - The complainant filed a complaint for harassment and mental agony, seeking directions to pay Rs. 16,78,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/- The District Consumer Commission allowed the
India Law Library Docid # 2400974

(582) SMT. SONALI CHATTERJEE W/O SRI JAYANTA CHATTERJEE Vs. MRS. SUMITRA HALDER AND OTHERS[WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2023
The instant complaint case has been filed by the complainant under Section 17(1) (a)(i) alleging deficiency in service against the OPs. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the OP No. 3 being the owner of the Bastu land measuring more or less 5 cottahs, 8 chitacks together with structure standing thereon lying and situated at Mouza Purba Barisha
India Law Library Docid # 2401004

(583) SRI SHANKAR LAL RAJGARIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE MISSION HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2023
Brief facts of the case are that the complainants’ only son namely Sandip Rajgaria, since deceased was admitted to the Opposite Party No. 1 hospital with problem of swelling, cough and palpitation. Dr. Satyajit Bose, the Opposite Party No. 2 examined him and made him undergo various examinations. After obtaining all the reports of the concerned examinations, the Opposite Party No. 2 Doctor
India Law Library Docid # 2401005

(584) MAKEMY TRIP (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED Vs. MR. SHANKAR JINDAL AND ANOTHER[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023
Consumer Law – Airlines - The appellant failed to provide support to a complainant who had a cancelled flight and was not responsible for following up with airlines - The complainant had to book a return flight, spending Rs.9,799.77.
India Law Library Docid # 2400962

(585) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SH. KHEM RAJ PAINULI[UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023
This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tehri Garhwal (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 04 of 2013 styled as Sh. Khemraj Painuli Vs. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
India Law Library Docid # 2401002

(586) M/S. ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED Vs. PT. ASURANSI MITSUI SUMITOMO, INDONESIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023
Consumer Law - Marine Insurance Policy – The complainant company, a provider of engineering services to petroleum refineries, purchased eight legged jackets from Indonesia and installed them at the Offshore MNW Process Platform Project in India – The complainant stated that the there were cuts on diaphragms in jackets, indicating deflation - Engineers suggested repair before installation
India Law Library Docid # 2400942

(587) DR. D. J. DE SOUZA Vs. THE MANAGER[GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023
Consumer Law – Banking Services - Freezing of account – Blocking of Debit Card - The bank's service was not compromised, as account freezing was automated and due to multiple customer IDs. - The bank denied freezing the account without the complainant's consent, stating that the intimation was sent via SMS and new card was issued
India Law Library Docid # 2400970

(588) THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ICICI BANK TOWER Vs. HASINA RIZWAN SHAIKH[GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023
Consumer Law – Motor Vehicle Insurance - The complainant purchased insurance for his Skoda Laura from 14.10.2011 to 13.10.2012, paying a premium of Rs. 28,445 - However, the car caught fire causing significant damage - The complainant lodged a complaint and incurred a repair cost of Rs. 8,19,350/-. - The insurance company reprimanded the vehicle due to electrical failure, which is not covered under the policy - The complainant's policy terms and conditions were unclear and awarded less than insu
India Law Library Docid # 2400972

(589) DOLE RAM S/O SH. SURTA Vs. THE H.P. STATE CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023
Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 16.11.2021 of learned District Commission, Mandi, in consumer complaint No. 71/2021 titled Shri Dole Ram Vs. The H.P. state Co.Op. Bank Ltd., whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
India Law Library Docid # 2400987

(590) REGIONAL ROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. N. RAVINDRANATHAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2023
Consumer Law – Revision Petition - The scope in a Revision Petition is limited - Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order.
India Law Library Docid # 2400950

(591) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS Vs. SURESH KUMAR DHIR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR’S AND OTHERS[PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2023
The appellants/opposite parties i.e. Life Insurance Corporation of India & others have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar
India Law Library Docid # 2401001

(592) M/S ROHAN MOTORS THROUGH THEIR WORKSHOP MANAGER ROHAN MOTORS Vs. SMT. JASBIR KAUR W/O SH. HARJEET SINGH AND OTHERS[UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2023
The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as the District Commission) in consumer complaint No. 44 of 2019 styled as Smt. Jasbir Kaur Vs. M/s D.D. Motors and others,
India Law Library Docid # 2401003

(593) MS. NEETA Vs. M/S KHANNA NURSING HOME AND OTHER[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2023
Consumer Law – Medical Negligence - The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor - The nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient - Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution - Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treat
India Law Library Docid # 2400968

(594) THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHER Vs. MRS. PATEL HIRAL RAGHUNATH AND OTHER[GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-11-2023
Consumer Law – Mediclaim - Pre-existing disease - The complainant alleges that complainant no.2, father has multiple insurance policies, each with different renewal numbers, resulting in a total insured sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. - The complainant filed a claim for Rs.3,00,000 against an insurance company for treating an anterior wall myocardial infarction - The insurance company refused to pay due to the patient's pre-existing health condition
India Law Library Docid # 2400971

(595) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. KAMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Revisional Jurisdiction - The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited - It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law
India Law Library Docid # 2400949

(596) M/S ROYAL INFRACONSTRU LTD. Vs. M/S EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2023
Consumer Law – Terms of Contract - The Complainant, a steel railway sleeper manufacturer, obtained a purchase order from Mokarrar Engineering Material Company for 50,000 sleepers for railway construction in Iran - The buyer made payments at Keshavarzi Bank, Iran, while the negotiating bank was State Bank of India - The Complainant requested prompt response due to Iran sanctions and suggested amending the LC to British Pounds currency
India Law Library Docid # 2400947

(597) PUNJAB & SIND BANK Vs. NACHATTER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2023
Consumer Law - Agricultural credit loan – Entitlement to get NOC - The complainant used an agricultural credit loan of Rs. 4,50,000/- for crop raising and other agricultural needs - In 2009, the OP refused to accept the loan due to embezzlement - In 2010, he received a notice with an outstanding amount of Rs. 7,41,747/- and deposited Rs. 5,74,000/-. Despite repayment, no dues certificate was issued - The complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum,
India Law Library Docid # 2400948

(598) UHBVNL GOHANA, TEHSIL GOHANA AND OTHERS Vs. RAJ KUMAR R/O GOHANA, TEHSIL GOHANA AND OTHERS[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2023
Consumer Law – Electricity Bill - The complainant received an electric connection NDS bill for Rs.2,17,686/- and was informed of a three-year penalty - He deposited Rs.50,000/- to avoid criminal liability and disconnection - He claims the audit report and bill are wrong, illegal, null, and void, violating natural justice and law provisions - OPs/appellants argue that a bill for Rs.2,17,686/- was issued based on actual consumption and an audit report, and the complainant's complaint is not mainta
India Law Library Docid # 2400975

(599) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SH. NARAIN SINGH[HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-11-2023
Opposite parties/Insurance company resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply and stated that complainant has not supplied even a single document to the opposite parties and in the absence of document, the opposite parties are not in a position to rebut the averments made in the complaint.
India Law Library Docid # 2400986

(600) THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KSEB ELECTRICAL SECTION PARAVATTI TRISSUR AND OTHERS Vs. SUKUMARAN AMBADI PROPREITOR AMBADI BLDG KK ROAD PARAVATTI TRISSUR[KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-11-2023
This is an appeal filed under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties in C.C.No.122/2012 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (the District Commission for short). As per the order dated 29.06.2018, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.20,000
India Law Library Docid # 2400991