ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(661) AVALON ROJECTS (A UNIT OF GRJ DISTRIBUTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.) Vs. NARENDER KUMAR GOYAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-11-2023
This order shall dispose of First Appeals No. 872 of 2021 and 873 of 2021 since they arise from the same impugned order which pertains to the same project and have the same conspectus of facts. For convenience, facts are being taken from First Appeal No. 872 of 2021
India Law Library Docid # 2400570

(662) VIPUL MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. PADMINI JOSHI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-11-2023
This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 16.11.2016 in First Appeal No. 791 of 2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (in short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 29.04.2016of the District Consumer
India Law Library Docid # 2400571

(663) ANSAL HOUSING LIMITED (ERSTWHILE ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Vs. MR. VIKAS AGARWAL[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-11-2023
The present appeal has been filed on 20.10.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 28.02.2023 vide which Complaint Case No.13/2022 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi.
India Law Library Docid # 2400576

(664) B.B. CHOPRA S/O KRISHAN LAL NOW DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HSIDC) AND OTHERS[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-11-2023
Challenge in this appeal No.1507 of 2017 has been invited by complainant-B. B. Chopra (since deceased, now represented by his LRs), to the legality of order dated 13.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Panchkula (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.146 of 2015, vide which his complaint has been allowed.
India Law Library Docid # 2400580

(665) PITHAMBER R. POLSANI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-11-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21 - Consumer Complaint - Possession of Flat - It is the case of the Complainants that they were coerced to take possession of an incomplete and unsafe Project; that the possession along with Occupation Certificate was not given within the committed period of 36 months; that the Opposite Party is not in a position to handover the possession of the plot in habitable condition as the construction was incomplete till the filing of the Complaint and the Opposi
India Law Library Docid # 2400494

(666) P.B. VISHNU ALIAS NAVNEETH VISHNU Vs. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-11-2023
Consumer Complaint by minor child - Complainant was a minor child aged about 3½ years old when his father on 22.04.1996 and 23.04.1996 invested into 50 Fixed Deposits of Rs.50,000/- each in 25 branches of the respondent-Co-operative Bank - Due to some internal family arrangement that was presumably on account of some dispute between the husband and the wife, the mother of the complainant was made the guardian in relation to the said deposits - Deposits matured in the year 2012 that were to bear
India Law Library Docid # 2400495

(667) LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SULAKSHNA DEVI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-11-2023
Motor Insurance Claim - Repair liability of Insurance Company - Insured's Car met with an accident and was lodged in a waterlogged ditch in the middle of the road and got damaged - The insured vehicle shall be treated as a Constructive Total Loss (CTL) if the aggregate cost of retrieval and/or repair of the vehicle, subject to terms and conditions of the policy, exceeds 75% of the insured declared value (IDV) of the vehicle - Actual cost that would have to be paid for repairs would be about 77.2
India Law Library Docid # 2400497

(668) BRIJ MOHAN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-11-2023
Mediclaim Policy - A contract of Insurance is to be honoured strictly in terms of the conditions specified in the Policy without making any alteration in the words used therein - When written advise by a Medical Practitioner was necessary to constitute Hospitalisation in terms of the specific Clause 3.4 of the Policy, failure to secure such written advise prior to the admission would consequently have the effect of exempting the Insurance Company from any liability to satisfy the Insurance claim
India Law Library Docid # 2400498

(669) ASHWANI SHARMA Vs. SIRDA GROUP OF INSTITUTIONS NAULAKHA [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-11-2023
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the opposite party/Sirda Group of Institutions is running an institute. Various courses including engineering are there for the students in the institute. In August, 2016, the complainant applied for admission to 2nd year of Diploma in Electrical Engineering. After receiving Rs.19,000/- vide receipt dated 11.08.2016, the opposite party allowed him to sit in the course. The complainant has basic qualification of Diploma in ITI from ITI, Shamshi (Kullu)
India Law Library Docid # 1882296

(670) ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION Vs. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-11-2023
Consumer Law – Housing - The Army Welfare Housing Organisation filed a complaint against the Meerut Development Authority over a breached allocation for a 30-acre housing society plot. The complainant deposited Rs.3,82,41,541 on 28.10.1989. The dispute centers on the direction of refund, with no objection to the principal amount. The main issues are determining the interest rate and period. The opposing party accepts the principal amount but opposes an 18% interest rate, citing a 4% maximum unde
India Law Library Docid # 2400459

(671) DAKSHAT K. TRIVEDI AND OTHER Vs. MAHINDRA HOLIDAYS AND RESORTS INDIA LTD.[GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-11-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) - deficiency in service - Complainant applied for Club Mahindra membership, received benefits after down payment, but couldn't book holidays – Called for Cancelling of membership – Filed complaint for refund, interest, and compensation with Ld. District Commission - The complainant claims to have purchased the membership based on the benefits offered and the option to cancel if not satisfied with the opponent's services - The Ld. District Commissio
India Law Library Docid # 2400461

(672) KISHAN SINGH JADAUN Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-11-2023
This revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails order dated 07.10.2016 in First Appeal No. 2110 of 2010 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal (in short, the State Commission) setting aside the order dated 15.06.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 94 of 2009. The brief conspectus of facts is that the petitioner purchased a Scorpio car
India Law Library Docid # 1882326

(673) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAJ KAURA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-11-2023
This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order dated 07.02.2017 in First Appeal No. 338 of 2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 31.12.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hardoi (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 92 of 2011. The brief facts of the cas
India Law Library Docid # 1882358

(674) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO Vs. VIKAS JAIN AND OTHER[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-11-2023
Delay of 50 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay. 2. Challenge in this Appeal No. 607 of 2017 is invited by United India Insurance Company Ltd./insurer to the legality of order dated 20.02.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Palwal (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in Complaint Case No.112 of 2016, vide which, complainant’s complaint has been allowed.
India Law Library Docid # 2400462

(675) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M.M. CONSTRUCTION (ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION)[UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-11-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 41 – ‘Contractor’s All Risks Insurance Policy’ - The aforesaid insurance is for compensation in case of any loss suffered by the company / complainant during road construction of 10 Kilometers - Heavy rain caused road construction work damage - The opposite party hired a surveyor to assess the damage, but the insurance company denied the claim due to delayed notification of accident - The opposite party claims the complaint was filed with false information
India Law Library Docid # 2400465

(676) MANAS KUMAR MAITY Vs. KALIPADA DAS & 3 OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-11-2023
Consumer Protection Act 1986 - Section 21(a) - Compensation - Fail to deliver possession of flat and register deed of conveyance - It is clear from the above deed of revocation that nothing contained in this deed has rendered invalid or ineffective any act, deed or thing lawfully and bonafidly done or caused to be done by the said attorney (respondent 4 herein) under and by virtue of the power given to him before the revocation thereof by Respondents 1 and 2 herein - Further, it is to be noted t
India Law Library Docid # 2400400

(677) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. HARYANA Vs. MAN SINGH AND ANOTHER[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-11-2023
Insurance Claim - Car met with accident due to sudden appearance of a wild cow - While saving wild cow; vehicle turned turtle in roadside ditch and caught fire - Fire Brigade came there, but car burnt badly - Burning of vehicle in fire was self created by complainant, palpably, to thwart the entire process of recovery of loan - Complainant carrying such like mischievous and mala fide intention, cannot be allowed to succeed - Mischievous and ill motivated conduct of complainant; this Commission,
India Law Library Docid # 2400401

(678) JAYPEE GREENS Vs. YOGESH KUMAR GARG [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-11-2023
Heard Mr. Sumeet Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Jaypee Greens (the opposite party) has filed above appeal against order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, dated 24.10.2016, passed in CC/582/2016, allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.100000/- and directing the appellant to refund Rs.6807595/- with interest @18% per annum from date of respective deposit till the date of payment, within sixty days, with default clause
India Law Library Docid # 1882324

(679) COL RETD. VIJANDER BHANDARI Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR,EX-SRVICEMAN CONTRIBUTORY HEALTH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-11-2023
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 20.07.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeal (FA) No. A/19/235 in which order dated 11.09.018 of South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint
India Law Library Docid # 1882351

(680) M/S. MOHAN INDUSTRIES Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-11-2023
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 29.07.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeal (FA) No.A/04/1901 in which order dated 08.09.2004 of Bhandara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Petition No. 68/2003
India Law Library Docid # 1882357