ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(701) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. KAILASH CHAND VED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-10-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(1)(b) - Deficiency of service and unfair trade practices - Construction faults in Flat - Compensation enhanced by State Commission - Appeal against - Existence of a washbasin in the dining area had clearly been shown in the model of the Flat physically shown to the intending purchasers/Complainants, and failure to provide the same certainly amounted to a deficiency in service - District Forum below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the Com
India Law Library Docid # 2400300

(702) INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED Vs. DILIP GOYAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-10-2023
Consumer Law - Loan Agreement - A party cannot be permitted to avoid the contents of the documents signed by himself as there is always a presumption that he had signed thereupon after properly understanding the contents.
India Law Library Docid # 2400301

(703) DR. ANURADHA Vs. DR. PANDIT AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-10-2023
Consumer Complaint - Medical negligence - Uterine prolapse and uterine fibroid surgery - Medical negligence on the part of the doctors involved in her care, resulting in her prolonged suffering - Mere contention of complainant that he too acted negligently, there is no evidence to substantiate it - Undisputed facts clearly indicate that whenever the complainant approached to him, he advised her for sonography and C.T.Scan, and tuberculosis test and on perusal of test report he referred her back
India Law Library Docid # 2400276

(704) BRIJ LAL Vs. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2023
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is the sole proprietor of Amar General Store, VPO Kotli and deals in sale of ready-made garments. The complainant availed loan facility from the opposite party No.2/Himachal Pradesh Grameen Bank, who got the business insured with the opposite party No.1/Insurance company. Sum assured was Rs.6,00,000/- and the risk was covered from 12.02.2016 to 11.02.2017. During the intervening night of 30th June/1st July, 2016, boulders fell on the shop all of
India Law Library Docid # 1882273

(705) DIPTI YOGESH PAREKH Vs. BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2023
Heard Mr. Rajan Khosla, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, Advocate, for the opposite party. Mrs. Dipti Yogesh Parekh (the nominee of the Deceased Life Assured) has filed above complaint, for directing Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited (the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs.5/- crores with interest @10% per annum from 20.02.2015 till the date of payment, towards insurance claim; (ii) Rs.50/- lakhs, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment; (iii) litigation costs;
India Law Library Docid # 1882352

(706) MANDEEP SINGH JOHAR AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. IREO PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2023
Consumer Law - Interest on delayed payment of instalments - Complainants have not filed demand letters of the instalments showing date of demand, due date of deposit and the date of payments as such, it cannot be held that demand of interest on delayed payment of instalments, is illegal.Q
India Law Library Docid # 2400273

(707) K. KARTHIGA AND OTHERS Vs. HELIOS HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2023
Consumer Complaint - Medical negligence - Patient died due to DVT-Pulmonary Embolism - From various reports of the patient during 28.07.2009 to 04.08.2009, such as, blood culture, bone scan, bone X-ray, complete blood count, C-Reactive Protein, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, MRI, ECG, ECHO, Ultrasound and Radio-nucleotide Bone Scan report, it is not proved that the patient had suffered from DVT-Pulmonary Embolism rather it was proved that he had infective arthritis on left knee joint, due to wh
India Law Library Docid # 2400274

(708) BRIG CARGO INTERNATIONAL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. ANURAG EXPORTS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2023
Consumer - Compensation - Loss of consignment and mental agony and harassment - Complainant handed over consignments of 41 rolls of carpets to Brig Cargo International along with Invoice No.195/2000-01 dated 18.10.2000, in the name of M/s. Designer’s Collection 2, D-35410, Hungen, Germany and required documents for its shipment to the port of Hamburg, Germany - These consignments were shipped through E N U Shipping Lines, operated by E M U Lines Pvt. Ltd. on 04.11.2000, who had issued Bills of L
India Law Library Docid # 2400275

(709) HERITAGE COTTAGES PVT. LTD AND OTHERS Vs. SATISH CHANDRA JAIN OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-10-2023
Consumer Law - Housing - Failed to deliver possession of the flat - Compensation - Appellant and the Complainant are bound by the terms and conditions of Agreement in question - When OP failed to deliver possession as agreed in between them, the OP is liable to refund the amount deposited. The Complainant cannot be made liable to approach M/s Triveni for compensation - As per Agreement in this case, the Complainant was liable to pay Rs. 34,38,750/-. Whereas, he had paid Rs. 31,69,211/-. Therefor
India Law Library Docid # 2400247

(710) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KAPIL WALIA [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2023
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.192/2019 titled Kapil Walia Versus Shriram General Insurance Company. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of vehicle (Tipper) bearing registration No.HP-68-3252. The tipper was duly insured with opposite party/Insurance company vide insurance policy No.10003/31/17372684 w.e.f. 10.11.2016 to 09.11.2017. The tipper met wit
India Law Library Docid # 1882114

(711) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KAPIL WALIA [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2023
Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Consumer Complaint No.192/2019 titled Kapil Walia Versus Shriram General Insurance Company. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is owner of vehicle (Tipper) bearing registration No.HP-68-3252. The tipper was duly insured with opposite party/Insurance company vide insurance policy No.10003/31/17372684 w.e.f. 10.11.2016 to 09.11.2017. The tipper met wit
India Law Library Docid # 1882120

(712) BALAMURUGAN AUTOMOBILES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-10-2023
The complainant is an authorized dealer for sales, service and spares of two wheelers, three wheelers and other vehicles manufactured by M/s. TVS Motors. The complainant contends that it is running its main showroom establishment at 93/3, New Bye Pass Road, Vellore. It also has its additional establishments including one at 63/1 and 63/B in Kakithattadai on Arcot Road in Vellore and two other premises within the establishment run by the complainant namely at 7-A, Railway Station Road, Ranipet an
India Law Library Docid # 1882334

(713) AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AMD OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-10-2023
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 08.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeal (FA) No.467/2017 in which order dated 23.03.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) N
India Law Library Docid # 1882356

(714) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. AMAR JYOTI BHARDWAJ AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-10-2023
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Application for condonation for delay of 738 days - Departmental and official procedural delays by itself do not constitute "sufficient ground" - Once an appeal is found to be barred by limitation, there can be no question of any obligation of the Court to consider the merits of the case of the Appellant - Application seeking condonation of delay dismissed.
India Law Library Docid # 2400243

(715) AQUA MACHINERIES PVT. LTD. Vs. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-10-2023
The Complainant herein has filed this complaint to claim compensation of Rs. 69,21,960/- together with interest and cost. It is case of the complainant that complainant is Registered Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, and Mr. B.B. Maurya is authorized to file this complaint for and on behalf of complainant Company. The complainant Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing submersible pump and installation thereof. It is say of the complainant that the Deputy Engineer, Pub
India Law Library Docid # 1882116

(716) AQUA MACHINERIES PVT. LTD. Vs. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-10-2023
The Complainant herein has filed this complaint to claim compensation of Rs. 69,21,960/- together with interest and cost. It is case of the complainant that complainant is Registered Private Limited Company under the Companies Act, and Mr. B.B. Maurya is authorized to file this complaint for and on behalf of complainant Company. The complainant Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing submersible pump and installation thereof. It is say of the complainant that the Deputy Engineer, Pub
India Law Library Docid # 1882271

(717) KRISHAN KUMAR KACHORIA Vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-10-2023
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No.HP-31C-1857 (Hyundai i10 car). The vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No.l/Insurance company and the risk was covered from 05.06.2015 to 04.06.2016. IDV (Insured Declared Value) of the car was Rs.5,50,000/-. On 28th April, 2016, the complainant was driving the car and going from Sunder Nagar to Nangal (Punjab). Complainant noticed leakage of engine oil from the chamber of the vehic
India Law Library Docid # 1882277

(718) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SMT.MADHU BALA W/O LATE SH. PREM SINGH AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-10-2023
Brief facts of the case are that the complainants are legal heirs of late Sh. Prem Singh, who expired on 25.08.2021. Late Sh. Prem Singh was owner of TVS Jupiter having registration No.HP-38G-4772. The said TVS Jupiter was insured with opposite parties No.1 & 2/insurance company and paid Rs.3,616/- as premium of insurance. The policy was effective w.e.f. 23.07.2021 to 22.07.2022. On 23.08.2021, the said vehicle met with an accident, in which, predecessor-in-interest of complainants Sh. Prem Lal
India Law Library Docid # 1882300

(719) HIMANSHU TIWARI AND ANOTHER Vs. ARUN KUMAR GABEL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-10-2023
Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Condonation of delay - In order to condone the delay of 296 days, the Petitioner had to satisfy the State Commission that there were sufficient cause for preferring the Appeals after the stipulated limitation period - Not find any reason to intervene with the order of the State Commission for not condoning the delay of 296 days in filing the appeals - Revision Petition dismissed.
India Law Library Docid # 2400229

(720) SANJIV GOYAL Vs. PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-10-2023
This consumer complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) is filed against the opposite party alleging deficiency in not handing over possession of the flat booked by the complainant within the promised time and seeking refund of the amount deposited with interest as compensation and other costs. The complainant states that he obtained a flat in Parsvanath Royale, a project promoted and developed by the opposite party in Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana on tr
India Law Library Docid # 1882359