ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(781) MANAGER, INDUSIND BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJAY GHOSH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-08-2023
The present Revision Petition ( RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 27.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal ( hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal ( FA) No. 142 of 2015 in which order dated 27.11.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Howrah ( hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Cons
India Law Library Docid # 1882330

(782) SATYA BRAT JAISWAL Vs. VEDIC CONCLAVE PRIVATE LIMITED [WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2023
This consumer complaint case has been filed by the complainant under section 34 & 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ( in short, the Act) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties No. 1,2 & 4 valued at Rs.71,48,000/- ( Rupees seventy one lakh and forty eight thousand) only. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint case praying for the following reliefs :- Handover the physical possession of the said flat making it habitable by completi
India Law Library Docid # 1882235

(783) AFTAB ISLAM Vs. GOFRAIN MOLLA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2023
The revisionist has come up against the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission, whereby the complaint of the respondents in relation to the investments in deposit has been accepted, directing the payment of the investment together with 9% interest per annum and compensation has also been awarded together with interest. The case as appears from the pleadings and the orders of the Forums below, unfold the pitiful story of petty investors who deposited their hard earned money in mone
India Law Library Docid # 1882246

(784) BALUSINH SOMSINH NARVE Vs. SATNAM AGRO CENTRE AND OTHER [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2023
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order of dismissal of complaint, the original complainant had preferred this appeal against the impugned order and judgment dated 4th September 2017 of District Commission, Himmatnagar, in complaint No. 26/2017 and submitted that the District Commission failed to consider contents of complaint, Rejoinder affidavit and also failed to appreciate documents produced on record and thereby caused miscarriage of justice. It is the case of complainant before Distric
India Law Library Docid # 1882276

(785) RASANDIK ELECTRIC VEHICLES PVT. LTD. Vs. AYODHYA PRASAD MISHRA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-08-2023
Heard Ms. Shivani Mishra, daughter of the complainant and Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate for Rasandik Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. None appeared on behalf of Kaushalendra Pratap Singh. The above revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 04.01.2022 of Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow in First Appeals 400/2019 and 918/2019 (arising out of CC/06/2014) whereby the State Commission dismissed both the appeals and affirmed the order of the District Forum.
India Law Library Docid # 1882281

(786) M.S. BAKANKAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-08-2023
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Revision Petitioner against the Respondent as detailed above, under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 07.08.2019 of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in First Appeal (FA) No. 294 of 2018, in which the Order dated 04.09.2018 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the
India Law Library Docid # 1882306

(787) BHARTI AXA LIFE INSURANCE LTD. Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-08-2023
This revision petition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order dated 01.09.2017 in Appeal No. 341 of 2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) arising out of order dated 27.03.2017 in Consumer Complaint No. 320 of 2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, the District Forum). This order will also dispose of RP No. 3295 of 2017 which arises from the same orde
India Law Library Docid # 1882307

(788) TEJAS GOPALJI SOMANI Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-08-2023
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondents / Opposite Parties challenging the impugned order dated 29.06.2020 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad, Mumbai, in First Appeal bearing No. 161 of 2015. Vide such order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the order dated 03.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nanded, in Complain
India Law Library Docid # 1882112

(789) URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST AND ANOTHER Vs. MAGHA RAM [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-08-2023
This revision petition under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order dated 02.02.2017 in First Appeal no. 238 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Delhi (in short, the State Commission) which dismissed the appeal against order dated 30.07.2007 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 254/2005 that had allowed the complaint filed by the respondent. I have heard t
India Law Library Docid # 1882117

(790) AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER Vs. SHIV CHARAN SINGH CHAUHAN [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2023
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondent as detailed above, under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 29.11.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeal (FA) No. 353 of 2018 in which order dated 08.05.2018 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complain
India Law Library Docid # 1882252

(791) ALOK GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2023
Heard Mr. Siddharth Srivastava, Advocate, for the petitioner and Ms. Shobha Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. Above revision has been filed against the order of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Kota, dated 28.10.2021, passed in First Appeal No.88 of 2021 (arising from the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota, dated 31.03.2021 passed in CC/198/2016), whereby District Forum dismissed the complaint and State Commission dismissed the appe
India Law Library Docid # 1882254

(792) MANAGING DIRECTOR & CEO, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. S.X.J. VASAN, I.R.S. FORMER COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-08-2023
Heard Mr. Arvind Srevastava, Advocate, for S.X.J. Vasan and Ms. Akansha Rathore, Advocate, for Indian Overseas Bank. Above appeals have been filed against the order of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, dated 13.01.2022, passed in Consumer Complaint No.175 of 2017, whereby State Commission has partly allowed the complaint and directed Indian Overseas Bank to pay Rs.500000/- as compensation, for wrongful dishonour of the cheque of the complainant. The office has rep
India Law Library Docid # 1882332

(793) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. SOURAV DAS AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-07-2023
Heard Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Gosh, Advocate, for Sourav Das, Ms. Priya Puri, Advocate, for Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Mr. N.R. Mukerji, Advocate, for M/s Sneha Gas Services and Mr. Saroj Kumar Pandey, Advocate, for National Insurance Co., in above appeals. Above appeals have been filed from the order of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, dated 11.03.2020, passed in CC/62/2009, partly allowing the complaint and directing Indian Oil Corporation Limited and M/s. Sneha
India Law Library Docid # 1882320

(794) GURUMOORTHY, S/O. NAGASUBRAMANIAN, HINDU Vs. THE CANARA BANK AND OTHERS [PUDUCHERRY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2023
The present complaint has been filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the following reliefs: (a) Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.98,58,000/- (Rupees ninety eight lakhs and fifty eight thousand only) to the complainant towards deficiency in service. (b) Directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) to the complainant as compensation for hardship, harassment, humiliation etc. (c) Directing the opposite parties to do i
India Law Library Docid # 1882253

(795) BHAVESH TRIBHUVAN VORALIYA Vs. MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2023
This complaint was filed by Mr. Bhavesh Tribhovan Voraliya, a Non-Resident Indian and permanently residing in U. K. at the address given in the cause title. The complainant had been to India for short while and during his camping, he has filed this complaint and authorized his maternal uncle Mr. Naresh M. Sinroja as power of attorney holder and empowered him to do all necessary things on his behalf for his complaint. It is say of the complainant that the grandfather of the complainant late Mr. L
India Law Library Docid # 1882279

(796) ASHISH DHINGRA AND ANOTHER Vs. EMAAR MGF LAND LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-07-2023
Heard Mr. Aditya Parolia, Advocate, for the complainants and Mr. Aditya Narain, Advocate, for the opposite party. Ashish Dhingra and Rishi Pahuja have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.9052908/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of realization; (ii) pay Rs.1500000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay Rs.200000/- as litigation costs; and (iv) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper
India Law Library Docid # 1882310

(797) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. VISHAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-07-2023
The present Revision Petitions (RPs) have been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 58(1)(b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the orders dated 16.03.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeals (FAs) No. 176/2018, 180/2018 and 179/2018 in which orders dated 22.12.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Oraiya (hereinafter refe
India Law Library Docid # 1882311

(798) HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAJIV KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-07-2023
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 11.09.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 741 of 2013 in which order dated 03.04.2013 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum VI New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
India Law Library Docid # 1603469

(799) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK GUWAHATI ZONAL OFFICE Vs. SRI KAMAL THENGAL C/O THANGAL AUTO SERVICE G.D. ROAD [ASSAM STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-07-2023
Heard Mr. A. Parvez, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 1. Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel, for the respondent No. 2 remained absent. However, as the matter is taken up for its disposal, the written argument submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 along with the one of the counsel present today, are taken into consideration along with the oral argument of the counsel present today. This is an appeal under Sectio
India Law Library Docid # 1882245

(800) SANCHITA CHAUHAN DAUGHTER OF LATE SHAMSHER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. M/S MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-07-2023
Initially in the year 2011, the mother of complainant, namely, Santosh Chauhan had booked the plot measuring 300 sq yards in the locality namely Palm Springs in the project The Palm being developed by the opposite parties in Mullanpur (New Chandigarh), District SAS Nagar, Mohali, the total sale consideration whereof was Rs.55,50,000/-, calculated @Rs.18,500/- per sq. yards. Apart from the said amount of Rs.55,50,000/-, only the EDC & PLC (if any) was to be paid extra. An application form was got
India Law Library Docid # 1882103