ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(841) UTTARAKHAND POWER CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. MUNFAIT ALI KHAN [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-07-2023
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 20.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeal (FA) No. 11 of 2011 in which order dated 08.12.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in
India Law Library Docid # 1882244

(842) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. JAGJIT AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-07-2023
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 05.07.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in First Appeal No. 994/2016 in which order dated 30.08.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint
India Law Library Docid # 1882290

(843) RAHUL JAIN Vs. M/S. EXACT DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-07-2023
Heard Mr. Raunak Jain, Advocate, for the complainant and Dr. Bipin K. Dwivedi, Advocate, for the opposite party. Rahul Jain has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) refund Rs.6264063/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till its realization; (ii) pay Rs.1000000/-, 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 in the facts and circumstances
India Law Library Docid # 1882230

(844) PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-07-2023
Pramod Kumar has filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to (i) pay insurance claim of Rs.1 crore with interest @18% per annum from the date of claim till the date of payment; (ii) pay Rs.5 lakhs, for deficiency in service; (iii) pay Rs.10 lakhs, for mental agony and harassment; (iv) pay Rs.75000/-, towards litigation costs; and (v) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case. The complainant stated that he was the brother and nominee of the deceased l
India Law Library Docid # 1882297

(845) SMT. MAMTA NEGI W/O LATE DINKAR NEGI AND OTHERS Vs. ADITYA BIRLA CAPITAL SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ONE INDIABULLS CENTRE AND OTHERS [UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-06-2023
This consumer complaint under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Smt. Mamta Negi along with her minor children - Karan Negi and Parth Negi (hereinafter to be referred to as complainants) against Aditya Birla Capital Sun Life Insurance Company Limited and Branch Manager, Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited - opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the insurance claim in question.
India Law Library Docid # 1882195

(846) MADHUGITA MADHUKAR SUKHATME Vs. M/S. YOGESH AND YOGESH JOSHI AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-06-2023
Mrs. Madhugita Madhukar Sukhatme has filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties to (i) provide office space for the condominium, watchman cabin, Fire refuge area on 8th floor, replace one lift with Stretcher lift; (ii) handover 9 remaining parking space i.e. 7 stilt parking and 2 open parking, within stipulated period; (iii) obtain completion certificate of the building Manas Apartment Condominium, within stipulated period, failing which pay penalty of Rs.5000/- per day; (iv) hando
India Law Library Docid # 1882209

(847) ASHISH VOHRA Vs. M/S. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-06-2023
Heard Ms. Padmapriya, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Siddharth Banthia, Advocate, for the opposite party. Ashish Vohra has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the unit allotted to him in the project Raheja Revanta and pay delay compensation in the form of interest @18% per annum on his deposit, from due date of possession till the delivery of possession; (ii) pay Rs.1000000/-, as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and har
India Law Library Docid # 1882364

(848) M/S. AJAY T.V. CENTRE TIBRI ROAD Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-06-2023
This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order dated 05.12.2014 in First Appeal No. 920 of 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) allowing the appeal and dismissing order dated 21.03.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 408 of 2011.
India Law Library Docid # 1882183

(849) DYNAMETIC OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023
This Consumer Complaint has been filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) alleging deficiency in service in repudiation of an insurance claim in a Marine Cargo Specific Voyage Policy issued by the Opposite Party in respect of transportation of a cargo of Iron Ore fines in bulk. The facts, in brief, as stated by the complainant, are that the complainant formerly registered as R. Piyarelall International Private Limited., (RPIL) for the business of import and export of Min
India Law Library Docid # 1882203

(850) GEETIKA MALLAN AND ANOTHER Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023
This complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in delay in offering possession of a flat booked by them with the opposite party and in charging an additional amount by arbitrarily increasing the super area of the flat. The relevant facts of the case as per the complainant, in brief, are that they had booked a residential unit on 30.11.2007 admeasuring approximately 2380 sq.ft
India Law Library Docid # 1882205

(851) RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023
This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order dated 08.05.2014 in Appeal No. 814 of 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench-II, Jaipur, Rajasthan (in short, the State Commission) dismissing the appeal and upholding order dated 22.05.2012 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jodhpur (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Case no. 771 of 2010. The facts of the case according to th
India Law Library Docid # 1882232

(852) MURUGESEN Vs. BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-06-2023
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant is an agriculturist owing agricultural land who obtained a loan to establish a poultry farm followed by subsequent loans for extension of the farm and erection of the poultry feed mill. The total loan amount was Rs.3,02,00,000/-. The complainant states that as required by the bank, the insurance premium in respect of the loan was paid directly to the insurance company from the account of the complainant by the opposite party. On account o
India Law Library Docid # 1882292

(853) M/S. MOTIA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. Vs. PUNJAB [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-06-2023
The present First Appeal (FA) has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent as detailed above, under section 19 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 24.04.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 886 of 2017 inter alia praying to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and final order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the State Commission. The Appellant was the Opposite P
India Law Library Docid # 1882291

(854) VIVEK GARG AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. SHIPRA ESTATE LTD. & JAI KRISHNA ESTATEDEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-06-2023
Heard Mr. Chandrachur Bhattacharyya, Advocate, for the complainants, Mr. Chaitanya, Advocate, for opposite party No.1 and Mr.Animesh Tripathi, Advocate, for opposite party No.2. Sh. Vivek Garg and Smt. Sarita Garg have filed the above complaint for directing the opposite parties to (i) handover possession of the flat No. OAK 802 allotted to them within stipulated period and if possession is not handed over within time fixed, then to pay penalty thereafter; (ii) pay delay compensation in the form
India Law Library Docid # 1882213

(855) PRIYANKA TANDON AND ANOTHER Vs. BHATIA GLOBAL HOSPITAL & ENDOSURGERY INSTITUTE & OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-06-2023
In September 2008, the couple Priyanka Tandon & Dinesh Tandon (the Complainants), on advice of Dr. Archana Dhawan Bajaj (OP-5), approached Bhatia Global Hospital and Endosurgery Institute (for short Bhatia Hospital-OP-1) at New Delhi for Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm injection (ICSI). The OP-4 Dr. Indu Bhatia and OP-5 have assured the couple about the success of ICSI.
India Law Library Docid # 1882143

(856) MOHAMMAD YUSUF RAZA Vs. INDORE TRANSPORT AGENCY [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-06-2023
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), challenging the Order dated 09.04.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (in short, the State Commission) in F.A. No. 207 of 2013, whereby the State Commission, while dismissing the Appeal before it, upheld the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (in short, the District Forum) in CC No. 357 of 2010
India Law Library Docid # 1882215

(857) BABY SAMHITHA K.S AND OTHERS Vs. CLOUD NINE AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-06-2023
The present Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Baby Samhitha K.S (minor), through her father Satish K.M (Complainant No. 1), Satish K.M (Complainant No. 2) & Sri. Halappa G.V (Complainant No. 3) against the Cloud Nine Hospital (OP-1) & its doctors Dr. Prakash Kini (OP-2) & Dr. Rekha (OP-3) for the alleged medical negligence. On 09.12.2013, Dr. Ganga H. R. (since deceased, for short the patient) was admitted to Cloud Nine Hospital (OP-1) for her Caes
India Law Library Docid # 1882365

(858) NEW INDIA ASS. CO. LTD. Vs. AJITBHAI R. PATEL [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-06-2023
This appeal has been preferred by the original opponent No.2, i.e. Insurance Company, since being aggrieved by the order of direction to pay sum of Rs.6,64,500/- together with interest @ of 9%p.a, compensation Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony and cost of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant vide order dated 19/09/2015 of District Forum, Ahmedabad (Additional) in complaint No. 948 of 2014.
India Law Library Docid # 1881902

(859) AMARJIT KAUR W/O. SHRI JOGINDER SINGH Vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE LTD. & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-06-2023
This Revision Petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Amarjit Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) against the Order dated 22.01.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 1362 of 2013, wherein the Appeal filed by the Appellant (Respondent herein) was allowed and the Order dated 30.08.2013 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for
India Law Library Docid # 1882186

(860) SUNCITY PROJECT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. LT. COLONET BRIJESH KUMAR SINGH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-06-2023
This order shall dispose of First Appeal No.980 of 2022 filed by the Opposite Party, i.e., Suncity Projects Private Limited (hereinafter referred as the Appellant) and First Appeal No.1024 of 2022 filed by Lt. Col. Brijesh Kumar Singh (hereinafter referred as (the Complainant). Both these Appeals have arisen out of the order dated 28.10.2022 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in Complaint No.216 of 2021 whereby the Complaint had been allowe
India Law Library Docid # 1882240