(921) HAMBIR MADHUKAR PAWAR Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER, VINOD NANAJI KADAM [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-12-2022 This Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, The Act) assails the order dated 08.02.2016 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Ahmednagar (in short, State Commission) in First Appeal No. 664 of 2015 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order dated 17.07.2015 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar in Consumer Complaint No. 485 of 2014. India Law Library Docid # 1867584
(922) NILAM SINGH Vs. DR. R.B. SHARMA AND ANR [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-12-2022 On 08.01.2006 husband of the Complainant Mritunjai Kumar Singh, age about 49 years (hereinafter referred to as the deceased or the patient) slipped and sustained a head injury. He was conscious, speech was impaired. On the next day i.e. 09.01.2006, he was taken to Neurologist-Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh in Patna who examined the patient and C.T. Scan of Head was performed. India Law Library Docid # 1867594
(923) SUSHIL KUMAR BHATIA Vs. M/S. BPTP LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-12-2022 Since the facts involved in both these Complaints are similar except for minor variations in the Plot numbers and their sale consideration, these Complaints are being disposed off by this common Order. However, for the sake of convenience, facts as enumerated in Consumer Complaint No. 947 of 2018 have been discussed at length herein. India Law Library Docid # 1867599
(924) VINOD Vs. LEKHRA BEEJ BHANDAR AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-12-2022 This revision petition filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, State Commission) in First Appeal No. 288 of 2015 dated 09.12.2015 arising out of order dated 20.11.2014 in complaint no. 415 of 2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sonepat (in short, District Forum). India Law Library Docid # 1867601
(925) COL. MOHAN SINGH Vs. FORTIS HOSPITAL AND OTHERS [CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-12-2022 This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Col. Mohan Singh (Retd.) against order dated 11.01.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh [in short District Commission], whereby consumer complaint bearing No.631 of 2018 filed by him was dismissed by the Ld. District Commission. India Law Library Docid # 1867561
(926) M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. Vs. RANJIT SINGH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-12-2022 The brief admitted facts of the case are that Appellant had advertised a project under the name and style of Palm Springs situated at Mullanpur, Garibdas, New Chandigarh, Punjab for sale of 300 sq.yds. of residential plot at basic sale price of Rs.54,00,000/- The complainant booked a residential plot in the said project. On various dates, undisputedly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.27,00,000/- to the Appellant but no residential plot had been allotted to him despite waiting for several ye India Law Library Docid # 1873226
(927) AJAY KUMAR BATTA, ADVOCATE Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD [CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-12-2022 It is the case of the complainant that with a view to have a residence in Chandigarh for his son, a Dwelling Unit bearing no.5548, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh was purchased by him from Mr. Pawan Trehan. Following facts have been narrated by the complainant in his complaint:- India Law Library Docid # 1867573
(928) M/S. MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. HARJINDER SINGH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-12-2022 The brief admitted facts of the case are that Appellant had advertised a project under the name and style of Palm Gardens situated at Mullanpur, Garibdas, New Chandigarh, Punjab for sale of 250 sq.yds. of residential plot at basic sale price of Rs.46,25,000/- The complainant booked a residential plot in the said project. On various dates, undisputedly, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.43,81,720/- to the Appellant but no residential plot had been allotted to him despite waiting for several ye India Law Library Docid # 1867592
(929) OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD AND OTHERS Vs. HARJIT KAUR SIDHU [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-12-2022 The present Appeal has been filed against the Order dated 09.02.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as State Commission), whereby the Complaint filed by Mrs. Harjit Kuar Sidhu (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was allowed and Krishan Kumar Aggarwal and Kamal Kishore Gupta, Directors of M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., India Law Library Docid # 1867595
(930) ROHANDEEP SINGH JASWAL Vs. KOKILABEN DHIRUBHAI AMBANI HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-12-2022 This Complaint was filed by Sh. Sanjeev Jaswal, father of Complainant No. 1 Rohandeep Singh Constituted Attorney against Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai & its 12 Doctors (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Parties) for the alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties. India Law Library Docid # 1867596
(931) INTER GOLD GEMS PVT. LTD. Vs. MRS. SHAMA PRABHU GAUNKER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-12-2022 By this Judgement order, we shall dispose off the appeal dated 30/04/2019 filed by the Appellant and which was admitted by this Commission against the Respondent herein Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the Order dated 28/03/2019 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission, North-Goa in the Appeal No. FA /20/ 2019. India Law Library Docid # 1873358
(932) CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HSVP AND ANOTHER Vs. DARSHANA SETHI [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-12-2022 By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act), the Chief Administrator, Haryana Sahari Vikas Pradhikaran/Opposite Party in the Complaint before the District Forum (for short the HSVP) question the correctness and legality of the Order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 373 of 2021. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission India Law Library Docid # 1850254
(933) UTTAR BHARAT HYDROPOWER PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-12-2022 The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) by Uttar Bharat Hydro Power Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Company;) against Opposite Parties, i.e., Opposite Party No. 1 Oriental Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party Insurance Company) and Protocol Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors Private Limited, Opposite Party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as Opposite India Law Library Docid # 1850347
(934) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S SUNIL PHARMA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-12-2022 This revision petition assails the order dated 23.09.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna (in short, State Commission) in First Appeal No. 633 of 2007 by which the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gaya (in short, the District Forum) dated 18.10.2007 in consumer complaint number 117 of 2006 was upheld. The impugned order of the District Forum has directed the revision petitioner/insurance company to pay Rs.14,74,000/- along with interest a India Law Library Docid # 1850344
(935) M/S DUNERA HILLS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-12-2022 This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails order dated 10.04.2013 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, State Commission) against the order in First Appeal No. 270 of 2010 filed against order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, District Forum) dated 04.12.2009 in complaint no. 610 of 2008. India Law Library Docid # 1850345
(936) M/S TDI INFRASTRUCTURE AND ANOTHER Vs. SURESH KUMAR BANSAL [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-12-2022 This revision petition has been filed under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short, the Act) impugning the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, State Commission) in FA number 908 of 2012 against the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, New Delhi (in short, District Forum) in CC no. 1039 of 2009. India Law Library Docid # 1850346
(937) M/S. MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. KANDUKURI RAMA MURTHY [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-12-2022 Revision Petition No.2808/2013 has been filed by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties against the order dated 10.06.2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh in First Appeal No.424/2012. Cross Revision Petition No.901/2018 has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant challenging the impugned order dated 10.06.2013. India Law Library Docid # 1867588
(938) PAUL DEPARTMENTAL STORE Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-12-2022 This order shall dispose of the present Appeal filed by the complainant challenging the order dated 23.02.2015 of the State Commission on his complaint no. 02/2011, whereby his complaint was dismissed on the ground that the complainant since had voluntarily settled his dispute with the insurance company and had received full settlement of his claim, the complaint was not maintainable. The impugned order has been challenged by the complainant on the ground that disbursement voucher dated 05.02.20 India Law Library Docid # 1850337
(939) SEEMA SIDDIQUI Vs. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2022 This complaint has been filed under section 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of delay in handing over the possession of the flat booked with the opposite party in a project promoted and developed by it. India Law Library Docid # 1850324
(940) VIVEK CHANDEL Vs. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2022 Vivek Chandel has filed above complaint, for directing the opposite parties to (i) refund Rs.18957321/- with interest @18% per annum from the date of respective deposit till the date of refund, (ii) pay Rs.35/- lacs, as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iii) pay Rs.2.5/- lacs, as litigation cost; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. India Law Library Docid # 1850325