ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(921) AJAY KANUBHAI KHANDERIA Vs. HDFC BANK LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-05-2023
Facts of the case: It is a case of the complainant that HDFC credit card division, had Charged Usurious finance charges, + GST on short payment, though minimum amount due was paid in time. The usurious finance charges are interest in other words. The complainant had approached Reserve Bank of India (banking ombudsman) in August 2017, but nothing happened and the issue remained unresolved. The complainant filed Consumer Case no. 680/2017 before the Ld. District Commission. The complainant had quo
India Law Library Docid # 1882363

(922) SHRI MANMOHAN GAUTAM S/O SH. PARAS RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-05-2023
The complainants have filed the instant complaint seeking directions to the respondents/opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30.00 lacs as the insured amount, Rs.5.00 lacs on account of mental and physical harassment and Rs.1.00 lac as litigation charges along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of fire incident, till the date of payment.
India Law Library Docid # 1882064

(923) PADMA JHA & 4 OTHERS Vs. DR. SANDEEP PANDEY & 4 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-05-2023
This Order shall decide both the first appeals arising from the impugned Judgment /Order dated 22.12.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 06/2010, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the complaint.
India Law Library Docid # 1882130

(924) CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL (FS) & 3 OTHERS Vs. V.S. RAJEEV & 2 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2023
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/ Opposite Parties against the Respondents/Complainants challenging the impugned Order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, Bangalore, in Appeal No. 554 of 2014. Vide such Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal filed by the Complainants and consequently, the Consumer Complaint No. 2321 of 2013 which was filed by the Complainants before the District Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalor
India Law Library Docid # 1882110

(925) SOUTH CITY MALL, (CORRECTLY KNOWN AS SOUTH AVENUE MALL) Vs. P.D. BAKHLE [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2023
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 04.05.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (for short the State Commission) in Appeal No.1100 of 2019. The Appeal had been filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission challenging the order dated 10.05.2019 whereby Complaint No.305 of 2015 filed by the Respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) was allowed.
India Law Library Docid # 1882132

(926) SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GEETA KUNWAR AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2023
This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 2 against Respondent No.1/Complainant and Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No. 3 challenging the impugned Order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Bikaner, in Appeal/97/2021 (1066/2019). Vide such order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bikaner, in Consum
India Law Library Docid # 1882177

(927) THE COMMISSIONER, MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPME AUTHORITY Vs. M.P. JAYAKRISHNA [KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2023
The Appeal No.211/2013 has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated 16-11-2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore in complaint No.355/2011 and prays to set-aside the order and to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. It is the case of the complainant at on 6-3-1991, he had applied to the opponent for the allotment of site measuring 20X30 by depositing the initial amount of Rs.750/- and his application No.46347 was
India Law Library Docid # 1882220

(928) MS. SUSHMA NAUHRIA Vs. DIVYA AASHIRWAD PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-05-2023
The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party and has prayed the following reliefs: direct to the opposite party for refunding the entire paid amount of Rs. 8,17,000/- to the complainant; direct the opposite parties to pay the interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment of the amount till realization; R. 9,90,450/- direct the opposite parties to pay the damages to the tune of Rs. 10 Lacs for menta
India Law Library Docid # 1882265

(929) S.BOOMA, W/O. T.SRIRAMAN AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. G.P.R.BUILDERS, REP. BY PARTNERS - GANESAN AND OTHERS [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-05-2023
Both the above appeals arise out of the order, dated 22.09.2015, passed by the DCDRF, Tiruvallur, in C.C. No.39 of 2011 which was filed by the present appellants in F.A. No.321 of 2015 as against the OPs therein, who are the present appellants in F.A. No.9 of 2016, seeking the District Forum to direct the OPs to complete certain works as mentioned therein, to do necessary corrections in the property documents relating to the complainants duly mentioning the appropriate divided share of land and
India Law Library Docid # 1882050

(930) HITIK MALHAN Vs. ARCHITECTS.DWG & 3 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-05-2023
Complaint was admitted as 09/06/2016 and notice was issued to the Opp. Parties directing them to file their written statement within 30 days of receipt of notice failing which their right to file written statement may be closed. Notices issued to Opp. Parties were received back undelivered with postal remarks dated 23/09/2016 Refused to accept the notices. As the Opp. Parties refused to accept the notices, it was treated as deemed service. The Opp. Parties failed to file written statement within
India Law Library Docid # 1882127

(931) M/S. DYE-CHEM MANUFACTURING CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-05-2023
M/s. Dye-Chem Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. has filed this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 31/08/2016 passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 in consumer complaint No.CC/06/448. Appellant is the original Complainant. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch at Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office No.2 at Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 are the original opponent Nos.1 and 2 in the original complaint be
India Law Library Docid # 1881904

(932) SRI S.BALAJI AND OTHERS Vs. SRI. KRISHNA SHELTERS PVT LTD., AND OTHERS [KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-05-2023
This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Complainants being aggrieved by the order dated 25.01.2023 passed in CC.No.237/2022 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shanthinagar at Bangalore and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
India Law Library Docid # 1881916

(933) MAMTA BHATT & ANOTHER Vs. DR. SUSHILA TIWARI GOVT. HOSPITAL & 5 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-05-2023
This Complaint was filed by Complainant No. 1 Smt. Mamta Bhatt & Complainant No. 2 her husband Sh. Sunil Bhatt against Dr. Sushila Tiwari Govt. Hospital, Rampur Road, Haldwani, Uttarakhand and five doctors (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Parties) for medical negligence and deficiency in service due to which the Complainants lost their child during delivery and the uterus of the Complainant No. 1 had to be removed.
India Law Library Docid # 1882128

(934) NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER Vs. RAVI LODHA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-05-2023
This appeal under section 19 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the Act 1986) is in challenge to the Order dated 15.05.2019 of the State Commission in complaint no. 35 of 2012. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (the railways) and for the respondent (the complainant). We have also perused the record, including inter alia the State Commissions impugned Order dated 15.05.2019 and the memorandum of appeal.
India Law Library Docid # 1882129

(935) UCO Bank Vs. SAMEER BABUBHAI THIBA [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-05-2023
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed in Consumer Complaint No.431 of 2015 dated 29/06/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, the original opponent has preferred this appeal. (The parties to this appeal shall be called and referred as per their status in original complaint). Facts giving rise to prefer the present appeal can be summarised as under: The complainant was having Saving Bank Account bearing No.08770100190594 with th
India Law Library Docid # 1882288

(936) DINESH KUMAR LAKHANPAL Vs. M/S. TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED & 3 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-05-2023
Notice was issued to the OP(s). Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as per details given in the Table at Annexure-A. The details of the flats allotted to the Complainant/other relevant details, based on pleadings of the parties and other records of the case are also given in the Table at Annexure-A.
India Law Library Docid # 1882111

(937) VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. MGF DEVELOPMENTS LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-05-2023
Heard Mr. Priyadarshi Chaitanyashil, Advocate, for the complainants, Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Advocate, for opposite party-1 and Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate, for opposite party-2. Vinit Bahri and Mrs. Sonia Bahri have filed above complaint for directing the opposite party to pay (i) Rs.15989994/- with interest @18% per annum; (ii) Rs.5000000/-, as compensation for mental agony and harassment; (iii) Rs.1500000/-, as compensation due to change of location of Tower-C; (iv) Rs.3561494/-, as excess amount
India Law Library Docid # 1882228

(938) DR. AJAY GUPTA, SANJEEVAN HOSPITAL Vs. GURSEVAK SINGH SON OF BALWINDER SINGH [PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-05-2023
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties against the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short, the District Commission), whereby the complaint filed by complainant against opposite parties (in short OP), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed as under:-
India Law Library Docid # 1881910

(939) MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. Vs. PRAKASH SINGH AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-05-2023
This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (in short, State Commission) in Revision Petition No. 24 of 2016 dated 15.09.2016 arising out of order dated 19.01.2016 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (in short, District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 114 of 2015.
India Law Library Docid # 1882139

(940) HITESH TANDON AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. NEXGEN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED (A MAHAGUN GROUP COMPANY ) AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-05-2023
Hitesh Tandon has filed CC/1150/2019 for directing the opposite party to (i) handover possession of the unit allotted to him, complete in all respect as per specification with promised amenities and facilities within 6 months; (ii) pay delay compensation in the form of interest @12% per annum on his deposit from due date of possession till delivery of possession; (iii) pay Rs.6000/- per day, in case the opposite party fails to deliver possession within the time stipulated by this Commission; (iv
India Law Library Docid # 1882158