(941) DR.VENKAT M.VENKATESAN Vs. M/S.LAND MARVEL HOMES [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-05-2023 The complainant has filed this complaint against the OP inter alia stating that his family owned the property measuring 9630 sq. ft. situated in Block No.113 & T.S. No.7045, Plot No.18, New Door No.50/Old No.18, Raman Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17; that the OP/Promoter approached them for development of the said property by constructing residential flats with due permission from the authorities concerned; that both sides agreed for the same and, in that regard, they entered into an agreement, date India Law Library Docid # 1882202
(942) MR. ASHOKKUMAR C. TAMANCHE Vs. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-05-2023 The Complainant is a real brother of the original policy holder i.e. Dieseased Life Assured-DLA, named as Bhupatbhai Chhanalal Tamanche and complainant is residing at above mentioned address with his family. It is the case of Complainant that the DLA has taken one Life insurance policy from the opponent Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and that policy was issued by the opponent company with Policy numbered as 10142514. For getting that policy the L.A. has preferred a proposal form through the agent India Law Library Docid # 1882211
(943) TUSHAR KANTI THANDAR Vs. SOURENDRA NATH SHEE [WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-05-2023 The facts of the case, in brief, are that an appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) before the concerned Ld. District Commission against the respondent/OP (hereinafter referred to as OP) alleging deficiency in service. The complainant was an unemployed youth. From a reliable so he came to know that the OP was providing vocational tuition and running a placement agency for Government and Non-Government jobs. Being so heard, the complainant cont India Law Library Docid # 1882268
(944) DEVKINANDAN S/O BRIJMOHAN Vs. MANAGER, AGRICULTURE INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., AND OTHERS [MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-05-2023 Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents in not granting him compensation for the crop insured by him with the first respondent through the second respondent / Bank, the appellant / complainant had filed a complaint case No.29/2017 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guna (for short the District Commission). The District Commission vide impugned order dated 2.8.2017 dismissed the complaint. Feeling India Law Library Docid # 1881914
(945) HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. SMT. SAVITRI VIJAY BHOSLE [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-05-2023 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed in Consumer Complaint No.289 of 2015 dated 30/01/2017 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolhapur, the original opponent has preferred this appeal. India Law Library Docid # 1882107
(946) SARBANI CHATTERJEE Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & 4 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-05-2023 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the Respondents/Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dated 30.11.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, in First Appeal No. A/1416/2014. Vide such Order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Pgs, Barasat, in Consumer Complaint Case No. 665/2013. India Law Library Docid # 1882131
(947) ANINDYA CHATTERJEE AND ANOTHER Vs. LORD REALTY PVT. LTD. [WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-05-2023 The complainants have filed the instant case under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the CP Act, 1986, against the OPs alleging deficiency in service. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainants being husband and wife have wanted to purchase a residential plot for their residential accommodation. With such intention, the complainants approached the OP No. 1 who was developing and demarcating the residential plots in the name and style of Lord City Sonarpur wherein residential bungalows were India Law Library Docid # 1882249
(948) 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
(949) 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
(950) 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
(951) 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
(952) 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
(953) 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
(954) 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
(955) 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
(956) 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
(957) 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
(958) 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
(959) 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
(960) 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