ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(961) M/S HCC-CPPL JV Vs. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-05-2023
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) by M/s HCC-CPPL JV (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Company) against Opposite Party, i.e., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party Insurance Company).
India Law Library Docid # 1882149

(962) SATISH KUMAR S/O. HARENDRA PRASAD Vs. DR. SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA & 2 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-05-2023
The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.02.2018 in complaint no. 11/2003 of the Appellant whereby his complaint was dismissed on merit. The complainant has submitted that the findings of the State Commission are perverse and contrary to the records available before the State Commission. It is submitted that there are enough documents to prove on record that right kidney of the complainant had been removed at the time when he was operated upon by the respondents on 13.09.2000
India Law Library Docid # 1882173

(963) A. VIZAYA, W/O.ANANDOU Vs. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT [PUDUCHERRY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-05-2023
The present application has been filed under section 50 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying to review the order dated 10.11.2022 made in CC.No.09/2017 by this Commission. Earlier, the petitioners herein filed the complaint as against the respondent alleging that while at the time of giving treatment to their father, viz., the deceased Arumugam, there was medical negligence on the part of the respondent. Therefore, the respondent is liable to pay compensation for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Furthe
India Law Library Docid # 1882219

(964) C.PARTHIBAN AND OTHER Vs. DR. LATHA CHATURVEDULA GYNECOLOGY DEPARTMENT [PUDUCHERRY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-05-2023
This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the Opposite parties under section 14 and 17 of Consumer Protection Act, herein after called the CP Act, alleging negligence in treating their daughter Ms. P.Sri Raja Rajeswari (hereinafter referred as the patient) resulting in her untimely death. The complainants have sought Rs.99,99,999 towards damages from the Opposite parties on account of loss of life, shock and mental agony and cost of the complaint. Gist of the complaint is as foll
India Law Library Docid # 1882223

(965) SMT RANI DEVI Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD AND OTHERS [BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-05-2023
The complainant Smt. Rani Devi filed this consumer complaint seeking the reliefs against the opposite parties and prayer has been made, for directing the O.Ps. to pay the complainant:- i. Sum assured as well as other benefits along with interest @ 10% from the date of death of life assured ( Suman Kumar@ Suman Kumar Singh - now deceased) till realization; ii. Rs. 5 lacs as the compensation. And iii. Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. The facts as stated in the complaint case and emerged from the d
India Law Library Docid # 1882247

(966) DR.USHAKIRAN CHAVAN @ DR.SANJANA S. WAHVEL Vs. MRS.SONU PANKAJ KAREER AND OTHER [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-05-2023
Appellant Dr.Ushakiran Chavan has preferred present appeal feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 02/03/2015 passed by the learned Mumbai Suburban District in consumer complaint No.251 of 2005 by which complaint filed by the respondent/complainant came to be allowed. Short facts leading to the filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under Complainant-Smt.Sonu Pankaj Karir- claims to be housewife and became pregnant in the month of February 2003. Complainant therefore consul
India Law Library Docid # 1882269

(967) HAKIM SINGH CHAUHAN & 11 OTHERS Vs. JKG CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-05-2023
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) initially by the 12 Complainants against the Opposite Party, M/s. JKG Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the Developer) seeking possession of the booked Residential Units along with delayed compensation or in the alternative refund of amount paid by them along with interest as the Opposite Party Developer has failed to deliver the pos
India Law Library Docid # 1882126

(968) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MEHTA'S HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., (GROUP OF DR. MEHTA'S HOSPITALS) Vs. MR. RAJKAMAL, S/O. MR. KANNIAH AND OTHERS [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-05-2023
The Revision Petitioner is the 1st Opposite Party/Hospital in the main case-CC. No.66 of 2022, on the file of the DCDRC, Perambalur, and they filed CMP No.48 of 2023 in the said C.C., seeking the District Commission to receive their additional proof affidavit along with documents and, aggrieved by the said Commissions order, dated 23.02.2023, in rejecting the said Miscellaneous Petition, they have come up with the present Revision.
India Law Library Docid # 1882197

(969) STANDARD AUTO AGENCY Vs. SUKHDEV GUPTA AND OTHER [MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-05-2023
This appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant-Standard Auto Agency is directed against the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur (for short District Commission) in C.C.No.531/2009, whereby the complainants complaint has been allowed directing the opposite party no.1-dealer to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant towards mental harassment suffered by him, with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 10.
India Law Library Docid # 1882287

(970) BHARTHI AXA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SNEHA AND OTHER [KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-05-2023
This appeal is filed by the appellants/Complainants being aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Bidar in CC.No.96/2018 and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainants mother, the deceased policy holder Sanjana w/o late Sanjeev Kumar was a business woman by profession and during her life time had obtained life insurance policy for sum assur
India Law Library Docid # 1882368

(971) BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRADYUT KUMAR SAHA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2023
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Bank in the Complaint against the Order dated 29.12.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short "the State Commission") in FA/641/2014 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has modified the Order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Alipore
India Law Library Docid # 1873469

(972) BRANCH MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA Vs. PRADYUT KUMAR SAHA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2023
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 Bank in the Complaint against the Order dated 29.12.2015, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata (for short the State Commission) in FA/641/2014 whereby the State Commission partly allowing the Appeal filed by the Petitioner has modified the Order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Alipore
India Law Library Docid # 1877402

(973) M/S. FLOWTEX PRODUCTS Vs. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2023
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) by M/s Flowtex Products (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant Company) against Opposite Party, i.e., United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Opposite Party Insurance Company).
India Law Library Docid # 1882124

(974) DR. SATPAL KAUR NALWA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2023
The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) by Dr. Satpal Kaur Nalwa and Karambir Singh Nalwa (hereinafter referred to as the Complainants) against Opposite Party, M/s. Emaar MGF Land Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Developer), seeking refund of the amount paid towards purchase of Villa alongwith interest, compensation and costs as the Opposite Party Developer failed to hand-over the possession of the Villa booked
India Law Library Docid # 1882174

(975) SUREKHA ARUN SANKHE Vs. JITENDRA P BHAYADE & 3 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-04-2023
This Order shall decide both the Revision Petitions filed against the Order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in First Appeal Nos. A/14/23 and A/14/38 respectively. For the convenience, parties are being referred to as placed in the Original Complaint filed before the District Forum.
India Law Library Docid # 1882165

(976) CHETANBHAI PRAVINCHANDRA SHAH Vs. HOTEL SHYAM LODGE & 2 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-04-2023
The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant in the Complaint before the State Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as the Complainant) under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) against the Order dated 21.09.2021, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter to be referred to as the State Commission) in Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the S
India Law Library Docid # 1882217

(977) SH. DHANI RAM NADDA SON OF LATE SHRI GANGA RAM NADDA THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS Vs. SH. SOHAN LAL, PROPRIETOR SOHAN LAL AND SONS AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-04-2023
According to the complainants, within seven months of the installation of the machine, motor and cutter of the machine developed defect. Opposite parties were informed telephonically. After two months, the opposite parties checked the machine formally, but they failed to rectify the defect. Defect continued to exist in the machine up to one and half year. Thereafter, the complainant visited the shop of opposite parties. The opposite parties visited the house of the complainant on 08.02.2014 and
India Law Library Docid # 1882192

(978) DEV ARORA Vs. M/S. SWETA ESTATES PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-04-2023
The present Review Application No. 339 of 2018 has been filed by the Applicant/Appellant, Dev Arora, (the Original Complainant) in First Appeal No. 1018 of 2016 praying for recalling of the Order dated 30.09.2016 passed by this Commission wherein the First Appeal No. 1018 of 2016 was dismissed as withdrawn.
India Law Library Docid # 1882157

(979) AASHNA ROY Vs. YOGESH DEVESHWAR AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-04-2023
The Consumer Complaint No. 1691 of 2018 was filed by the Complainant, Ms. Aashna Roy against the Opposite Parties, ITC Limited and its Chairman (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Opposite Party"), alleging deficiency in service on their part in cutting the hairs again her instructions. The said Complaint was allowed by this Commission vide Order dated 21.09.2021 directing the Opposite Party to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) to the Complainant for wrong cutti
India Law Library Docid # 1873337

(980) PRAVEEN KUMAR MITTAL Vs. PORSCHE INDIA PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2023
Vide order dated 09.10.2018, OP-2 & 3, who are the manufacturers and sellers of original vehicle in question through their 100% Indian subsidiary Companies- OP-1 & 4, were deleted from the array of parties.Present complaint is now against OP-1 & OP-4, renumbered as OP-2.Consequent to deletion of OP-3 & 4.
India Law Library Docid # 1873276