ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(961) 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

(962) 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

(963) 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

(964) 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

(965) 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

(966) 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

(967) 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

(968) MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. HITENDRA SINGH RAJPUT [MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-05-2023
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member: This appeal by the opposite party/appellant-Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as insurance company) is directed against the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short District Commission) in C.C.No.183/2014 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) has been allo
India Law Library Docid # 1882216

(969) DILKUMAR SANDE S/O. SHRI BARELAL SANDE Vs. MAA MAHAMAYA TRACTORS [CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ] 10-05-2023
This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called the Act for short) is directed against order dated 10/12/2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Janjgir-Champa (hereinafter referred to as District Commission for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/21/10, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant herein alleging deficiency in service against the respondent herein, was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has preferred thi
India Law Library Docid # 1882372

(970) CHANDRASHEKHAR VAISHWADE S/O. SHRI RAMAYAN VAISHWADE Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH: DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS [CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-05-2023
This appeal, filed under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called the Act for short) is directed against order dated 29/11/2021 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as District Commission for short), in Complaint Case No.CC/2016/28, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant herein alleging deficiency in service against the respondent No.1 herein in repudiating his insurance claim was partlly allowed and the insu
India Law Library Docid # 1881920

(971) SHRI JOGU RAM S/O SHRI GANGU RAM Vs. SHRI RAM LAL, AUTHORIZED AGENT OF PHILIPS AND OTHERS [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-05-2023
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 03.06.2013 he had purchased one refrigerator, LCD and DTH set from the opposite party No.1 for a total sum of Rs.26,500/-. Rs.17,000/- were paid on the same day and balance amount was agreed to be paid after some time. Warranty of one year was given on the aforesaid products.
India Law Library Docid # 1882093

(972) M/S.TELENOR (INDIA) COMMUNICATIONS PVT.LTD. Vs. SRI BELLAMKONDA NARENDRA [TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-05-2023
This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 praying this Commission to call for the records and allow the instant appeal and set aside the order dated 01.02.2018 in CC.No.194/2016 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. Briefly stated, the facts are that the Complainant had a pre- paid SIM card of Opposite Party (formerly Uninor) vide mobile No.9059102030 for five ye
India Law Library Docid # 1882267

(973) HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY Vs. SANTOSH PEETAMBAR TANDEL [KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-05-2023
This appeal is filed by the appellants/Opposite parties being aggrieved by the Order dated 22.03.2014 passed in CC.No.66/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Kannada at Karwar and prays to set-aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
India Law Library Docid # 1882073

(974) MR. KETAN MANDREKAR Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-05-2023
The Appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Commission, North dated 10/09/2018 filed the present Complaint on 12/10/2018 to challenge the Impugned Order on the grounds that The District Commission had erred in not considering the bill receipts of hired car on rent for travelling, additionally that the District Commission had erred in coming to a conclusion that the Claim cannot be allowed for transportation charges for the car rental as cogent evidence not placed on record.
India Law Library Docid # 1882208

(975) YASOBANT DAS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA [ODISHA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-05-2023
The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that the complainant is a senior advocate practicing in Supreme Court of India and various High Courts in the country and permanent resident of Stony Road, Dagarpada, Cuttack. It is alleged inter alia that complainant in order have a residential house at New Delhi for the health of his wife purchased a built up property in B-100, Sector - 14, Noida, U.P. by incurring loan of Rs.1,10,79,835/- from the Ops - Bank on 17.9.2009. Out of tis
India Law Library Docid # 1882293

(976) AGEAS FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SMT.SUKANYA DEVI AND OTHER [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-05-2023
Present revision petition is preferred against the order dated 30.11.2022 of learned District Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/opposite party No.1 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 04.05.2022 was dismissed and also the order dated 14.06.2022, whereby right to file reply beyond stipulated period of 45 days of the petitioner/opposite party No.1 was struck off. We have perused the revision petition as well as the impugned order. Learned cou
India Law Library Docid # 1882366

(977) ARUN AGRAWAL Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. [MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-05-2023
The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member: This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as appellant) is directed against the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivpuri (for short District Commission) in C.C.No.420/2012, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him. Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant is owner of Ford Fiesta car bearing
India Law Library Docid # 1882367

(978) ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. (FORMALLY KNOWN AS BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.) AND OTHERS Vs. MEETABEN SUBHASHBHAI DIXIT WIDOW OF SUBHASHBHAI B. DIXIT [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-05-2023
The applicant in Compliant No. 24/2010 has filed present Review Application under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (herein after referred to as the C.P. Act). wherein the main relief is prayed in present Review Application are as under:
India Law Library Docid # 1881923

(979) URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, ALWAR THROUGH ITS SECRETARY Vs. RAJENDRA SINGH YADAV SON OF SHRI CHANDRABHAN YADAV [RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-05-2023
As per office report the appeal has been filed after delay of 5 years 237 days. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant on the point of limitation. In the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act it has specifically been mentioned that the copy of order dated 13.07.2017 was received by the counsel of the appellant on 17.07.2017 who sent it to the appellant and it came to the knowledge of appellant that reply to the application has been misinterpreted and
India Law Library Docid # 1881907

(980) MR. ANTONIO JOSE JACQUES (SINCE DECEASED) S/O LATE MR. LUIS JACQUES AND OTHERS Vs. MRS. CONCEICAO CARDOZO [GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-05-2023
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26/08/2021 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa (The District Commission for short) in Consumer complaint number 13/2021. The Appellant were the Complainants and Respondent was the Opposite Party in the said complaint. Parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said complaint.
India Law Library Docid # 1881912