(981) M/S. GLOBAL ASSOCIATES Vs. NANDINI RAJASHEKAR AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-07-2022 The present First Appeal No. 145 of 2020 has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") by M/s Global Associates (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/ Opposite Party No.1) against Mrs. Nandini Rajshekhar (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No.1/ Complainant) and Bank Manager, HDFC Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2) assailing the Order dated 31.08.2017 in Consumer Complaint No.132 of 2012 passed by the India Law Library Docid # 1841296
(982) C. VIJAYAKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. AMRITHA INSTITITE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-07-2022 The Appellants have filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), against the impugned Judgment and Final Orders dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sisuviharlane Vazhuthacadu Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in C.C. no. 15/2008, whereby the State Commission dismissed the intervention application filed by the appellants herein. India Law Library Docid # 1841317
(983) MANAGER, M/S. GANESH SEED SUPPLIERS Vs. M. RAMACHANDRA REDDY AND OTHERS [DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-07-2022 The matter relates to compensation for crop failure due to defective seeds supplied by the seed supplier firm and distributed by the state seed development corporation. The seeds in question were sown by the complainants on their respective landholdings in 2010. The complaints were filed before the District Commission in 2011, and were decided in 2012. The appeals were filed before the State Commission in 2012, and were decided in 2013. These petitions were filed before this Commission in 2013, India Law Library Docid # 1856051
(984) AUTOPACE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. KULDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS [CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-07-2022 This appeal has been filed by Opposite Party No.3 (Autopace Network Pvt. Ltd.) (appellant herein), against order dated 17.06.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (now District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh) (in short 'District Commission'), whereby consumer complaint bearing No.87 of 2019 filed by the complainant India Law Library Docid # 1841285
(985) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER [DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-07-2022 This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.06.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 264 of 2007 arising out of the Order dated 31.01.2007 of the District Commission in complaint no. 26 of 2005. India Law Library Docid # 1856023
(986) M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED Vs. SMT.VIJAYA MOHAN WANVE AND OTHERS [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-07-2022 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane, in consumer complaint no.CC/11/60 on 17/02/2017, the original opponent- M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. has filed the present appeal. By the order under challenge, the Learned District Commission has directed the opponent/present appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,15,623/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 24/08/2010 to 17/02/2017 India Law Library Docid # 1841259
(987) BIR SINGH RANA Vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-07-2022 Complainant Bir Singh Rana has filed the present consumer complaint Under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer that opposite party be directed to pay Rs. 30.00 lacs, on account of Insurance money, because of total loss of his insured house due to fire and to pay Rs. 3.00 lacs, on account of compensation for mental harassment and also to pay litigation expenses. India Law Library Docid # 1841287
(988) M/S.RAJSHREE SUGARS & CHEMICALS LTD Vs. P.RAMACHANDRAN AND OTHERS [TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-07-2022 The 3rd OP/Insurance Company filed a Written Version and it is mainly stated therein that there is no existing contract between them and the complainant in regard to the sugarcane crop, that they never received any premium amount from the sugar factory or UCO Bank or from the complainant and that, in the absence of any policy contract between the complainant and the 3rd OP, the former cannot expect any compensation from the latter; thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed insofar as it pert India Law Library Docid # 1867627
(989) G.D. GUPTA Vs. HUDA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-07-2022 This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the common Order dated 24.09.2009 of the State Commission in appeals no. 1545 of 2002 and no. 2708 of 2002 arising out of the Order dated 07.06.2002 of the District Commission in complaint no. 365 of 2000. India Law Library Docid # 1850069
(990) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. PRABODH KUMAR SWAIN AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-07-2022 We have heard the learned counsel for the insurance co. (the petitioner herein). Learned proxy counsel is present for the complainant (the respondent no. 1 herein). No one appears for the bank (the respondent no. 2 herein). We have also perused the record including inter alia the Order dated 04.01.2011 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 21.01.2013 of the State Commission and the petition. India Law Library Docid # 1850135
(991) SRI SAMARESH KUILA Vs. DR. MADHU MAITY AND OTHERS [WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-07-2022 By this complaint case, the complainant Samaresh Kuila who is the father of late Shubham Kuila who died on 25/05/2015 in the operation table of the nursing home namely 'New Mother Teresa Nursing Home' claiming compensation of Rs.99,81,000/- (Rupees ninety nine lakh and eighty one thousand) only for negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties India Law Library Docid # 1841294
(992) MR. GANESH BHAGWAN BHOSALE AND OTHERS Vs. KONNARK TOWNSHIP PRIVATE.LIMITED AND OTHERS [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-07-2022 The complainants have filed an application on 07/02/2022 for withdrawal of the consumer complaint with permission to file it afresh in proper Commission after rectifying the defects in the complaint. The complainants again submitted an application for withdrawal of the consumer complaint on 06/05/2022, wherein it is contended that flat booked by the complainants was attached by the financial institution India Law Library Docid # 1841301
(993) APARAJITH BHANDARY AND ANOTHER Vs. SUNNY BROOKS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 These revisions are pending since 2017. It is deemed appropriate to dispose them on the basis of the record and after hearing the counsel present i.e. the learned counsel for the respondent. The request for adjournment made by the learned proxy counsel on behalf of the revisionists is politely declined. India Law Library Docid # 1867605
(994) SACHIN GOEL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The present complaint has been filed by the complainants seeking refund of their deposited amount of Rs.93,33.273/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposits till payment and also claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment along with other appropriate relief. India Law Library Docid # 1850077
(995) DEVENDER BANSAL Vs. M/S ANSAL HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The present complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking refund of his deposited amount of Rs.85,88,775/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of deposits till payment and also claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment along with other appropriate relief. India Law Library Docid # 1850053
(996) KRISHNA DEVI Vs. DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The admitted facts of the case are that the original allottee had booked a unit in the project of the Opposite Party called DLF Capital Greens situated at 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. The allottee was issued an allotment letter dated 27.04.2009. He was allotted apartment No.CGE082, i.e., the Unit No.2 on the 8th Floor (i.e. 82) in the Building titled - E (Phase 1) in the said project. An Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed between the original allottee and the Opposite Party on 11.09.2009. T India Law Library Docid # 1850130
(997) MADHU MADAN AND ANOTHER Vs. DLF RETAIL DEVELOPERS LIMITED AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainants had booked a unit in the project of the Opposite Party called DLF Capital Greens situated at 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi on payment of ?7.5 Lakhs. The Complainants was allotted apartment No.CGV226 and parking No.PV3069. An Apartment Buyers Agreement was executed between the parties on 23.09.2010. The total consideration amount of the unit was ?1,32,50,000/-. Vide letter dated 28.02.2013, the Complainants were asked to pay a sum of ?6,32,56 India Law Library Docid # 1850131
(998) NAVEEN KOHLI Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant had booked a unit in the project of the Opposite Party called DLF Capital Greens situated at 15, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi. The Complainant was issued an allotment letter dated 22.03.2010 on payment of ?15 Lakhs. He was allotted apartment No.CX9X102 along with parking No.PX1003X2001A/PX2001. An Apartment Buyers Agreement No.056 was executed between the parties on 15.01.2011. The total consideration amount of the unit was ?3,93,93,000/-. The O India Law Library Docid # 1850132
(999) SHIJA HOSPITALS & RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND ANOTHER Vs. KHUMANTHEM PHUNINDRO SINGH AND OTHERS [DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The Petitioners have filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Manipur in First Appeal No. 01/2018, wherein the District Forum allowed the Complaint and the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order of the District Forum. India Law Library Docid # 1856024
(1000) DR.BHAVIN JHANKARIA Vs. DR.VIKRAM Y.PAWAR AND OTHERS [MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-07-2022 The revision petitioner Dr.Zakaria has preferred this revision against the order of District Forum, Central Mumbai dt.16/12/2021. This revision petitioner is the opponents and respondents Dr.Vikram Pawar and Yashwant Pawar are the complainants in the consumer complaint No.56/2020 before the Dist. Consumer Forum. India Law Library Docid # 1856070