ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(801) SH. YADVINDER SINGH BHATIA AND OTHERS Vs. EMAAR INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EMAAR MGF LAND LTD) AND OTHERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 19-09-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Compensation for the delay in delivery of possession of plot - possession has been delivered to the complainant after almost a period of 13 years on 02.06.2023. Now it has to be seen, whether the possession offered on 09.04.2012 was complete or not - Bare perusal of offering possession of Plot, transpires that the development activities in all the three sectors of Mohali Hills i.e. Sector 105, 108 and 109 are in full swing and the opposite parti
India Law Library Docid # 2400053

(802) MANOJ MEHTA (SINCE DECEASED) AND OTHERS Vs. EMAAR INDIA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EMAAR MGF LAND LTD) AND OTHERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 19-09-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21(a)(i) - Compensation for the delay in delivery of possession of plot - Bare perusal of Clause 8 of the Plot Buyer’s Agreement transpires that subject to force majeure conditions and reasons beyond the control of the opposite parties (company), the possession of the plot, in question, was to be delivered to the allottee (complainants herein) within a period of 2 (Two) years from the date of execution of the said agreement but not later than 3 (Three) yea
India Law Library Docid # 2400054

(803) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. MANKUMAR KUNDLIYA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-09-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) - Pure 'business to business' disputes cannot be construed as 'consumer disputes' - Availing of subject services from the Appellants in the present case by the Respondent cannot be said to be for earning livelihood of the Respondent, and the same are inherently commercial in nature and the relationship between the parties is purely “Business to Business” in nature - Further, the Appellant also has independent commercial interests - Therefore, the t
India Law Library Docid # 2400002

(804) ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE RAJPUR ROAD Vs. DEV CATERERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN] 18-09-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 - Consumer complaint - Illegally withdrawn from bank account on different dates - Employee of the Bank is involved in such illegal transaction, the Bank could not be held guilty - Consumer complaint dismissed.
India Law Library Docid # 2400055

(805) M/S. SILVERTON PULP AND PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-09-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 19 - Compromise settlement of the claim - Once a final settlement has been reached amicably between the parties, then, it is not open to either of the parties to lay any claim/demand against the other party.
India Law Library Docid # 2400052

(806) GAGANJEET BHULLAR Vs. M/S EMIRATES AIRLINES, DELHI AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-09-2023
Heard Ms. Srejal Mishra, Advocate, for the complainant and Ms. Ritu Singh Mann, Advocate, for the opposite parties. Mr. Gaganjeet Bhullar has filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties to (i) pay Rs.15000000/-, as compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant; (ii) reimburse Rs.100000/- for the loss of baggage containing his 6 boxes of golf balls (TITLIEST), golf clubs, T-shirt, caps, 4 pairs of shoes (FOOTJOY), etc.; (iii) pay Rs.200000/- as compensation for mental agony a
India Law Library Docid # 1882353

(807) M/S. JINDAL POLY FILMS LTD. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-09-2023
This complaint has been filed by a Poly Film Ltd., a manufacturer, who set up a plant at Nasik in Maharashtra and for the said purpose purchased an equipment (BOPP Film Plant/Machine) from M/s Bruckner Maschinenbav GmBH, Postfach 1161, Germany that was transported to India by sea, and then by road from Mumbai to Nasik. The equipment reached the sea port at Mumbai from where the container carrying the consignment was loaded on a vehicle bearing registration No. HR 55 B 9231 of M/s TCI-Hi-ways Pvt
India Law Library Docid # 1882325

(808) JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE AND ANOTHER Vs. SHRADHANJALI MANIYA AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-09-2023
Above appeal has been filed against the order of Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur, dated 12.05.2016, passed in CC/14/39, partly allowing the complaint and directing the appellants to pay Rs.1500000/- as the compensation and Rs.5000/-as litigation cost. Mrs. Shradhanjali Maniya, Ms. Tinkle Maniya and Ms. Manashvi Maniya (respondents-1 to 3) filed CC/39/2014, for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay (i) Rs.2025000/-, as compensation for monet
India Law Library Docid # 1882323

(809) YOGENDER S. BANSAL Vs. M/S BPTP LTD. [CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-09-2023
Initially, a residential plot measuring 500 Sq. Yards bearing No.F-52, Block-F, Phase II was purchased by one Sunil Jain & Manjula Jain in the project of the opposite parties namely Parklands at Sector 88, Faridabad being developed by opposite party No.1. The basic sale price of the said plot was Rs.46,75,000/-but after discount of Rs.13,00,244/- given by the opposite parties, the basic sale price was fixed at Rs.33,74,756/-. A buyer agreement was executed on 05.02.2007. Apart from the final bas
India Law Library Docid # 1882237

(810) ANSHUL AGARWAL Vs. SHREENIWAS COTTON MILLS LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-09-2023
This consumer complaint under section 21(1)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party in completing the project as per the proposed plan and delay in handing over possession of a flat booked by the complainants within the promised time resulting in loss to the complainants who are therefore seeking refund of the amount deposited with compensation and other costs. This order will also dispos
India Law Library Docid # 1882355

(811) VEENA BAJAJ AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. NEXGEN INFRACON PRIVATE LIMITED (A MAHAGUN GROUP COMPANY) [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-09-2023
These consumer complaints have been filed under section 21 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) against the opposite party M/s Nexgen Infracon Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in respect of the apartment booked by the complainants in a project promoted and executed by the opposite party. By this common order, all the above-mentioned complaints are proposed to be disposed since they relate to the same project Mahagun Mezzaria of the sa
India Law Library Docid # 1882361

(812) M/S. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS AND ANOTHER Vs. CONSUMER WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-09-2023
The two Appeals, bearing Nos. FA/995/2016 and FA/996/2016 were filed by M/s. Harsh Constructions & Anr (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants/ Opposite Parties) against Consumer Welfare Association & Anr (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents/Complainants). These appeals challenge the Orders dated 21.06.2016 in (1) CC/13/244 and (2) CC/13/245 respectively passed by the learned State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commissi
India Law Library Docid # 1882354

(813) VIRENDER SHARMA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. HAAMID REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-08-2023
The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs.29,99,682/- with interest of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of realization and Rs.20,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment. Notice was issued to the OPs. Parties filed Written Statement/Reply, Rejoinder, Evidence by way of an Affidavit and Written Arguments/Synopsis etc. as p
India Law Library Docid # 1882122

(814) AJAY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. PRATEEK INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-08-2023
This consumer complaint under section 21(a)(i) read with 12(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) is filed against the opposite party alleging deficiency in not handing over possession of the flat booked by the complainants within the promised time and seeking refund of the amount deposited with interest as compensation and other costs. The complainant states that he booked flat G-2315, 22nd Floor, Tower G, Prateek Edifice, Sector 107, Gautam Budh Nagar on transfer from
India Law Library Docid # 1882250

(815) ALOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. VATIKA LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-08-2023
This consumer complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) is filed against the opposite party alleging deficiency in not handing over possession of the flat booked by the complainants within the promised time and seeking refund of the amount deposited with interest as compensation and other costs. The complainants state that they paid a booking amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards a flat in the opposite partys project, Tranquil Heights, Vatika India Next, Secto
India Law Library Docid # 1882255

(816) ARTI Vs. DR. GAGANDEEP GOYAL AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-08-2023
This revision petition under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) assails the order dated 05.05.2016 in First Appeal No. 316 of 2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) allowing the appeal and dismissing order dated 28.01.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhatinda (in short, the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 216 of 2012. The impugned order disposed of 3 connected
India Law Library Docid # 1882274

(817) KRISHNA JAIN Vs. PNB MET LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-08-2023
This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) has been filed by the widow and nominee of her late husband Mr. Rakesh Jain, who had purchased a MetLife Family Income Protector Plus Insurance Policy (in short, the policy) from the Opposite Party for a term plan of 15 years on 07.03.2016 (effective from 19.02.2016) on half yearly premium instalment of Rs.1,14,632/-. The life assured expired on 21.05.2016 and the claim under the said policy was disallowed b
India Law Library Docid # 1882327

(818) MAHENDRA RANGARE, PARTNER, M/S. SHREE VINAYAKA PACKAGING SOLUTION Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-08-2023
This complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act) is filed by the Partner of the complainant firm engaged in the manufacturing of PP / HDPE laminated fabric and L D agricultural pipes located at 81 Industrial Area, Rao Extension, Indore, M.P against the Opposite Party from whom it had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (SFPPS) (in short, the Policy). Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is alleged in the repudiation of the loss cl
India Law Library Docid # 1882328

(819) M/S. VALIENT SHIPPING CO. PVT. LTD. Vs. NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-08-2023
This appeal raises certain seminal questions regarding the correctness or the infirmity of the impugned judgment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa at Panaji (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) dated 12.04.2012 whereby after taking notice of the fact that certain substantial amount was paid by the complainant/appellant herein as against the marine hull policy proceeded to assess the nature of the complaint which was essentially for a claim on repairs incurred
India Law Library Docid # 1882118

(820) AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT LTD REPT BY MD ABIRCHAND NAHAR RAYALA TOWERS Vs. THE CHIEF MANAGER , CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-08-2023
The present Consumer Complaint (CC) has been filed by the Complainant against Opposite Parties (OPs) as detailed above, inter alia praying for directions to the OPs to:- (i) Pay a sum of Rs. 16,56,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant; (ii) Pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of this complaint Or (iii) Pass such further or other orders as this Honble Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Notice w
India Law Library Docid # 1882299