Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc Year: 2014 Page 1 of about 18 results (0.064 seconds)

Apr 16 2014 (TRI)

Mstc Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Apr-16-2014

..... hardware trading, ecgcs inquiry and the dubai chamber of commerces letter, which runs as follows :- sub : complaint against m/s. glamour diamond and jewellery llc, dubai?. with reference to your mediation request form dated 27.11.2009 in relation to the above mentioned subject, we regretfully inform you that in spite of our several attempts, we could not trace the above .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2014 (TRI)

VipIn Garg Vs. Union of India Through Land and Development Office and ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-04-2014

..... his elder brother, op3. the partition suit is still pending before the delhi high court. op3 is an old person of 76 years and is unable to participate in settlement, mediation with op2, in the premises of delhi high court. the complainant, being member of huf, is entitled to have his share. all the maintenance of the building is done by ..... op3. 7. the complainant came to know about the wrong mutation and conveyance deed, on 07.01.2013 when op3 asked him to represent him in mediation with op2. the cause of action for correction of conveyance deed, arose on 16.05.2013. the above said complaint was filed before this commission, on 01.07.2013, with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 16 2014 (TRI)

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Nehru Memorial Hall Dr. Ambedkar Road ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jan-16-2014

k.s. chaudhari, presiding member 1. this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.05.2008 passed by the kerala state consumer disputes redressal commission, thiruvananthapuram (in short, the state commission) in appeal no. 35 of 2008 the new india assurance co. ltd. vs. akbar by which, while dismissing appeal, order of district forum allowing complaint was upheld. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent purchased motorcycle kl9 p2518 from m. ali on 16.1.2006 and got registration certificate transferred in his name. he intimated to op/petitioner with a request to change name in the insurance policy issued by op for a period of one year from 18.6.2005 to 17.6.2006. motor cycle was stolen during the intervening night of 5-6/2/2006. fir was lodged and claim was also lodged with the op. as claim was not settled, alleging deficiency on the part of op, complainant filed complaint before district forum. op contested and submitted that there was no privity of contact between the complainant and op, as complainant was not insured and prayed for dismissal of complaint. learned district forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed op to make payment for loss of the vehicle along with rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings. appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned state commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. none appeared for the respondent even .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 14 2014 (TRI)

Sandeep Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-14-2014

k.s. chaudhari, presiding member: 1. this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.03.2012, passed by the state commission in first appeal no. 1538/2007, united india insurance company ltd. vs. jit singh and anr., by which while allowing the appeal, order of the district forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent no. 2 jit singh alongwith prem singh were owner of truck pb-32a-4797 and got it insured from opposite party-respondent no. 1 for a period of one year commencing from 09.11.2005 to 08.11.2006. jit singh and prem singh sold their truck to complainant-petitioner, sandeep gupta on 13.11.2005. on 13.04.2006, vehicle was stolen and report was lodged on the very day and intimation was also given to the opposite party and submitted claim papers, but claim was repudiated by opposite party. alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party, complainant filed complaint before the district forum. opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that as vehicle was sold by registered owner, jit singh to complainant, sandeep gupta on 13.11.2005, but insurance policy was not got transferred in his name and no intimation was given to the opposite party about the transfer of vehicle, therefore, complainant, sandeep gupta had no insurable interest and complainant jit singh was not owner of the truck, so claim was repudiated rightly, hence complaint may be dismissed. 3. learned .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 01 2014 (TRI)

Madaan Surgical and Maternity Hospital Advanced Laboratories X-ray and ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Apr-01-2014

dr. s.m. kantikar, member 1. the present revision petition being filed against the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 of the state consumer disputes redressal commission, (in short, state commission) haryana, whereby the compensation awarded by district consumer disputes redressal forum, (in short, district forum), sonepat was upheld. 2. in brief, the complainant smt. santosh went to madaansurgical and maternity hospital, the op-1 and dr. sushma madaan, the op-2 did her ultra-sonography (in short usg?) on 17.08.2000.the op-1 told the complainant that the child has died and dried in the uterus. thereafter, the complainant went to maharaja agrasen hospital, who referred her to madhumita diagnostic centre/ op-3, for another usg. on 18.08.2000, op-3 performed usg and reported as no evidence of pregnancy, no mass, no free fluid seen in pouch of douglas, urinary bladder is normal. thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency of service the complainant filed a complaint before district forum. 3. the district forum held the op-1 and 2 liable and ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for negligent services as well as for mental harassment, and the sum of rs.2,000/- towards costs. 4. aggrieved by the order of the district forum the op 1 and 2 filed the first appeal before the state commission, it was dismissed. 5. against, the impugned order of state commission, the op-1 and 2 filed this revision. 6. we have heard the counsels .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 22 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Max Infra (India) Ltd. Rep. by Its Chairman, Dr. M.S. Phani Kumar ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : May-22-2014

j.m. malik, presiding member 1. the present complaint has been filed by m/s. max infra (i) ltd. against m/s. ashok leyland ltd, and its three employees. the key controversy swirls around the question, whether, the complainant is a consumer??. 2. paras 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the complaint are reproduced as follows :- 1. the complainant, max infra india ltd. is a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956 in the year 1999 having its registered office at plot nos.319 and 320, east avenue, ayyappa society, madhapur, hyderabad-500081, a.p. and engaged in construction works. 2. the opposite party no.1 is an indian automobile manufacturing company registered under the companies act, 1956 having its registered office at no.1 sardar patel road, guindy, chennai-600032. o.p. nos.1 and 2 are the managing director and the manager (marketing) respectively of op no.1 whereas op no.4 is the authorized dealer of the op no.1. 3. the complainant company placed a purchase order dt.17.08.2011 on m/s automotive manufacturers pvt. ltd. (op no.5) for the supply of 10 tipper vehicles manufactured by the opposite party at the unit price of rs.24,74,176/- each, total being rs.2,85,92,665/-. a copy of the purchase order dt.17.08.2011 is annexed hereto as document no.1. 4. that since the complainant company had taken finance from m/s srei equipment financial pvt. ltd., a master operating lease agreement dt.20.08.2011 was entered into between the complainant company and the aforementioned m/s srei .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 18 2014 (TRI)

Delhi Development Authority, Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan Vs. ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-18-2014

v.b. gupta, presiding member: 1. petitioner/opposite party has filed the present revision petition under section 21(b) consumer protection act, 1986 (for short, act) against impugned order dated 15.1.2013 passed by state consumer disputes redressal commission, delhi (for short, state commission) in first appeal no.705 of 2010. 2. brief facts are that respondent/complainant in response to an advertisement published by the petitioner/opposite party under the name of expandable housing scheme, 1996? applied for allotment of a flat, vide application no.014269 dated 8.10.1996. as per terms and conditions of the scheme, respondent deposited a sum of rs.15,000/- as earnest money alongwith application. in the draw of lots held on 21.3.1997, respondent was allotted a flat bearing no.440, type-a, sector b-4, pocket-6, group-2, narela, delhi as communicated by the petitioner vide its letter dated 12.1.2000/20.1.2000. as per allotment letter, cost of the allotted flat was shown as rs.5,16,300/- and respondent was called to deposit initial amount of rs.37,946.09 by 18.7.2000. respondent deposited a sum of rs.15,000/- as confirmation money with the petitioner, vide challan no.088115 dated 10.2.2000.therefore, respondent vide letter dated 15.2.2001 communicated to the petitioner, that he has shifted from old residence to new address and requested that any official communication pertaining to the allotted flat be entertained at new residential address. 3. it is further stated that as .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 28 2014 (TRI)

Pavel Garg, Proprietor Vs. the New India Assurance Company Limited

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Feb-28-2014

v.b. gupta, presiding member: 1. appellant/complainant has filed the above noted first appeals against common order dated 21.12.2012 passed by state consumer disputes redressal commission, haryana, panchkula (for short, state commission) in (complaint no.03 of 2006) and (complaint nos.03 to 20 of 2010) vide which 19 complaints filed by the appellant against respondent/opposite party-insurance company were dismissed. 2. since, facts are common and similar question of law is involved, as such these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. on 25.5.2006, appellant had filed 19 complaints before the state commission, haryana at panchkula. it is alleged that, thereafter on the legal advice appellant filed 19 fresh complaints on 16/17.11.2006 before the state consumer disputes redressal commission, union territory, chandigarh, since the competent authority of the respondent to take decision on the claims was at regional office at chandigarh. thereafter, appellant on 13.3.2007 withdrew 18 complaints pending before the state commission, haryana, panchkula, whereas one complaint mistakenly was left behind and was dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. with this background, we have to deal with above appeals. appellant in the consumer complaints alleged that he was having a business of export of pharmaceutical products out of india and was holding valid licence for carrying on such export business. the petitioner firm purchased a marine insurance open cover from the respondent, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 15 2014 (TRI)

Dr. Ravinder Kumar Vs. Managing Director, Dish Tv India Ltd. and Anoth ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jan-15-2014

v.b. gupta, presiding member being aggrieved by order dated 03.09.2012 passed by the state consumer disputes redressal commission, panchkula (haryana)(for short, state commission), petitioner/complainant filed an appeal under section 19 of the consumer protection act, 1986(for short, act) which has been converted into a revision petition. 2. alongwith this revision, petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. however, in the entire application, no period of delay has been mentioned. however, as per the office report, there is delay of 290 days. 3. petitioner/complainant filed a consumer complaint before the consumer disputes redressal forum, kaithal(for short, district forum) on the grounds that he had purchased a dish tv dth from respondent no.1/o.p. no.1 for a sum of rs.2,490/-. it is alleged that from the date of installation of dish tv, it was not working properly and it was handed over to respondent no.2/o.p.no.2 for repairs. when petitioner approached respondent no.2 to take dish box, he found that it was in a broken condition. however, when the said box was installed with tv, it gave problem to dth. alleging deficiency in service on part of the respondents, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the district forum. 4. the complaint was contested by the respondents. 5. district forum, vide order dated 23.2.2012 dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 6. aggrieved by the order of the district forum, petitioner, filed an appeal before the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 2014 (TRI)

Aditya Kumar Vs. M/S. Worldwide Immigration Consultancy Services Ltd., ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Decided on : Jan-23-2014

dr. b.c. gupta, presiding member this revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 05.07.2012, passed by the chandigarh state consumer disputes redressal commission (for short the state commission) in fa no. 90/2012, m/s worldwide immigration consultancy services ltd. versus aditya kumar?, vide which, while accepting appeal, the order dated 12.12.2011, passed by the district consumer disputes redressal forum-i, u.t. chandigarh, allowing the consumer complaint, was set aside. 2. brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant, with an intention to settle permanently in canada as a skilled worker, approached the respondent/op for availing himself of their services, for helping him in the immigration process. he deposited a sum of rs.25000/- with the op for professional services and later on, paid 1400 canadian dollars and a sum of rs.19,000/-. an agreement dated 13.06.2004 was also signed between the parties, detailing the duties of the op company and those of the client. it has been stated in the complaint that on demand by the op, the complainant submitted all requisite documents to them for assessing his case for immigration. the op forwarded the case of the complainant to the canadian high commission at new delhi vide their letter dated 27.08.2004, enclosing therewith various documents required. this letter was sent under the signatures of mr. parvinder sandhu, senior director, wwics .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //