Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc Page 1 of about 2,233 results (0.172 seconds)

Jun 12 2014 (TRI)

M. Premalatha Vs. Arivalagan Proprietor and Others

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Rekha Gupta, Member Revision petition no. 3998 of 2011 has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 31.01.2011 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in Appeal no. 646 of 2007. 2. The brief facts of the complaint as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner/ complainant is the wife of K S Manickam, who has retired from his service. Since the petitioners husband has also retired, the petitioner and husband wanted to start a motor business, wherefrom they eke their life in the remaining period. The petitioner tried to purchase a Tempo Van and from out of its income they proposed to eke their life. The petitioner searched various makes of Tempo. Since the petitioner made enquiry with the 2nd respondent/ 2nd opposite party, the 2nd respondent advised the petitioner that Eicher Vehicle 11.10.G HSD Super Long RHD 1C GB (Turbo inter cooler) was the best vehicle and also advised that with ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2014 (TRI)

D. John Raj and Another Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, L and Hpf, Life ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 30.06.2011, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 334 of 2007, œD. John Raj and Ors. Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Ors.?, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 23.4.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) in O.P. NO. 319 of 2005, dismissing the consumer complaint in question, was upheld. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, saying that they had obtained insurance policies from the LIC, Policy No. 61928731 in the name of first complainant for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- w.e.f. 28.12.1982 and policy No. 61923778 in the name of second complainant for a sum of Rs.50,000/- w.e.f. 20.03.1982 and they were r...

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2014 (TRI)

icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Pawan Kumar

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 31.08.2011 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 302 0f 2009 “ Pawan Kumar Vs. ICICI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent was owner of vehicle HP 37 A 8213, which was insured from OP/petitioner for a period of one year from 12.12.2006 to 11.12.2007. On 29.9.2007, at about 2.30 a.m., when complainant was on en-route from Kullu to Hoshiarpur, vehicle met with an accident and suffered damage. Police report was lodged in P.S. Hoshiapur and intimation was also given to OP. OPs surveyor inspected vehicle on 11.10.2007 and assessed loss of Rs.3,54,661/-. Complainant submitted claim with the OP, but OP refused to settle the claim. Alleging defic...

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2014 (TRI)

Paramjit Kaur Vs. M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Senior ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.5.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 1835/2009 “ The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ms. Paramjit Kaur by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner was registered owner of Scorpio PB 11 AB 1518, which was insured by OP/respondent for a period of one year from 8.6.2007 to 7.6.2008. On 16.1.2008, Tarsem Singh, driver of the complainant was going from Delhi to Patiala and on the way, he parked the vehicle near Sukhdev Dhaba for taking meals. During this period, vehicle was stolen by some unknown person when driver went for call of nature. FIR was lodged on 16.1.2008, but car could not be traced. Insurance Company was also intimated about the theft of vehicle. Claim was lodged w...

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2014 (TRI)

Bonda Kasi Annapurna Vs. the Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Ins. ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, the State Commission) in C.C. No. 33/2009 “ Bonda Kasi Annapurna Vs. Br. Manager, Bajaj Allianz Ins. Co. Ltd. and Anr. by which, complaint was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants husband B.V.V. Nageswara Rao had taken policy of Rs.25,00,000/- (Personal Guard - Individual Personal Accident Policy) for a period of 3 years from 8.12.2006 to 7.12.2009 from OP/Respondent No. 1. On 3.1.2008, complainants husband slipped from stairs and sustained injuries. Ambulance was called and while going to hospital, complainants husband died. Intimation was given to the OP and claim was lodged, but claim was repudiated. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint with State Commission. OP resisted complaint and submitted that death of insured was not on accou...

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2014 (TRI)

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Urban Sub-divison-2 (South Section), Ma ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 482/2011 “ The Dy. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. and Anr. Vs. Aditya Developers by which, appeal was dismissed in default. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum with a prayer to quash demand of Rs.2,94,086/- and further claimed compensation. OP/petitioner contested complaint and submitted that act of complainant amounted to theft under Section 135 of Indian Electricity Act and also resisted complaint on other grounds. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default by learned State Commission against which, this revision petition has been...

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2014 (TRI)

National Seeds Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dadaso Vishvanath Bagal and Anothe ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. A/03/1949 “ National Seeds Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Dadaso Vishvanath Bagal and Anr. by which, appeal was dismissed at admission stage. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents filed complaint before District Forum and learned District forum vide order dated 28.11.2003 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner to pay Rs.56,000/- along with 9% p.a. interest, Rs.4,000/- towards mental distress and Rs.1500/- towards costs. 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 Respondent No. 2 even after service and he was proceeded ex-parte. 4. Heard leaned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 5. Lear...

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Young India Engineers and Others Vs. Badri

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 06.05.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 625/2011 “ M/s. Young India Engineers Vs. Badri by which, while dismissing application for condonation of delay, appeal was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum. OP/petitioner did not appear before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 30.6.2010 allowed complaint and directed OPs to handover possession of the flat or pay Rs.5,90,000/- with 18% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost. OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay of 475 days and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed application for condonation of delay and consequently, appeal w...

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2014 (TRI)

The Managing Director/Chairman Indian Airlines / Air India National Av ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.05.2012 passed by the Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No. 02/2012 “ Mrs. Maria Easter dAbreau Noronha and Anr. Vs. The M.D., Indian Airlines/Air India by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum allowing complaint was modified and compensation was enhanced. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainants/respondents travelled from Mumbai to Goa on 14.3.2009 by OP/petitioner by Flight No. IC/613. Complainant No. 1 was about 76 years of age so, wheelchair was requested. An attendant came with wheelchair. Complainant No. 1 was being wheeled by the said attendant, the right hand arm rest of the wheel chair gave way and the complainant no. 1 had a fall on the ground and suffered fracture around her right hip joint. Airport Medical Doctor attended her and she was admitted to SMRC hospital, b...

Tag this Judgment!

May 27 2014 (TRI)

K.N. Pareek Vs. M/S. Akash Ganga Courier Ltd. and Another

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Rekha Gupta, Member Revision petition no. 494 of 2013 has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.12.2012 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in Appeal no. 217 of 2011. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioner handed over an envelope addressed to M/s A Adarsh Law Firm , A “ 144, Ground Floor, Jhilmil Colony, Delhi “ 110 095 to the respondent no. 2 / opposite party no. 2 and obtained receipt no. 05509917 on 27.01.2009. The respondent returned the letter undelivered to the petitioner mentioning œalways closed? on 01.02.2009. The envelope did not bear any date and time when the staff of the respondent no. 1 went to deliver the letter to the addressee. The said envelope was returned back and delivered to the petitioner within four days of the booking indicated that the concerned staff of the respondent did not go to the addresse...

Tag this Judgment!


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