Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: national consumer disputes redressal commission ncdrc Page 2 of about 2,234 results (0.151 seconds)

May 26 2014 (TRI)

Jagdish Prasad Bakshi Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

J.M. Malik, Presiding Member 1. The claim of the petitioner, Jagdish Prasad Bakshi, for the theft of the truck was repudiated by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on two counts. Firstly, he had received the œno claim bonus? in premium. The State Commission came to the conclusion that this ground does not stand proved. No appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company in that respect. 2. The State Commission justified the repudiation on the ground that the petitioner was negligent in taking care of the truck. He left the key inside the truck. The driver stopped the truck at 3-00 A.M. in front of Vaishali Dhaba itself. The Dhaba is situated on the Highway itself. The driver could not find out the truck even after searching the same. On this ground, the appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company was allowed. 3. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that the petitioner should be granted the compensation on non-standard basis. In support of his c...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2014 (TRI)

Rajasthan Housing Board and Another Vs. Gyan Singh and Another

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member These are two revision petitions filed against the impugned order dated 16.09.2013, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 32 of 2013, œRajasthan Housing Board versus Gyan Singh? and First Appeal No. 33 of 2013 œRajasthan Housing Board Vs. Karuna Bohra?, vide which, the said appeals filed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in consumer complaint No. 787 and 664 of 2012 were again dismissed, after the remand order passed by this Commission on 07.08.2013. This single order shall dispose of the two revision petitions and a copy of the same shall be placed on each file. 2. The facts of the case are that the complainants/respondents, Gyan Singh and Karuna Bohra submitted applications for booking flats in the scheme launched by the petitioner, Housing Board at Mewar Apartments, Haldi Ghati, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur by making payment of registration...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2014 (TRI)

R. Suyamb Ananthan and Others Vs. M/S. Cox and Kings and Others

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member These two First Appeals have been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.09.2013, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short the State Commission) in consumer complaint No. 92 of 2011, filed by the complainant/appellant R. Suyamb Ananthan and Ors., vide which the said complaint was partly allowed. Both the parties have filed appeals against this order, which are being disposed off by this order and a copy of the same should be placed on each file. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that there are six complainants consisting of R. Suyamb Ananthan, his wife S. Chitra, his son S. Pradheep, his daughter S. Janani, his wifes brother, P. Muruganantham and their family friend S. Shafiq Ali Ahamed. The complainants party decided to go on a foreign tour covering Thailand and Singapore for a week in May, 2011, for which they made bookings with the opposite party...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2014 (TRI)

M/S. Harpreet Motors (P) Limited and Another Vs. Dr. Prithipal Singh B ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member These two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 23.11.2012, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 332/2008, œDr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari versus National Insurance Company and Ors.? vide which while allowing the appeal, the order dated 19.02.2008 in consumer complaint no. 183/2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar, dismissing the said consumer complaint, was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent no. 1, Dr. Pirthipal Singh Bhandari got his 1997 model œFord Escort? diesel car insured with National Insurance Company OP-1 for the period from 23.04.2002 to 12.04.2003 for ` 3,50,000/- plus Rs.10,000/- for sound system. OP-2 and 3, M/s. Ford India Limited and M/s. Ford Motor Company are the manufacturers of the car. OP-4 is the dealer...

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 2014 (TRI)

Subhash Malhotra Vs. Divisional Managar United India Insurance Company ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

Rekha Gupta, Member Revision petition no. 533 of 2008 has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.10.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 3160 of 2001. 2. The facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that the petitioners firm deals in footwear business since 1996 and mostly deals in Liberty footwear and others standard quality footwear like action, Lakhani etc., mainly retail and also in wholesale to some petty shop-keepers. 3. Petitioner had also got insured his shop, stocks, furniture, sign board etc., with United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hisar, i.e., with Respondent no. 1 a branch of respondent no. 2, which got renewed on 04.09.1998 vide cover note no. 986094 for duration of 06.09.1998 to 05.09.1999 for Rs.6.08 lakh after paying a premium of Rs.3129/- insured against fire, theft, burglary and other such like calamities. 4. ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2014 (TRI)

Haryana Urban Development Authority Through Its Chief Administrator, P ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member Petitioners/Opposite Parties being aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2012, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula(for short, State Commission) have filed the present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, Act). Alongwith it, applications seeking exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order as well as condonation of delay of 476 days have been filed. 2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant Society was allotted a plot in Faridabad. As per terms of the allotment, Respondents Society was entitled to rebate of 20% of the price of land, if it was able to complete the construction within 3 years from the offer of the possession. Respondent completed the construction work within 3 years with intimation to the petitioners for claiming the rebate. However, petitioners rejected their claim. Hence, a Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disp...

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2014 (TRI)

MerlIn Projects Ltd. and Another Vs. Pandav Roy and Another

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

D.K. Jain, J. President This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short œthe Act?), has been preferred by the Colonizer, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and their Manager, questioning the correctness and legality of order, dated 24.02.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (for short œthe State Commission?) in SC Case No. 07/0/2007. By the impugned order the State Commission has directed the Appellants, who were arrayed in the Complaint as Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 respectively, to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the subject flat in favour of the Complainants upon payment of the costs of registration as agreed to between the parties. The State Commission has also awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainants as also Rs.5000/- towards costs. 2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that on being approached ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2014 (TRI)

Ram Avtaar Sastry Vs. Max Super Specialty Hospital, Saket and Another

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

D.K. Jain, J. President This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short œthe Act?) is directed against orders dated 23.08.2011 and 01.03.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short œthe State Commission?) in the Complaint filed by the Appellant. By the first order, the application filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay of over one year in filing the complaint (C-228/10) had been dismissed for non-prosecution and consequently, the complaint was also dismissed as barred by limitation. By the latter order, the application for restoration of the complaint has also been dismissed in default and also on the ground that the State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an Application. 2. In short, the grievance of the Appellant in the complaint was that his claim, preferred on 10.04.2007, for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.82,771.87, expended by him on his treatment for cerebro vasc...

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2014 (TRI)

Ram Avtaar Sastry Vs. Max Super Specialty Hospital, Saket and Another

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

D.K. Jain, J. President This First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short œthe Act?) is directed against orders dated 23.08.2011 and 01.03.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short œthe State Commission?) in the Complaint filed by the Appellant. By the first order, the application filed by the Appellant for condonation of delay of over one year in filing the complaint (C-228/10) had been dismissed for non-prosecution and consequently, the complaint was also dismissed as barred by limitation. By the latter order, the application for restoration of the complaint has also been dismissed in default and also on the ground that the State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an Application. 2. In short, the grievance of the Appellant in the complaint was that his claim, preferred on 10.04.2007, for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.82,771.87, expended by him on his treatment for cerebro vasc...

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 2014 (TRI)

Nidhi Knitwears (P) Ltd. Vs. the Manager Bank of Maharashtra and Anoth ...

Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

J. M. Malik, Presiding Member 1. The principal question which falls for consideration is, œwhether the complainant is a consumer?? œWhether he has chosen the Consumer Commission to save the huge Court Fees in respect of approaching the Civil Court?? 2. The present complaint has been filed by M/s Nidhi Knitwears (P) Ltd. against the Bank of Maharashtra and its Manager. Paras No. 1 and 2 of the complainant are reproduced here as under:- œ1. That the complainant is an MSME Unit and registered under the Companies Act with the Registrar Companies, Punjab and is engaged in the manufacturing and exporting of hosiery goods and earning foreign currency and contributing to the growth of the nation in the form of taxes and generating employment for last about 15 years and exporting the goods to the foreign buyers in the international market and the present complaint is being presented through its Managing Director Mr. C.L. Pandit who has been.?. 2. That the Opposite Party no. 1 ...

Tag this Judgment!


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