Consumer Redressal ForumLatest Consumer Judgments
|
ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prem Kishan Garg dated 2014-09-12 Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and State Commission directed jointly and severally to the OPs to renew medi-claim insurance policy every year till complainant attains age of 85 years after receiving premium of Rs.7181/- and further directed that in case policy is not issued they have to pay Rs.5,00,000/- and further awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of proceedings against which, these revision petitions have been filed. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Sudha Shrotria vs. Fortis Healthcare Limited dated 2014-09-12 . On 05.02.2008, Smt. Sudha Shrotria filed a complaint on the same cause of action on the unfair trade practices etc. under MRTP Act (since repealed) before the MRTP Commission (RTPE No. 4/2008). Thereafter, the proceedings were transferred to the Competition Appellate Tribunal. On 02.12.2013, the complainant moved an application for withdrawal of this case. The Hon’ble Chairperson, Competition Appellate Tribunal passed the following order:- “After considerable arguments, the applicant seeks to withdraw this complaint with the liberty for approaching this matter with National Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission (NCDRC). It is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the other side. However, considering the nature of evidence, nature of allegations and the proof supported by the complainant here, we deem it fit to give that permission. Needless to say that the pendency before this Tribunal is requested to be considered while considering the question of limitation. Sd/- [Justice V.S.Sirpurkar] Chairman Sd/- [Rahul Sarin] Member Sd/- [Pravin Tripathi] Member”. 2. This is a case of medical negligence. It is explained that the Complainant had spent 5 years, 10 months, 27 days in the above said tribunals. The present matter falls within the purview of the Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is explained that the said delay should be condoned. 3. We have heard the counsel for the complainant at length. There is no problem in condoning the delay before the MRTP and Competition Appellate Tribunal. The complainant is entitled to have condonation of that delay. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Lt Col U B Dhaiya vs. Haryana Officers & Public Enterprises dated 2014-09-12 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.05.2012 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 3660 of 2001, whereby the State Commission has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the order of the District Forum on the ground of limitation. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ram Veer Singh dated 2014-09-12 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 12.3.2014 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 512 of 2014- National Insurance Co. Ltd. VS. Ram Veer Singh, by which appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Mukat Hospital and Heart Institute vs. Mr. Dibyendu Ghara dated 2014-09-11 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 270 of 2013 – Mukat Hospital and Heart Institute Vs. Mr. Dibyendu Ghara by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
The Commercial Officer vs. Ramakanta Samal dated 2014-09-11 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 3.12.2007 passed by Learned State Commission in C.D. Appeal No. 172 of 2002- Ramakanta Samal VS. M/s. Baba Motors & Ors., by which while allowing appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and Opposite Parties were jointly and severally held liable to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the appellant. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Rakesh vs. Deep Hospital dated 2014-09-11 This revision is directed against the order of the State Haryana dated 10.09.2009 10.09.2009 whereby the State Commission relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matters of Martin F D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC), Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 as also State of Punjab Versus Shiv Ram & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 1 allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the petitioner. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
The BEML Employees Co-op. Society Ltd. vs. N.S. Balakrishna dated 2014-09-11 In a consumer complaint filed by Shri N.S. Balakrisha against the BEML Employees Co-op. Society, Bangalore, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission has directed the OP/Society to refund the entire amount of Rs.18.10 lakhs received from the Complainant with 18% interest from respective dates of deposit and cost of Rs.5,000/-. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
M/s Sahara India Commercial vs. Smt. Gomti Devi dated 2014-09-11 The District Forum accepted the complaint against opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with all the benefits to the complainants due to the accidental death of Shri Pyare Lal. Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation was also awarded to the complainants besides payment of interest @9% p.a. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
The Sr. Superintendent, Post Offices vs. Amit Kumar Sharma dated 2014-09-10 This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan Jaipur ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) dated 11.12.2012 in First Appeal No.28/2011 whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal preferred against the order of the District Forum Alwar Rajasthan in CC No. 308/2010. read more + |
|
|
Naresh Kumar s/o Ram Lal vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. dated 2014-09-10 This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the State Commission partly accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent / insurance company against the order of the District Forum and modified the same as under: “As a sequel to our above discussion in this appeal is partly accepted and impugned order is modified to the extent that complainant would be entitled to the claims amount Rs.1,30,220/- on repair basis, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal as well as the amount of Rs.85,447/- deposited by the appellant in compliance of the order dated 12.07.2011 are ordered to be released to the appellant after proper receipt identification and verification”. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
G.M.Northern Railway vs. Manoj Kumar s/o Sh. J.S.Sharma dated 2014-09-10 This revision is directed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.357/2014, whereby the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 03.01.2014 of the District Forum whereby the petitioner / opposite party was directed to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- to the respondent / complainant.read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Lalit Kumar Dhiman dated 2014-09-10 This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.05.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Execution Application No. 14/2014 in Complaint No. 63 of 2013 – Lalit Kumar Dhiman Vs. M/s. Yellow Stone Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. by which, Mrs. Paramjot Kaur and Mr. Tejinder Singh, Directors of OP/appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 2 years and directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
M/S. GLOBAL ISPAT LTD. vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY dated 2014-09-10 This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 04-12-2012 passed by the Learned State Commission in Complaint No. 01/11 – M/s Global Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., by which complaint was dismissed. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Engineer vs. Virender Kumar dated 2014-09-10 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 5.3.2008 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 632 of 2007- Virender Kumar VS. Chief Engineer, Electricity Department & Ors., by which while allowing appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside and Opposite Party was directed to charge sundry charges only for six months. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Shri Rajesh Satija dated 2014-09-10 By this revision petition, the petitioner/opposite party has challenged the order dated 15.2.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula in First Appeal No.867 of 2006 whereby the State Commission has partly accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner Authority and modified the order dated 25.1.2006 passed by the District Forum, Faridabad in favour of the respondent/complainant. The petitioner not being satisfied with the impugned order, has preferred this revision petition for further relief. Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Asish Kumar Dey vs. Habibur Rahaman dated 2014-09-09 In this revision petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Act,1986 (for short, ‘Act’), there is challenge to order dated 17.2.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata(for short,‘State Commission’)vide which appeal filed by the Petitioner/Complainant challenging the order of the District Forum was dismissed. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Rajendra Singh Yadav vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. dated 2014-09-09 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.04.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench No. 3, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1568 of 2011 – National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and directed to pay amount as per surveyors report. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
M/s. Indiagen Ltd. vs. Sri B.S. Arun Kumar dated 2014-09-09 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.06.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 2372 of 2007 – M/s. Indiagen Ltd Vs. Sri B.S. Arun Kumar & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
M/s Asian Paints Ltd. vs. K.A. Abootty Haji dated 2014-09-09 This revision petition challenges the impugned order dated 1.10.2011 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.668 of 2010 whereby the State Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner/opposite party in terms of the following directions:- “In the result the appeal is allowed in part. Impugned order passed by the Forum below is modified and thereby the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.5000/-. In all other respects the order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.” 2. The State Commission thus modified the order passed by the District Forum in C.C No.21 of 2008 passed on 4.10.2010. The order of the District Forum is reproduced below:- “In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to return the colour world machine that has been taken from complainant repairing it defect free or else to refund an amount Rs.2,40,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty Thousand only) and also to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) as compensation together with a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this proceeding within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.” read more + |
|
|
Metcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. vs. Peace Trade Concern dated 2014-09-09 Peace Trade Concern, the complainant in this case placed an order with the Suppliers/Shippers, M/s Beijing Xinyiborui Chemical Plant, China and 98 drums containing 19800kgs. Of Calcium Carbide was dispatched by ship from Xingang, China to Kolkata Port. Such goods were transported from Kolkata Port to Nepal by Tirupati Carrying Corporation-OP-2, which is a road carrier and for that an insurance from OP-I, of goods detailed above was obtained by the complainant. On 20.07.2007, in Nepal, it transpired that the drums were in variously damaged condition and a survey was conducted by M/s Marine Commercial Claims (Nepal) on two days i.e. 20.07.2007 and 21.07.2007 at Birganj Customs Premises, Nepal. It also came to light that 98 drums were in damaged condition and the quantity damaged was 5987 kgs out of 9800 Kgs. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mukamala Nataraja Rao & Anr. dated 2014-09-09 Sahara States Owners Welfare Association (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Welfare Association’), had filed consumer complaints on behalf purchasers of flat and houses in a newly constructed housing township in Andhra Pradesh. All complaints have been considered by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the impugned order. In all cases the complainants have taken physical possession of the flats/houses in and around 2002 and consumer complaints were filed soon thereafter, in 2003. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Alam Ali dated 2014-09-08 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 20.11.2007 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1126 of 2000- Alam Ali Khan Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., by which while allowing appeal, order of the District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shyam Lal dated 2014-09-08 This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 19.9.2013 passed by State Commission in First Appeal No. 740 of 2008, by which while allowing appeal partly, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was modified. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Allahabad Bank vs. Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar dated 2014-09-08 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.2.2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 612 of 2012 – Allahabad Bank Vs. Shri Shrawan Kumar Poddar & Anr. by which, application for condonation of delay was dismissed and appeal was dismissed as time barred. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
The Bileshwar Khand Udyog vs. Jyotiben Dansinh Mori dated 2014-09-08 These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 16.01.2012 in Appeal Nos. 441 to 446 of 2010 – Jyotiben Dansinh Mori Vs. Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Jaysinhbhai @ Jesingbhai Sidibhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Ranvirbhai Naranbhai Vainsh & Ors. Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr., Dansinhbhai Mulabhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog & Anr., Jayaben Dansinhbhai Mori Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. and Danabhai Bhimabhai Chauhan & Ors. Vs. The Bileshwar Khand Udyog Khedut Sahkari Mandli Ltd. & Anr. passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) by which, while allowing appeals, order of District Forum dismissing complaints was set aside and complaints were allowed. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
Galaxy Homes Pvt. Ltd. vs. Girish, N dated 2014-09-08 Petitioner/Opposite Party being aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2013 passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazuhacaud Thiruvananthapuram(for short,‘State Commission’) in(First Appeal No.271 of 2012) has filed present revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (for short, ‘Act’).Along with it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 31 days has also been filed. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
R.N. TRIVEDI vs. STATE OF U.P. dated 2014-09-08 This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugned order dated 29-11-2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 913/03 – R.N. Trivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., by which while allowing appeal, order of the District Forum allowing complaint was set aside. read more + |
|
|
|
|
|
The Southern Railway vs. Vimal M. Mehta dated 2014-09-08 This is an application seeking the condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the revision petition. read more + |
|