Showing : 1001-1010 of 3013 Results

THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY , CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-- Extension fee - For not completing building - Building plan submitted by respondent on 2.5.1997 - After three four months minor objections raised thrice which were removed by respondent and the same submitted on 26.10.1998 - Building plan not sanctioned despite removal of objections - Appellant..........
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 15(1)-- Insurance claim - Driving licence - Non renewal of - Plea that driving licence not valid on the date of accident - Held that cause of accident specifically pleaded in the complaint - The insurance company instead of specifically contesting the said cause gave vague reply - Cannot be said that..........
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 43, Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999-- Unfair trade practice - Purchase of vehicle pursuant to Advertisement issued by appellants that vehicle Tata Tourin vehicle (Jeep) is approved for being plied as taxi in the State of Himachal Pradesh whereas it was in violation of the MV Act, 1988 and the Himachal Rules made thereunder - This..........
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(r), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 43, Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999-- Unfair trade practice - Necessary parties - Purchase of vehicle pursuant to Advertisement issued by appellants that vehicle Tata Tourin vehicle (Jeep) is approved for being plied as taxi in the State of Himachal Pradesh whereas it was in violation of the MV Act, 1988 and the Himachal Rules made..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(f) , 21(b)-- Car - Defective car - Concurrent findings - There was no expert evidence to prove that the vehicle has got any defect - Only minor repairs were carried out and it has not been proved that there was any inherent or latent defect in the engine - The concurrent findings of two Fora below - No case..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b)-- Revision - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Application for - Stagewise day to day delay in pursuing the matter at different levels for filing revision not explained - No sufficient justification given by the petitioner so as to condone the delay in filing the revision - Application rejected..........
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 3-- Additional remedy - Multiplicity of proceedings for the similar reliefs is not permissible in law - Option is to the party to elect whether to file consumer complaint or to file civil suit - Once respondent herein chose to file civil suit his consumer complaint should have been thrown out of..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)-- Consumer - Banking service - Complainant not maintaining any account and had not availed of the services of OP No. 3 bank for consideration - Merely on the ground of OP No.3 bank collecting bank of having sent the cheque for collection to OP No.1, no liability can be fastened under the Act for..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A-- Limitation - Medical negligence - Appellant was discharged from hospital on 18.3.1998 - Again admitted in June, 2001 - Complaint filed on 15.11.2003 - Plea that June, 2001 should be taken as starting point of limitation repelled - The complaint barred by limitation...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2008
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) , 24A, Limitation Act, 1963, Article 44, Contract Act, 1872, Section 28-- Limitation - Insurance policy - Insurance contract contained provision prescribing a period of limitation shorter than that prescribed by the Limitation Act - Held that the contractual provision not hit by Section 28 of Contract Act as the legal right itself had been extinguished...........

Showing : 1001-1010 of 3013 Results