Showing : 21-30 of 546 Results

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(o)-- Housing construction or building activity, private or statutory, involving offer of plots for sale to its customers with an assurance of development of infrastructure/amenities, lay out, etc. - Is a `service' within the maening of S.2(1) (o) of the Act - Any defect or deficiency in such service..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d)-- Courier service - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Consignment of donated parts of body - After having entertained the request of the complainant to accept the body parts of the deceased son for dispatch to -'Dr. Z-' in USA for research purposes and having sought the complainant-'s..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 21(a)(i)-- Cold storage - Insurance claim - Repudiation - Compensation - Policy to cover the risk to 40,000 quintal of potatoes - Compressor of the cold storage got damaged because of fluctuation in power supply - Information given to the OP and it failed to promptly depute their Surveyor to visit the cold..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 21(b)-- UTI - Raj Lakshmi Units Scheme - Termination of Scheme - As per Clause XXVII of the Scheme which provided for such termination - Letters issued regarding termination of the Scheme to each of unit holders wherein option forms were also issued - Though possible that the letter may not have reached..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-- Medical negligence - Hair transplant surgery - Not in dispute that the procedure as promised could not be completed in one mega sitting because a part of it had to be temporarily postponed to the next day - It was the Respondent who chose not to continue with the procedure - It cannot be concluded..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(o)-- Education - Coaching institute - Deficiency in service - Fee refund - Consumer - Consumer dispute - Plea that the case do not fall within the ambit of the CP Act, 1986 - Complaints were made on specific grounds of deficiency in service before the District Forum - As per Section 2(d)(ii) of the..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 2(1)(o)-- Education - Coaching institute - Deficiency in service - Fee refund- Held that the coaching institutions may not be conventional educational institutions but since they provide coaching and training to students of an educational nature to equip them for higher studies in specialized educational..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15, 27-- Education - Coaching institute - Deficiency in service - Fee refund - Appeal - Frivolous litigation - Punitive damages - Adverse comments - Sweeping adverse comments made against all coaching institutes by the State Commission without any credible evidence to back these allegations and imposing..........
NATIONAL DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-- Insurance claim - Surveyor-'s report - The insured vehicle of the petitioner was buried under snow for several months - Because of the washing away of the road and inclement weather where the tanker was stranded, it took several months before the Surveyor could get the vehicle inspected - This..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 14(1)(d), 21(b)-- Revisional jurisdiction - Concurrent findings - Medical advice - Rendering wrong professional advice - OPs advised surgery for acute appendicitis whereas on consultation of another doctor it was found there was small cyst in the left ovary - Both Fora below have returned their concurrent finding..........

Showing : 21-30 of 546 Results