Showing : 61-70 of 120 Results

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, 13-- Courier - Delivery at wrong address - Plea of courier that consignment was delivered at wrong address as correct and accurate particulars of consignee were not given on the consignment resulting in wrong delivery - Contention repelled - Courier could ascertain correct particulars for consignee -..........
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 12-- Deficiency in service - Service matter dispute - Issues relating to deficiency regarding retiral benefits, provident fund and tardy investigation and wrongful exercise of powers - These issues are not within purview of the Fora under the CP Act since in all these cases, appropriate forum for the..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, 13-- Ex parte order - Amendment of complaint - Counsel put appearance on behalf of the petitioners but failed to file written statement or represent the authority in subsequent hearing and was proceeded ex parte - Complainant had filed an amended complaint and had altered its prayer clause..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, 13-- Ex parte order - Amendment of complaint - Counsel put appearance on behalf of the petitioners but failed to file written statement or represent the authority in subsequent hearing and was proceeded ex parte - Complainant had filed an amended complaint and had altered its prayer clause..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 34-- Consumer Forum - Interest - There is no provision for grant of interest in the Act - However interest can still be awarded taking recourse to S.34 CPC to do complete justice between the parties...........
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), 2(1)(e), 12, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997, Section 14-- Complaint maintainability - Cable services - Dispute between two 'service providers' - Held to be not a 'consumer dispute' since it is not between 'service provider' of a 'consumer' - Respondent No. 1 does not fall within the ambit of definition of a 'consumer' u/s 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986 -..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12(3), 18, 22, 24A(2)-- Complaint - Admissibility of complaint - District Forum u/s 12(3), State Commission u/s 18 of the Act and National Commission u/s 22 of the Act are competent to decide the admissibility of complaint - If complaint does not disclose any grievance which can be redressed then concerned forum can..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, 2(g)-- Deficiency of service - Allotment of land to co-operative societies for construction of flats for allotment of same to its members - Some members sought refund of earnest money - Refund allowed after deducting 10 percent from earnest money - Aggrieved members approached the Consumer Forum -..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12, 2(d)(ii)-- Chandigarh administration allotted land to co-operative societies for constructing flats to be allotted to the members - No direct contact between Chandigarh administration and members of the societies - Whether members are covered by the definition of `consumer' under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act..........
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 12-- Complaint maintainability - Plot allotment - Non completion of construction - Non construction fee - Raising of demand by appellant/OP Improvement Trust - Held that the Fora under the CP Act have no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the composition fee/non - construction fee etc. -..........

Showing : 61-70 of 120 Results