Showing : 41-50 of 219 Results

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-- Insurance claim - Repudiation - Suppression of material facts - Complaint maintainability - The complainant not only misrepresented but also gave a mis - description of the value of plant and the building in order to obtain benefits available under IAR policy - The nondisclosure or misdescription..........
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11-- Territorial jurisdiction - Plea that the dispute falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District Forum X whereas respondent - complainant has chosen to file the complaint before District Forum No. VI repelled - Order of the District Forum dismissing application by observing that entire Delhi..........
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11(2)-- Territorial jurisdiction - Plea that the vehicle in question purchased in District 'M' and complaint maintainable before District Forum 'M' and not before District Forum 'B' repelled - Complainant specifically pleaded that the vehicle after purchase was got finance from Bank at 'B' and registered..........
CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAIPUR
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d)-- Consumer - Commercial purpose - Vehicle finance - Service of finance obtained by the respondent - complainant for purchase of two trucks - There is no material to suggest that trucks were purchased by the complainant for earning livelihood by self - employment - The District Forum erred in..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b)-- Jurisdictional error - Education - Admit card - Non - issuance of - Compensation - Enhancement of compensation from 10,000/ - to 60,000/ - by State Commission in favour of respondent - complainant even without any challenge to the award passed by the District Forum seeking enhancement - Held that..........
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 27 , 25, Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, Section 82(2) , 55(2)-- Society under liquidation - Execution petition - Maintainability - Bar of jurisdiction - Order of the District Forum became final before the society brought under liquidation - Execution petition of the appellant dismissed on the ground that in view of the provision contained in Section 82(2) of..........
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11(2)-- Territorial jurisdiction - Clearly stated in the written statement by appellant/OP that its employee accompanied the machine to the factory premises of the complainant at Dehradun, where it was delivered and intended to be installed - District Forum Dehradun rightly repelled the contention of lack..........
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11 , 14-- Telegraph Act, Section 7B - Jurisdiction - Telecommunication Services - Complaint maintainability - There is implied bar to invoke the provision of CP Act in view of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act - The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the appeal - Appeal dismissed..........
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21-- Jurisdiction - Pecuniary jurisdiction - Medical negligence - Exaggerated claim - Substantive loss which consists of pecuniary damages is to the tune of Rs. 2,19,000 only - Non pecuniary loss claimed at Rs. 15,00,000 - Exemplary damages claimed at Rs. 2 crores - Prime facie held to be highly..........
THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
Year of decision: 2010
Details
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11(2)-- Territorial jurisdiction - Housing - Flat booking - Both the OP's are based at Sirhind and carrying on business at Sirhind - Mere issuing of a cheque toward booking amount from Chandigarh and its encashment from Chandigarh does not provide any part of cause of action in favour of the complainants..........

Showing : 41-50 of 219 Results