LawMirror.com

Results of op

Showing : 51-60 of 1126 Results

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), Post Office Act, Section 6 -- Registered letter - Containing Bank draft not reaching destination - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Relying upon Section 6 of the Post Office Act plea by appellant - OP that its liability could not be more than Rs. 100/ - repelled - Appellant has not come out with his version as..........

RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), Post Office Act, Section 6 -- Registered letter - Containing Bank draft not reaching destination - Deficiency in service - Compensation - Relying upon Section 6 of the Post Office Act plea by appellant - OP that its liability could not be more than Rs. 100/ - repelled - Appellant has not come out with his version as..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Insurance claim -- Surveyors' report - Deduction from the net assessed loss on the strength of ' Cause Factors' - The damages to the insured molasses contained in the pits not disputed and the extent of loss caused to the complainant is also not disputed - What weighed with the Surveyor in recommending payment of the claim only to the extent of 1/3rd of the net assessed..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Vehicle finance -- Forcible re - possession of vehicle by appellant - OP - For neglecting to pay the installments on due dates - 26 installments out of 36 installments already paid when the vehicle was repossessed in exercise of the right under Clause 15 of the agreement between the parties - No show cause notice given to the respondent - complainant - Police diary showed..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64UM -- Insurance policy - Stock broking business - Business peril - Insurance claim - Repudiation - Loss caused by business peril - There is ample evidence of lack of even ordinary good faith, leave alone utmost good faith in the conduct of the complainant - it did not comply with the..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Insurance claim -- Surveyors' report - Deduction from the net assessed loss on the strength of ' Cause Factors' - The damages to the insured molasses contained in the pits not disputed and the extent of loss caused to the complainant is also not disputed - What weighed with the Surveyor in recommending payment of the claim only to the extent of 1/3rd of the net assessed..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Vehicle finance -- Forcible re - possession of vehicle by appellant - OP - For neglecting to pay the installments on due dates - 26 installments out of 36 installments already paid when the vehicle was repossessed in exercise of the right under Clause 15 of the agreement between the parties - No show cause notice given to the respondent - complainant - Police diary showed..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d), Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64UM -- Insurance policy - Stock broking business - Business peril - Insurance claim - Repudiation - Loss caused by business peril - There is ample evidence of lack of even ordinary good faith, leave alone utmost good faith in the conduct of the complainant - it did not comply with the..........

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(3B), 17(1)(b) -- Striking off defence - For not filing reply to the complaint after availing several opportunities and for non - payment of costs - Held that for the palpable negligence and the dilatory tactics adopted by the OP he could be burdened with heavy costs - An opportunity should be afforded to the Revision Petitioner to..........

THE UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13(3B), 17(1)(b) -- Striking off defence - For not filing reply to the complaint after availing several opportunities and for non - payment of costs - Held that for the palpable negligence and the dilatory tactics adopted by the OP he could be burdened with heavy costs - An opportunity should be afforded to the Revision Petitioner to..........

Showing : 51-60 of 1126 Results