LawMirror.com

Results of consumer++contr

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 561-570 of 4667 Results

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15 -- Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - District Forum has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case - Held to be a fit case to condone the delay - Delay of 61 days in filing of the appeal condoned...........

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) -- Plot allotment - Extension fee - Charging of - Challenge as to - Held that the legality of the -'Extension fee-' and -'Compounding fee-' does not come within the ambit of Consumer Fora...........

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) -- Plot allotment - Excess area - Interest - Charging of interest - OP can charge interest from the complainant for the price of excess area of the plot when the complainant was informed in this regard and not before the said date and not from the date the plot was allotted to the complainant...........

H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(1)(b), 25 -- Execution petition - Objection - Non speaking order - Disposal by District Forum of the execution petition by non - speaking order - Order not sustainable and liable to be set aside - District Forum directed to re - hear the objections after giving due opportunity of being heard to the parties...........

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Electricity Act, 2003, Section 135(1)(b) -- Theft of electricity - Conviction - Propriety - 1st appellant is consumer and 2nd appellant is in no way connected with electricity service connection - Conviction on the ground that he happens to be son of 1st appellant - Held, he cannot be held responsible for alleged tampering of the meter only on the ground that he is son of..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(f), 14(1)(d), 21(b) -- Harvester combine - Defective engine - Compensation - Enhancement of compensation - Respondent has not preferred any revision petition against the order of State Commission - The order has attained finality so far as the respondent is concerned - The allegation that respondent supplied second - hand engines..........

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(f), 14(1)(d), 21(b) -- Harvester combine - Defective engine - Compensation - Enhancement of compensation - Respondent has not preferred any revision petition against the order of State Commission - The order has attained finality so far as the respondent is concerned - The allegation that respondent supplied second - hand engines..........

NATIONAL DELHI CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(f), 14(1)(d), 21(b) -- Harvester combine - Defective engine - Compensation - Enhancement of compensation - Respondent has not preferred any revision petition against the order of State Commission - The order has attained finality so far as the respondent is concerned - The allegation that respondent supplied secondhand engines..........

H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(1) -- Revisional jurisdiction - Order passed by the District Forum contrary to the Zimni order passed in the file of MA No. 55/2010 - Held to be a serious lapse on the part of the Fora below as both these orders are contrary to each other and liable to be set aside - Case remanded to the District Forum with the direction to hear..........

HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(oo), 14(1) (d) -- Pesticides- Spurious pesticides- Complainant did not spray the medicine at appropriate time in his paddy crop as recommended by the OP- Rather used it when the crop was ready for harvesting and for that reason the use of pesticides by the complainant for his paddy crop was of no use - Appeal accepted and impugned..........

Showing : 561-570 of 4667 Results