NCDRC/SCDRC

Banks cannot invoke Section 171 of Indian Contract Act to recover pending dues from a deceased customer

ICICI BANK Vs Manjeet Kaur (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Whether bank may exercise and invoke banker’s Rights of Lien as per Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 to settle dues from deceased person in case deceased person has taken a loan?...

Read More

When Interest is awarded by way of damages awarding additional compensation is unjustified: NCDRC

Suncity Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sandeep Kumar Goel (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

The National Commission modified the Order of State Commission by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% in the matter of delayed possession of Apartment and further it was held that since the compensation in the form of interest @9% p.a. has already been awarded, the Complainant shall not be entitled for any other compensation....

Read More

Surveyor’s Report does not have binding effect on insured or insurer: NCDRC

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Dr. Kumar Bhandari (NCDRC)

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that in the insurance matters Surveyor's Report is not the final word and it is not binding upon the insured or insurer. It was also upheld that when the Company certified while issuing the policy that there is a first class construction, then the plea of pre-existing defect in ...

Read More

Educational Institute not fall in purview of Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC

Principal, L.D.R.P. Institute of Technology And Research Vs Apoorv Sharma (NCDRC)

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission observed that Educational matters do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore Educational Institute would also not fall within the purview of it....

Read More

Complaint against Insurance Company maintainable as insurance contract is a indemnity contract

Renuka Multipack Pvt. Ltd. Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

In present facts of the case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have observed that contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity and, therefore, there is no question of commercial purpose in obtaining insurance coverage. Therefore, the complaint against Insurance Company is maintainable....

Read More

Flipkart also Liable with sellers for Charging in excess of MRP

Shaik Umar Farooq Vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited (District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

In the present complaint, Opposite Parties have tampered with original MRP Price of oil sachet and charged extra amount more than MRP....

Read More

Misleading Weight Loss Programme Ads amounts to Unfair Trade Practice

VLCC Health Care Limited Vs Vijay Aggarwal (State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

The act of the appellants of giving false assurances on one hand by way of misleading advertisements and on the other hand, obtaining declaration from the consumers qua no guarantee/assurance regarding the result and outcome of the programme, is a clear example of unfair trade practices adopted by them...

Read More

Amount paid by buyer to be refunded on failure to timely complete the construction of flat

Neeraj Kakkar Vs Parsvanath Developers Ltd. (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Held that Complainant duly paid the amount, however, the developer failed in providing timely construction service. It is directed to refund the amount already paid by Complainant, along with interest @6% p.a....

Read More

Mere failure of treatment is not a ground for Medical Negligence

Dr. R. Singh vs Smt. Shabana (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

Dr. R. Singh vs Smt. Shabana (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Only the failure of the treatment is not prima facie a ground for Medical Negligence and in order to attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur, Negligence i.e. the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, […]...

Read More

PepsiCo Case: Different MRPs cannot Be Fixed for Same Product

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adithya Banavar (Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs Adithya Banavar (Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) The Brief facts are: Complainants went to Mantri Mall and purchased one litre water bottle of Aquafina, a 330 ml Pepsi Tin and 350 ml bottle of Nimbooz, which costs them at the rate of Rs.20, Rs.50/- and Rs.50/-, respectively in [&...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (6,333)
Company Law (9,010)
Corporate Law (11,486)
Custom Duty (9,859)
DGFT (4,951)
Excise Duty (5,079)
Fema / RBI (5,442)
Finance (5,980)
Income Tax (44,891)
SEBI (4,849)
Service Tax (4,255)