In present facts of the case, it was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, in case of any ambiguity, the clauses must be read in favour of consumer. The hyper technicalities cannot create obstacles for the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that discontinuance of housing scheme would not disentitle the right of the Consumer to make claim on the project which was allotted initially.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the power of National Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence must be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the Consumer was entitled to get his claim covered under the sub clause of the Insurance Policy which provides him a higher benefit.
Imagine the excitement of buying your dream home, eagerly waiting for its completion and possession, only to face delay after delay, broken promises, and endless frustrations. In such cases, consumers may file a complaint seeking relief from the concerned authorities.
Opposite Party to pay a compensation of ₹2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) to the Complainant for wrong cutting the her hair.
Rajiv Singhal Vs Godrej Projects Development Ltd. & Anr (NCDRC Delhi) Buying a property is often the biggest investment that most people make in their lives. It is an exciting time filled with the promise of a better future but also a time fraught with danger. Unfortunately, for many buyers, buying a property is not […]
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?
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.
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 the structure of the insured building cannot be taken into consideration.
