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