Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“SCDRC was not justified in saying that a person is entitled to more compensation, depending upon the fact of the case than the compensation as provided under the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990”.
“This case exemplifies the profound impact that consumer grievances can have on an individual’s life. The complainant, a well-known cine artist, trusted the assurances of the opposite parties and made a significant investment in his dream home, Punjabi House, only to be met with poor workmanship and exploitation”.
Demand of service tax u/s 73-A of Finance Act, 1994 incorrect when broadcaster’s service tax is collected and not retained: CESTAT reiterates
The complainant had booked a flight from Chennai to Jodhpur via Mumbai; however, his flight from Chennai to Mumbai was re-routed via Hyderabad without any prior information from the airlines.
Uttarakhand SCDRC sets aside the impugned order of DCDRC passed in a consumer complaint as its President was not part of the proceedings, thereby disregarding the mandate in S. 36 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Commission stated that the Indigo’s deficiency in services caused the married couple irrevocable hardship and spoiled their holiday mood.
“The issue is not of fixing a value to a piece of real estate which the complainant is in possession of. Rather, it is one of compensation for the deficiency in service and of indemnifying the complaint against any future loss.”
In the instant matter the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had to determine whether the complainant's JCB machine had fallen down or overturned for the purposes of an insurance claim
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While deciding upon the instant complaint concerning alleged unfair trade practice followed by Flipkart of tampering
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Justice R.K. Agarwal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar and Binoy Kumar (Members) decided a matter with
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: Coram comprising of Dr Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Anil Srivastava (Member) addressed a grievance
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member, held that, “…selling a second-hand car, in place of a new car,
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Justice V.K. Jain (Presiding Member) addressed the question of who can be considered a consumer under Section
The RERA Act does not bar the initiation of proceedings by allottees against the builders under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): V.K. Jain (Presiding Member), held that homebuyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): V. K. Jain (Presiding Member) while addressing the present matter observed that, A negligent act such as
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Coram of Justice R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member), upheld the State Commission’s
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Anup K. Thakur (Presiding Member) addressed a consumer complaint alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency of service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of R.K. Agrawal (President) and Dr S.M. Kantikar (Member), held that “…for detrmining the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding Member) and Dinesh Singh (Member), while addressing the issue