National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Non-Standard Basis Of Settling Insurance Claims Apply To Both Private And Public Insurance Companies, NCDRC Holds Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Liable The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) held that the guidelines to settle an insurance...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) held that the guidelines to settle an insurance claim on a non-standard basis apply to both private and public insurance companies. If the claim involves the overloading of a tanker, although below 75% of the permissible limit, the claim would be proportionately reduced to the degree of overloading.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held that at the stage of provisional admission, there is lack of a binding contract between the student and the school. Therefore, the student cannot be refused the refund of the provisional fee on leaving the school before a regular admission is finalized.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for misrepresenting the Complainant that the term of the policies was five years and misspelling the name of the nominee. The bench directed the insurance company to refund the premiums of Rs. 2,59,997/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
Kangra District Commission Holds Puma India And Its Showroom Liable For Selling Deformed Shoes
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Puma India and its showroom liable for deficiency in services for selling deformed shoes to the Complainant. The bench directed Puma and its showroom to refund Rs. 6,299/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to supply CCTV footage of ATM to the Complainant of a failed ATM transaction of Rs. 10,000/-. The bench directed the Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the mental agony and harassment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member) held Lemon & Tree Holidays Resorts liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The Company failed to provide services even after charging Rs. 1,20,000/- for the Holiday Package Membership from the Complainant. The bench directed the company to refund Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President). Ms Mamta Kaura (Member) and Mr Narayan Thakur (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for wrongfully repudiating an accidental claim based on lack of intimation and unauthorized usage of the vehicles during the accident.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) dismissed a complaint against LIC noting that the insured carries a responsibility of accurately providing details in the proposal form. The bench held that the insured didn't disclose the pre-existing health conditions in the proposal form and that LIC rightly repudiated the claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 80,000/- from the Complainant and reverse the whole amount. The bench directed PNB to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for attempting to misguide the commission.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Mohammed Ibrahim (President) and Prakash Chandra Tripathi (Member) held United Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services repudiating a genuine claim. The repudiation was based solely on late reporting of the claim because of personal challenges.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the mere non-execution of the Agreement for Sale does not preclude homebuyers from invoking Section 18 of RERA, which confers an unqualified right upon the homebuyer to get refund of amount with interest if builder fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession of the flat on agreed timeline.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has granted interest to homebuyer for delayed possession by rejecting the builder's contention of late approval of Occupation Certificate due to internal disputes between Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) regarding the issuance of approvals.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority)
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has held that the offer of possession made by the builder before obtaining the Occupation Certificate from local authorities is invalid and contrary to the law. Accordingly, the authority directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delayed possession.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Punjab RERA Orders Compensation For Homebuyers After Project Site Was Declared As Protected Monument
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to pay compensation on the amount paid by the homebuyers to book the project site in an auction after the project site was declared a Protected Monument by the Punjab Government under Section 4(3) of the Punjab Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA)
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) bench, comprising of Justice Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed the builder to fully refund the booking price of Rs. 1 Lakh paid by the homebuyer on the spot after the request of the sales executive to book two flats, without reading the terms of the document.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA)
Karnataka RERA Grants Homebuyer Permission To Withdraw From Project Due To Delayed Possession
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice Neelmani N Raju (Member), has granted the Homebuyer right to withdraw from the real estate project following several years of delayed possession. Subsequently, the Authority directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Releases New Standard Operating Procedure For Registration Of Real Estate Agents
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Registration of Real Estate Agents. This SOP has been released in accordance with Section 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which stipulates provisions for the registration of real estate agents, and Section 10, which stipulates provisions related to the functions of real estate agents.
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA)
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Srikant Badli and BC Badalia, has granted relief to a non-Himachali homebuyer under whose favor the builder was not executing a conveyance deed, as the homebuyer had not obtained necessary permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. Consequently, HPRERA directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the flat with interest if permission is not obtained under the act.