Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... is relatable to his business activity and, therefore, it will fall in the category of commercial purpose, which has been taken out of the purview of the consumer protection act, 1986 vide amendment act no.62 of 2002, effective from 15th of march, 2003. 20. again, this commission, in the case of jag mohan chhabra and anr. vs. dlf universal ..... view to obviate any confusion the expression large scale? is not a very precise expression parliament stepped in and added the explanation to section 2(d)(i) by ordinance/amendment act, 1993. 19. in satishkumar gajanand gupta vs. m/s. srushti sangam enterprises (india) ltd., and anr., consumer complaint no.296 of 2011, decided by this commission, ..... must be borne in mind that the cause of action arose in this case, in the year 1992-93. the amendment of the cp act, 1986, was made in the year, w.e.f.15.03.2003, that amendment was not considered in this case. 8. counsel for the complainant has also cited another judgment of this commission reported .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... case i.e. collaboration agreement has been reduced to writing, that document alone would be admissible to prove its term as per provision of section 91 and 92 of the indian evidence act. in this case, the original agreement has neither been produced nor proved. in fact the application of the op no.3 for producing original documents was opposed by the ..... only with whom he had understanding. it is pertinent to note that apart from moving application for impleading op no.2 and 3, the complainant neither filed amended memo of parties, nor did he file amended complaint incorporating any plea or prayer against the op no.2 and 3. even when the case was put to trial, he tenders evidence only against .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... establish any jurisdictional error, material irregularity or legal infirmity in the impugned order of the state commission which could warrant our interference under section 21 (b) of the consumer protection act, 1986. accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... has been filed under section 21(b) of the consumer protection act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the delhi state consumer disputes redressal commission (for short the state commission) in fa no. 800/2009, m/s. ansal housing and construction ltd. versus m/s. indian machinery co.? vide which while, dismissing the appeal filed by the ..... case, the party had withdrawn the previous complaint on the ground that the previous counsel was not competent. the commission observed that if there was defect in the first complaint, amendment application should have been moved or permission could have been sought or request could have been made to have liberty to file fresh complaint. it was not possible to give .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... of insurance contract dismissal of entire claim is the error of insurance co. learned subordinate district forum has ordered to pay the total amount of insured sum which is partly amended. hence 75% rs. 6,60,000/- of insured sum of rs. 8,80,000/- on the basis of sub-standard is proper to make payment.? 5. the case of the ..... and the state commission. learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, mr. khalid arshad argued that the present case is to be governed by the provisions of gr-17 of the indian motor tariff. in the event of transfer of ownership of a vehicle the liability of the insurer under the policy is deemed to have been transferred in favour of the ..... revision-petitioner. 8. we therefore, do not find anything in the revision petition which could justify our intervention in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the revision petition is accordingly dismissed for want of merit with no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... commission reported in iii (2004) cpj 43 (nc) at page 44 para-3 and held that services rendered for commercial purposes not excluded from act prior to amendment in 2003. it is only after the amendment made in 2003 (15.3.2005) that services rendered for commercial purposes has been excluded. in view of this position this argument that the ..... jurisdiction was rs. 5,00,000 only as alleged. the complaint was filed on 12.3.2003. it is equally admitted position of law and subsequently by way of amendment w.e.f. 15.3.2003 the amount of pecuniary jurisdiction was raised to rs. 20,00,000. therefore, on 12.3.2003 the amount claimed was certainly ..... s.c. case no. 460/a/2004, the original complainant has approached this commission by filing the present petition purportedly under section 21 (b) of the consumer protection act, 1986. the appeal before the state commission was filed by the opposite party-insurance company against the order dated 7.10.2004 passed by the district consumer disputes redressal .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... view to obviate any confusionthe expression large scale? is not a very precise expressionparliament stepped in and added the expla-nation to section 2(d)(i) by ordinance/amendment act, 1993. the explanation excludes certain purposes from the purview of the expression commercial purpose?a case of exception to an exception.? 17. reliance was also placed on morgan stanley ..... was inserted by act 50 of 1993. it was further substituted w.e.f. 15.3.2003. the ..... must be borne in mind that the definition consumer?, has been amended, from time-to-time. the main question is, when the cause of action was arisen. the definition consumer?, was amended by act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.6.1993. again, it was amended in the year 2003 by act 62 of 2002, w.e.f. 15.3.2003. earlier expression .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... (nc) 11. on the other hand, respondent contended that he is having mediclaim policy continuously since 1995, that is, for more than four years. as per new amendment, if nothing happens within four years after taking the policy, the petitioner-insurance company cannot take benefit of pre-existing disease clause. thus, it cannot be said that ..... of mediclaim policy. 15. in satwant kaur sandhu case (supra), honblesupreme court has held ; there is no dispute that section 45 of the insurance act, 1938 (for short the act?), which places restrictions on the right of the insurer to call in question a life insurance policy on the ground of mis-statement after a particular period ..... time of taking of policy and thus has not approached the consumer forum with clean hands. 17. moreover, respondent has not placed on record the so called amendment clause as averred by him in its written arguments, that if the policy remains in existence for four years continuously, then clause with regard to pre-existing .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... same in nine types of vehicles. clause (e) provides for transport vehicle which has been substituted by g.s.r. 221(e) with effect from 28.3.2001. before the amendment in 2001, the entries medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. as noticed hereinbefore, light motor vehicles also found place therein. 15 ..... heavy goods vehicle. the light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle as well. 17. the amendments carried on in the rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.? in this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
..... territory of delhi. by order, mrs. s. duggal, deputy secy.? this means that the provisions of the usurious loan act, 1918, as amended by the punjab relief of indebtedness act, 1934, or the punjab act xii of 1942, shall not apply to transactions of loan advanced by the life insurance corporation of india. the provision regarding ..... conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the usurious loans act, 1918, the lt. governor of delhi is pleased to direct that the provisions of that act as amended by the punjab relief of indebtedness act, 1934, punjab act, xii of 1940 and punjab act vi of 1942, as extended to the union territory of delhi, shall ..... damdupat was applied in delhi by amendment of the punjab relief of indebtedness act in 1940. that amendment was contained in the punjab act xii of 1940. the notification is quite clear that the provisions of that act are not to apply to loans advanced by the life insurance corporation of india .....
Tag this Judgment!