-
Swiggy had argued that it was only a technology intermediary connecting customers with restaurants, and that the contract of sale existed solely between the buyer and the restaurant.
-
V Murthy, 55, and his family had to face difficulties during their journey as the air conditioning in their 3AC coach was not working properly and their was not water available in the toilet.
-
The Food Department slapped a Rs 5,000 fine on the restaurant but the aggrieved woman aims to pursue legal action and has demanded a compensation of Rs 50 lakh from the establishment.
-
Swiggy claimed that it was just an intermediary between the customer and the restaurants and could not be held responsible for the alleged mistake of its delivery agent.
-
The restaurant also levied service charges amounting to Rs 31.50 on a bill totalling Rs 630 for two dishes and a water bottle.
-
A Bengaluru woman has sued Flipkart for selling a bottle of shampoo above maximum retail price (MRP) during its Big Billion Days sale.
-
ITC Limited has been asked to pay Rs 1 lakh to customer for packing one biscuit less than advertised on a packet of Sunfeast Marie Light.
-
Parappa checked the manufacturing and expiry dates on the packet to realise that its original label, which showed it had expired, was covered up with a fresh label with new dates to show that the oats were safe to consume.
-
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench directed BMW India to pay the whole purchasing amount of the car with an interest of 6 percent per annum from the date of payment till date of the judgement.
-
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Godrej Projects to refund Rs 51.36 lakh to homebuyer for failure to provide 24 metre road connecting the project
-
As many as 30 homebuyers had filed a complaint against Raheja Developers Limited seeking refund of the entire amount collected from them towards consideration of the units along with interest on the ground of delay in construction of the project.
-
There is also a need for developing a sense of sensitivity and sympathy towards the fact that most of the complainants in the country's consumer grievance redressal mechanism were poor, weak consumers, the minister added.
-
Possession offered by a builder for an incomplete unit will have no bearing in arriving at the compensation, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in a recent verdict
-
The consumer court says that buyers who had made substantial payment towards their flats cannot be penalised for the builder’s inability to collect payments from other flat buyers due to which the project was delayed.
-
President J J Pandya of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Ahmedabad rural) also asked the retailer to return Rs 10 charged on the carry bag to the complainant Maulin Fadia with 8 per cent interest.
-
Orders three years imprisonment for its managing director and directors of the company
-
Supreme Court also holds that incorporation of unreasonable clauses in the agreement constitutes an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act; clarifies that buyers have the right to choose one remedy in case “two concurrent remedies” are available
-
Singhal and the builder sealed the deal for the flat in Sahyadri in 1995. When the builder failed to hand over the flat as promised, Singhal approached the Maharashtra State consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, and, later, the NCDRC. The national commission finally ordered a compensation almost six times the cost of the flat.
-
While the NCLT takes care of secured creditors and employees, consumers have to travel a long road to recover their pending dues
-
The consumer court also said the terms of the agreement signed between the two parties were wholly one-sided and unfair to the homebuyer.
-
NCDRC directs developers Three C Shelters Pvt Ltd and Orris Infrastructure to refund the amount with an interest of 9 percent per annum; In related cases, it orders handover of completed units by September.
-
One-year delay in completion of a housing project is ‘reasonable’ and a buyer cannot seek refund on that ground
-
The builder, BPTP, has also been ordered to pay Rs 50,000 as cost of litigation.
-
Developer also to pay interest at the rate of 9% from the date of each payment until the date of refund and Rs 25,000 as cost of litigation for 'inordinate delay'.
-
The real estate developer was directed to refund the amount along with interest, and an additional amount of Rs 50,000, for not giving sufficient notice to the buyer.
