AI Overview...
-
Rourkela Odisha Consumer - Main points and insights:
-
Consumer Disputes and Legal Proceedings:
- Several cases involve consumer complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Sections 15, 17, 19, and 21, related to banking, housing, electricity, and insurance disputes in Rourkela.
-
Notably, in Rourkela Technical Education Society versus State Bank of India, the bank was found not to have committed deficiency in service by not allowing account operation, and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court Rourkela Technical Education Society, Represented through its Secretary, Shri Pravat Kumar Mohapatra VS State Bank of India, Represented Through its Chief Manager - Consumer.
-
Housing and Land Disputes:
- Multiple cases from 1995 involve the change of house categories from LIG-II to MIG in Jawahar Nagar Housing Scheme, Nala Road, Rourkela.
-
Disputes include occupancy rights, land occupation, and maintainability of consumer complaints, with OPs arguing that complaints are barred by limitation under the 1986 Act Anisha Khatoon vs Secretary Rourkela Development Authority - Consumer State, Gulam Rabbani vs Secretary Rourkela Development Authority - Consumer State, Nagina Khatoon vs Secretary Rourkela Development Authority - Consumer State.
-
Consumer Rights and Limitations:
- Several judgments emphasize that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, limits the scope of review and interpretation of facts, with the Supreme Court ruling that different interpretations of the same facts are not permissible unless prima facie errors are evident BASU ORAM vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Consumer National.
-
Appeals and revisions often involve issues of limitation, condonation of delays, and the scope of review under Sections 21(b) and 26(b) of the Act Basu Oram VS Central Bank of India - Consumer, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Shankar Yadav - Consumer, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs KISHORE CHANDRA SAHU - Consumer National.
-
Electricity and Insurance Disputes:
-
Cases include electricity bill disputes, where the State Commission overturned orders from district forums, and marine insurance claims for loss of goods in transit, with appeals challenging the orders based on procedural grounds Proton Steels Limited VS Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Orissa State Electricity Board - Consumer, New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Kishore Chandra Sahu - Consumer.
-
Review and Appellate Proceedings:
- Several petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, involve review of orders by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, with the scope limited to errors apparent on record Basu Oram VS Central Bank of India - Consumer, New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Kishore Chandra Sahu - Consumer.
Analysis and Conclusion: - Consumer protection cases in Rourkela span banking, housing, electricity, and insurance sectors, with courts consistently emphasizing adherence to procedural limits, limitation periods, and the specific scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The legal framework restricts the scope for different interpretations of facts unless prima facie errors are evident, highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in consumer disputes. - Recent cases also reflect the transition to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, but many principles from the 1986 Act remain relevant, especially concerning appeals, revisions, and review procedures in consumer law Basu Oram VS Central Bank of India - Consumer, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs KISHORE CHANDRA SAHU - Consumer National.
References: - Rourkela Technical Education Society, Represented through its Secretary, Shri Pravat Kumar Mohapatra VS State Bank of India, Represented Through its Chief Manager - Consumer, Anisha Khatoon vs Secretary Rourkela Development Authority - Consumer State, Gulam Rabbani vs Secretary Rourkela Development Authority - Consumer State, Nagina Khatoon vs Secretary Rourkela Development Authority - Consumer State, Basu Oram VS Central Bank of India - Consumer, Proton Steels Limited VS Superintending Engineer, Electrical, Orissa State Electricity Board - Consumer, New India Assurance Company Ltd. VS Kishore Chandra Sahu - Consumer, BASU ORAM vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Consumer National, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Shankar Yadav - Consumer, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs KISHORE CHANDRA SAHU - Consumer National
Search Results for "Rourkela Odisha Consumer"
• India - Consumer
V.K.JAIN, B.C.GUPTA
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Banking—Freezing of account—Petitioner/complainant have stated in consumer ... shape of civil appeal in Apex Court—Bank has not committed any deficiency in service by not allowing petitioner to operate account—Consumer ... Rourkela Technical Education Society versus State Bank of India”, vide which while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh, Rourkela, dismissing ....
2022 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1282 • India - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
In 1995 the category of the house was changed from LIG-II to MIG in Jawahar Nagar Housing Scheme, Nala Road, Rourkela. ... The OPs filed written version stating that the consumer complaints are not maintainable and same are barred by limitation. The OPs refuted the allegations. ... These complaints are filed U/S-17 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(Here-in-after after called the Act). FACTS:- 2. The concepts of case of the complainant is that the complainants were occupying the land at Nala Road. ... It is admitted fact that the c....
2022 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1280 • India - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
In 1995 the category of the house was changed from LIG-II to MIG in Jawahar Nagar Housing Scheme, Nala Road, Rourkela. ... The OPs filed written version stating that the consumer complaints are not maintainable and same are barred by limitation. The OPs refuted the allegations. ... These complaints are filed U/S-17 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(Here-in-after after called the Act). FACTS:- 2. The concepts of case of the complainant is that the complainants were occupying the land at Nala Road. ... It is admitted fact that the c....
2022 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 1278 • India - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
In 1995 the category of the house was changed from LIG-II to MIG in Jawahar Nagar Housing Scheme, Nala Road, Rourkela. ... The OPs filed written version stating that the consumer complaints are not maintainable and same are barred by limitation. The OPs refuted the allegations. ... These complaints are filed U/S-17 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(Here-in-after after called the Act). FACTS:- 2. The concepts of case of the complainant is that the complainants were occupying the land at Nala Road. ... It is admitted fact that the c....
• India - Consumer
SUBHASH CHANDRA
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 —S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] -Revision against order ... The power of National Commission to review under section 26 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases ... ORDER Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member—This review petition filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Odisha (in short, ‘State C....
• India - Consumer
D.K.JAIN
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Electricity—Bill dispute—Sole ground for rejection of claim of Complainant ... By the impugned order, while overturning the order dated 26.09.1997, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sundargarh – II, at Rourkela (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Dispute Case No.176/97, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Opposite Parties ... Jain, President—Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the #H....
• India - Consumer
DEEPA SHARMA
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b) – Marine Insurance – Loss of goods in transit – Claim for ... The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.218 ... The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 29.01.2020 by the District #HL_STAR....
2022 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 958 • India - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
MR. SUBHASH CHANDRA, Presiding Member
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is therefore, limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order. Different interpretation of same sets of facts has been held to be not permissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• India - Consumer
D.K.JAIN, M.SHREESHA
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 15—Appeal—Limitation— By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone the ... (for short “the Insurance Company”), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is to the order dated 18.07.2017, passed by the Odisha State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in Miscellaneous Application No. 263 of 2017 in/and First Appeal No. 106 of ... By the impugned order, the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 36 days in filing of t....
2021 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 108 • India - National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 22.01.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.218 of 2010. ... The said Appeal was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 29.01.2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sundargarh-II, Rourkela (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.186 of 2006 filed by the Complainant. The Compl....
Filter by Legal Phrase
