Development Authority Ghaziabad Development Authority
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MS. REENA SINGH
Respondant Advocate
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2668 OF 2010(Against the Order dated 23/11/2009 in Appeal No. 681/1994 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough its Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority...
Case Number: 2668
|
Date of Filing: 22-07-2010
|
Date of Upload: 07-04-2011
Development Authority Haryana Urban Development Authority
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate D.K.SHARMA
Respondant Advocate -
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1484 OF 2007(Against the Order dated 18/07/2006 in Appeal No. 1126/2002 of the State Commission Haryana)1. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...........Petitioner(s)Versus1. JAGJIT GUPTA AND ANR.........
Case Number: 1484
|
Date of Filing: 01-05-2007
|
Date of Upload: 29-03-2011
Development Authority Indore Development Authority
Court Name: StateCommission
Appelant Advocate
Respondant Advocate
Case Number: 7
|
Date of Filing: 26-09-2007
|
Date of Upload: 20-02-2017
Development Authority Indore Development Authority
Court Name: StateCommission
Appelant Advocate
Respondant Advocate
Case Number: 7
|
Date of Filing: 26-09-2007
|
Date of Upload: 20-02-2017
Development Authority Meerut Development Authority
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MR. JAGDISH KUMAR
Respondant Advocate MRS. REENA SINGH
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 340 OF 20021. SUJAN SINGHS/O TEJA SINGH,HOUSE NO. 3193/2 SECTOR 44-D CHANDIGARH...........Complainant(s)Versus1. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.THE VICE CHAIRMAN M.D.A. MEERUT (U.P.)2. JOINT SECRETARY...
Case Number: 340
|
Date of Filing: 09-09-2002
|
Date of Upload: 28-03-2011
Development Authority Lucknow Development Authority
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MR. SHAKIL SYED
Respondant Advocate
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2096 OF 2010(Against the Order dated 23/03/2010 in Appeal No. 15/2006 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)1. LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough its Secretary, Pradhikaran Bhawan, Vipin KhandLucknow...
Case Number: 2096
|
Date of Filing: 26-05-2010
|
Date of Upload: 24-03-2011
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MR. HEMANT K. CHAUDHRY & Y.K. TYAGI
Respondant Advocate M/S. ANURADHA & ASSOCIATES
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2509 OF 2010(Against the Order dated 05/05/2010 in Appeal No. 16/10&1187/06 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)1. NAND KISHORE TYAGIShiv Vihar Colony, Behind Damdama Kothi, PS-NagfaniMoradabadUttar ...
Case Number: 2509
|
Date of Filing: 12-07-2010
|
Date of Upload: 23-03-2011
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MR. Y. PRABHAKARA RAO
Respondant Advocate
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2893 OF 2010(Against the Order dated 03/03/2010 in Appeal No. 317/2009 of the State Commission Himachal Pradesh)1. HIMACHAL PRADESH HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY(Through its Chief Executive Off...
Case Number: 2893
|
Date of Filing: 13-08-2010
|
Date of Upload: 23-03-2011
Development Authority Ghaziabad Development Authority
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MRS. REENA SINGH
Respondant Advocate IN PERSON
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1117 OF 2006(Against the Order dated 08/06/2001 in Appeal No. 1/1998 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)1. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYGHAZIABAD UP UP...........Petitioner(s)Versus1. R.P. PUSHKA...
Case Number: 1117
|
Date of Filing: 04-05-2006
|
Date of Upload: 23-03-2011
Development Authority Meerut Development Authority
Court Name: NCDRC
Appelant Advocate MR. ANIS SUHRAWARDY
Respondant Advocate MR. R.B. PANDEY
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4862 OF 2008(Against the Order dated 22/04/2008 in Appeal No. 109/2003 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)1. MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYThrough its Secretary, Vikas Bhawan, Civil LinesMeerutUttar P...
Case Number: 4862
|
Date of Filing: 17-12-2008
|
Date of Upload: 10-03-2011
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.
Question : Am I eligible to file case against Development Authority in Consumer Forum?
Answer : If you have purchased a product or avails any service, either for your personal use or to earn your livelihood by means of self-employment.
Question : When I can fill a complaint against Development Authority ?
Answer : A complaint may be made against Development Authority under the following circumstances:
1 : Loss or damage is caused to the consumer due to unfair or restrictive trade practice.
2 : the article purchased by you is defective.
3 : the services availed of by you suffer from any deficiency.
4 : charged more then MRP
5 : Goods or services, which will be hazardous to life and safety, when used, are being offered for sale to the public.
Question : Is there any exemption from payment of Court Fee?
Answer : The complainants who are Below the Poverty Line shall be entitled for the exemption of payment of fee for complaints upto rupees one lakh on production of an attested copy of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana card.
Question : What are the Reliefs available to Consumers?
Answer : The reliefs available are :
1 : Removal of defects from the goods
2 : Replacement of the goods
3 : Refund of the price paid.
4 : Removal of defects or deficiencies in the services
5 : Award of compensation for the loss or injury suffered;
6 : Discontinue and not to repeat unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice;
7 : To withdraw hazardous goods from being offered for sale;
8 : To cease manufacture of hazardous goods and desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;
9 : If the loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently, to pay such sum (not less than 5% of the value of such defective goods or services provided) which shall be determined by the forum;
10 : To issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement;
11 : To provide adequate costs to parties.