w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi v/s Adv. Shiji Joseph & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L34103DL1981PLC011375

Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

Company & Directors' Information:- SUZUKI (INDIA) LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1982PLC035262

Company & Directors' Information:- JOSEPH AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U01211KL1954PTC000507

Company & Directors' Information:- E R JOSEPH & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U28920WB1955PTC022404

Company & Directors' Information:- B L AND CO NEW DELHI PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1968PTC004910

Company & Directors' Information:- NEW INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U36999TN1940PTC001776

    Revision Petition No. 2350 of 2015

    Decided On, 19 August 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. PREM NARAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR.C. VISWANATH
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: A.K. Thakur, Rishi Raj, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, In person, R2 & R3, K. Maruti Rao, Radha, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Prem Narain, Presiding Member

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Maruti Suzuki India Limited challenging the order dated 30th April 2015 passed in first appeal Nos. 279 and 383 of 2012 by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the State Commission).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 are petitioners herein and complainant and opposite party nos. 1 and 2 are respondents herein.

3. Complainant an advocate by profession, got transferred the booking originally done by one Mr Binu of Maruti Swift Diesel Car by paying Rs.50,000/- in his favour and subsequently, purchased the said car on 29.10.2010 by paying Rs.5,86,094/-. Soon after purchase the vehicle started giving problem of excessive consumption of oil, but the same could not be fixed by the opposite parties despite inspection of the vehicle/ rectification work done on the vehicle. Being aggrieved, complaint was filed before the District Forum.

4. The District Forum directed the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to repair the defect of the vehicle to the full satisfaction of the complainant and to give warranty of one year or 50,000 kms for the engine. The said opposite parties were also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. Time for compliance 30 days failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default.

5. Being aggrieved, the complainant as well as opposite party nos. 2 and 3 filed cross appeals before the State Commission.

6. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 and allowed that of the complainant and directed the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to replace the engine of the vehicle and provide warranty of one year or 50,000 km within two months failing which the complainant would be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. Rest of the order of District Forum was upheld. Cost of Rs.5,000/- was allowed to the complainant for the appeals.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the vehicle had run about 80,000 km in 26 months from the date of purchase. This run is generally covered by a normal vehicle in 7 to 8 years. Thus the vehicle was being run excessively and therefore more consumption of engine oil may be expected. There is nothing unusual about it. This mileage also confirms that there was no manufacturing defect otherwise, the vehicle may not have run about 80,000 km in about 2 years.

8. It was argued that the learned State Commission passed an order of replacement of engine of the vehicle without examining any expert and merely relied upon the witness produced by the complainant PW 2 who was working as mechanic in the Automobile Engine Recondition Unit workshop at Kottayam. By any stretch of imagination, evidence of such person cannot be in any manner be construed as expert evidence and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

9. The learned counsel further stated that it is evident from the vehicle history that as on 29.01.2013, the vehicle has already done a mileage of 79,831 Kms and was still in a road worthy condition. There have been total 18 visits of the vehicle to the service center till 29.01.2013 and from the vehicle history it is evident that on number of occasions, there was no complaint of excessive consumption of engine oil.

10. It was pointed out that the complainant brought the vehicle to the workshop of Indus Motors Co. Pvt. Ltd., (authorized service center of the petitioner) on 21.04.2012 at the mileage of 52,292 for running repairs and on 06.07.2012, 20.12.2012 and 29.01.2013 at the mileage of 59,674, 70,017 and 79,831 respectively for paid service. During the aforesaid visits neither the complaint made any complaint with regard to the engine oil consumption nor dealer noticed any abnormality in the vehicle. The aforesaid fact itself proves that the vehicle was not having any manufacturing defects.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the vehicle has come 18 times to the service station, however, the complaint of excess consumption of engine oil was only reported on 15.12.2010 and the complaint was set right. After this, there was no complaint of excessive consumption of engine oil.

12. It was very vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has sold the vehicle in question in the year 2018 and hence the complainant is not a consumer now. Consequently the revision petition needs to be allowed as the order of the State Commission cannot be implemented presently. Now the respondent complainant does not have any interest in the vehicle and his complaint has become infructuous.

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the vehicle started giving trouble right from the beginning of its purchase and particularly there was increased consumption of the engine oil. Vide letter dated 02.04.2011 the 2nd respondent maintained that there was no defect in the engine. However, the 2nd demanded requested for production of the vehicle for opening the engine of the vehicle. The letter reads “since all the checking methods and diagnostic steps as explained by MSIL have been done we have to do the following procedure also:

1. Bore diameter, roundness and dapperness;

2. Piston ring position and orientation;

3. Oil traces on piston top;

4. Oil traces rear value seals;

5. Oil quantity in the inter cooler

This can be done only by opening the engine; accordingly, we need your approval for the further process. We are requesting the vehicle at your convenience.

The 1st respondent/ complainant was not willing to give the vehicle for opening the engine as it would affect the performance, mileage and life of the vehicle.

14. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant that the District Forum has observed the following:

“so it is very clear from the deposition of Dw1 and Dw2 and Pw1 and the documents show there is a major consumption of oil for the vehicle and there is a major decrease of oil lever of the vehicle within a few kilometers and oil top up has to be done in the vehicle continuously”.

15. It was stated by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant that the above observation of the District Forum confirms that the vehicle was consuming increased oil. In a new vehicle; the increased oil consumption will only mean that the vehicle had a manufacturing defect. The State Commission has rightly relied upon the opinion given by the engineer of the automobile engine recondition unit workshop who is an expert in the functioning of car engines.

16. In respect of the sale of the car, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the car was purchased in the year 2010 and since then the car was giving trouble and in spite of the orders of the fora below, the OPs neither repaired the car nor changed the engine of the car and therefore, out of sheer disappointment, the complainant sold the car in the year 2018 just to get rid of the car which never performed properly. However, the complainant is entitled to get the compensation for the trouble and agony that he has suffered for the past eight years on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. It is wrong to say that the complainant does not have any interest in the car and he is not a consumer. The fact is that his status as consumer is required to be seen at the time of filing of the complaint.

17. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined record. In a sense, both the fora below have given concurrent finding that the vehicle suffered from manufacturing defect. The District Forum ordered repair of the vehicle along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and the cost of litigation as Rs.2000/-. The opposite parties in their appeal before the State Commission have stated that they do not find any defect in the engine and therefore there was no question of repair of the vehicle. Therefore the State Commission ordered the replacement of engine or refund of the price of the vehicle. It is an accepted principle of law that if a component of the vehicle is defective, then the same needs to be changed under the warranty and the whole vehicle is not required to be changed. Thus, clearly the order of the State Commission for refund of the price of the vehicle was not justified. So far as the order relating to replacement of engine is concerned, this seems to be a reasonable order supported by some evidence. There is concurrent finding by the fora below about the defect in the engine and this Commission cannot reassess the fact as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 as under:

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

18. As the complainant has sold his vehicle during the pendency of this revision petition, even if the order of the State Commission is upheld, it is difficult to get it implemented as the engine cannot be changed in the vehicle. We have already found that the order of the State Commission for refund of the price of the car is not sustainab

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

le. In these circumstances, the complainant has to be compensated for the trouble and agony that the complainant has suffered during the ownership of the car which was found to be defective. However, there seems to be some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle has run about 79,000 kilometers within a period of 26 months from the date of its purchase and therefore there may not be a manufacturing defect which will hinder the performance of the vehicle. This fact is to be considered while deciding the compensation. In our view, the ends of justice would meet if the petitioner/ opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to pay a composite compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant in this regard. 19. Based on the above discussion, revision petition No. 2350 of 2015 is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner/OP No.2 and 3 to pay a composite compensation of Rs.75,000/-to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount will attract interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. The orders of the fora below stand modified accordingly.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

06-10-2020 Rikhab Jain Versus M/S. Trackon Couriers Private Limited, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-10-2020 Tarun Kanti Chowdhury & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 M/s. Harihar Buildspace Pvt. Ltd. G-III, Amar Palace, Panchsheel Square, Dhantoli, Nagpur Versus Union of India Through its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Power, Shramshakti Bhavan, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-10-2020 Construction Industry Development Council, New Delhi Versus Arjun Singh & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-10-2020 Bayer New Zealand Limited Versus Ministry For Primary Industries Court of Appeal of New Zealand
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 M. Meenachi Muppidathi Versus The Government of India, Representing by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
01-10-2020 Ujwala Prasad & Others Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by Division Manager & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-09-2020 Lalatendu Nayak & Another Versus Supertech Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Christopher Joseph O'neill Versus Andrew Bridgman & Others Court of Appeal of New Zealand
30-09-2020 M/s. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi Versus Col. B.S. Goraya National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust, Established & Namakkal Represented by Chairman, V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary Cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-09-2020 Rhonpal Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Versus New Delhi Municipal Council & Others High Court of Delhi
23-09-2020 C.M. Gadha & Another Versus Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
21-09-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Versus Shanthamma & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-09-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus M/s. Guptasons Jewellers & Gems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 Tvl. Transtonnelstroy Afcons Joint Venture, Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Chennai Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-09-2020 Advocate Thoufeek Ahamed Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary (Justice), Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
17-09-2020 Katherine Anne Starr Phillips Versus New Zealand Police Court of Appeal of New Zealand
15-09-2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through The Regional Manager, New Delhi Versus Dinesh Vijay National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-09-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager Versus Girija & Another High Court of Karnataka
14-09-2020 Tuticorin Stevedores' Association, Rep.by its Secretary, Tuticorin Versus The Government of India, Rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
14-09-2020 Dr. Varghese Perayil Versus The Election Commission of India, New Delhi, Rep. by Its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 M/s. Unicorn Maritimes (India) Private Limited., Represented by its Director Arul Augustin Joseph Chennai Versus Valency Internation Trading Pvt Limited., Represented by its Director & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Raina Begum Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Comm & Secy. to The Govt. of India, Home Deptt., New Delhi-01, India & Others High Court of Gauhati
09-09-2020 Oriental College of Teacher Education, Represented by Its Manager, Calicut Versus The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 The Dental Council of India, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, New Delhi Versus PSR Lakhmi Bhuvaneshwari Preethi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Karaikudi Versus Rani & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-09-2020 John Joseph, Advocate, Chairman Voters Alliance, Ernakulam Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 Dr. Joseph Freeman Motha & Another Versus Sudha Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
08-09-2020 S. Jagannatha Rao Versus Air India Limited, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-09-2020 Badri Narayan Singh & Another Versus The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Government of India, through the Home Secretary North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
07-09-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Somwati & Others Supreme Court of India
03-09-2020 B. Rajesh & Another Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Hyundai Motor India Ltd., New Delhi Versus Harshad Ramji Chauhan & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
01-09-2020 M/s Elgi Equipments Ltd., Rep.by its company Secretary, S. Raveendar, Coimbatore Versus M/s Kurichi New Town Development Authority Rep.by its Member Secretary, Kurichi, Coimbatore & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-09-2020 Pavai Varam Educational Trust Established and Administering, Paavai College of Pharmacy and Research, Rep. by Chairman V. Natarajan Versus The Pharmacy Council of India, Represented by the Secretary cum Registrar, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-08-2020 New Negendra Lorry Transport Versus M/s. Telangana Foods a Government of Telangana Enterprises & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
31-08-2020 M/s. Omaxe Limited, New Delhi & Another Versus Divya Karun & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 Inter Gold India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-08-2020 M/s Urban Systems Versus The Union of India Rep. By The Secretary To The Govt of India, Min of Finance, Deptt of Revenue Central Board of Indirect Taxes And Customs, North Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
26-08-2020 Karvy Stock Broking Limited, Represented by its Vicepresident (Legal) Ch. Viswanath Versus The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-08-2020 Davinder Nath Sethi & Another Versus M/s. Purearth Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
26-08-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Delhi Versus Maninderjeet Singh Khera National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-08-2020 Gopal Krishna Mishra Versus State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary, Department of Tribal Welfare Development, Mantralaya, New Raipur Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Villupuram Versus J. Manimaran & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-08-2020 Sanjay Nayyar Versus State of NCT Delhi, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Singhla Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-08-2020 R.K. Dawra Versus Union of India, Through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 Dr. Parimal Roy, Working as Director, Indian Council of Agricultural Research NIVEDI Versus The President, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
19-08-2020 V.K. Somarajan Pillai Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Govt. of India, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench
19-08-2020 Babubhai Bhagvanji Tandel Versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
19-08-2020 Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co., Maharashtra Versus New India Insurance Company Ltd., Maharashtra & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-08-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The Union of India, The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
18-08-2020 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Astha Cement Pvt. Ltd. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-08-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chhattisgarh & Another Versus Astu Ram & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
17-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., New Delhi Versus Shailendra Prasad Singh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
14-08-2020 Kasmikoya Biyyammabiyoda & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
14-08-2020 Jollyamma Joseph Versus State of Kerala Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
13-08-2020 Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi & Another Versus State of Bihar & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
12-08-2020 Scott Christian College, Rep.by its Correspondent S. Byju Nizeth Paaul Versus The Member Secretary, All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-08-2020 Abdul Saleem Pattakal & Another Versus The Director General Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
07-08-2020 M/s. B & B Growing, New Delhi & Another Versus Capital Co-Op. Group Housing Society Ltd., Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi Versus M/s. Nalwa Investment Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
07-08-2020 Citibank N.A., New Delhi Versus Deepanshu Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-08-2020 Surender Singh Dahiya, Additional Director, Agriculture Department, Government of Haryana (Panchkula) Versus Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
06-08-2020 Peter & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
06-08-2020 Rajiv Bal Versus Harrison Industries, New Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-08-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd., Divisional Office, Kottayam, Rep. by The Manager Versus O.S. Varghese & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 Union of India, Rep by its Secretary to the Government, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Versus Siva Lakshmi High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-08-2020 M/s. Pioneer Power Ltd, Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Therkukattur Village, Ramanathapuram Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
04-08-2020 Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Capt. Bibhuti Mohan Jha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-08-2020 P. Anil Kumar @ Chempazhanthi Anil & Others Versus The Indian Red Cross Society, Represented by Its Secretary General, National IRCS, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Thru. Manager Versus Dr. Vikas Sethi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 C.R. Mahesh Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Jalgaon Golden Transport Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-07-2020 New Aadinath Plywood & Hardware Through Its Proprietor, Shri Sanjay, M.P. Versus Nandini Photo Studio, M.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-07-2020 N. Madhavan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus Thakar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Manager, Chennai Versus Murugan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Kabilan Manoharan Versus Union of India Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport Bhavan, New Delhi, & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
22-07-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Through Its Authorised Representative), New Delhi Versus Sukhmal Jain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 G. Bhagavat Singh Versus Manoj Joseph & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi Versus Mukesh Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Shoby Joseph & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Superintendent of Police, Crime No. 367 of 2019 of CB, Central Unit-IV, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 G. Suneetha Versus The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
16-07-2020 Jai Joseph Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru High Court of Karnataka
15-07-2020 Manu Joseph Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Another High Court of Kerala