Supreme Court BMW Car Damage: Supreme Court Refuses Claim For Replacement; Says Insured Can't Claim Anything More Than Insurance Policy Coverage Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Mukul Aggarwal, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1544 OF 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000 The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) reiterated that an insured cannot claim anything more...
Supreme Court
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Mukul Aggarwal, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1544 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) reiterated that an insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The Court also said the terms of an insurance policy, which determine the liability of the insurance company, must be read strictly. Referring to the recent ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, the Apex Court said that the rule of contra proferentem would not be applicable to a commercial contract like a contract of insurance. This rule says that if any clause in the contract is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party that introduced it. However, for a contract of insurance, this would not apply since an insurance contract is bilateral and mutually agreed upon, like any other commercial contract, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed.
Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & ors. V. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. The quashed Rule prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora. The High Court was of the view that the Rule diluted the involvement of the judiciary in the selection process. The High Court also set aside the appointments to the Consumer Fora made by the Maharashtra Government, however stayed the operation of the judgment for four weeks from October 20.
Party Not Entitled To Seek Relief That Has Not Been Prayed For: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court, while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for. A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which it was held that there was a delay in delivering the consignment of the complainant and that they were entitled to compensation.
Airlines Bound by Time Schedule Promised By Its Travel Agent: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court held that an authority is bound by the promise held by its agent under the Indian Contract Act. The Apex Court held so in the context of a consumer dispute, where Kuwait Airways, through its agent, Dagga Air Agents, had fixed a schedule of 7 days for delivery of certain goods. The Court held that the Airline was liable to pay the complainant damages for delay in delivering the consignment.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Clinic Nallam and Anr. vs A. Helen Victoria and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudipahluwalia (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) upheld the order of the Puducherry State Commission which held Clinic Nallam (Puducherry) and its doctor liable for negligence and deficiency in service. They were held liable for leaving a 'nut and bolt' inside the patient's abdomen while performing surgery. As a result, the NCDRC ordered them to pay Rs. 13,77,000/- in total to cover the patient's expenses, hardships, and legal costs.
Case Title: Jaypee Greens vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as member recently allowed a consumer appeal. The dispute was between a homebuyer (Respondent) and a real estate company called "Jaypee Greens" (Appellant). The respondent had booked a flat in a housing project and alleged that the company delayed the possession of the flat, demanded additional charges, and canceled the allotment. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favor of the homebuyer, directing Jaypee Greens to refund the amount paid by the consumer with 18% interest, along with compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhupender Gahlawat
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sadhna Shaker (Member), dismissed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company challenging the order of the Goa State Commission. The NCDRC dismissed the Insurance Company's objections concerning the classification of the property, which the company referred to as a 'temporary shack' rather than a 'restaurant.' The bench ruled that such objections cannot be brought up at a later stage, when the entire structure was burned down in a fire.
Contributory Deficiency, NCDRC Reduces Compensation
Case Title: M/S. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. vs North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench led by Mr Justice A.P. Sahi (President) modified the order passed by the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh in favour of the North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) which alleged deficiency in service on part of M/s Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. for causing a delay in their developmental project. The NCDRC observed that the deficiency and negligence could not be entirely attributed to Intec Infonet and the State Commission erred in assessing the delay period and wrongfully imposed a higher compensation amount.
Case Title: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shilpa Mehtani
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited on preliminary grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and period of limitation. The NCDRC noted that 7 years had passed after the State Commission's order and remanding the matter back due to a technical error would not serve the ends of justice. Further, the NCDRC held that in case of a “continuing breach”, the period of limitation runs at every moment. Hence, the complaint was held to be filed within the period of limitation as even though the last payment was made 5 years ago by the Complainant, the allotment was not done till the date of the complaint.
Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shanthi KalaiArasan vs. M/s. Miot Hospitals
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed a significant complaint filed against MIOT Hospital, alleging negligence and service deficiency on their part. According to the complaint the hospital failed to anticipate and manage flooding during the rainy season despite warnings from government agencies. This negligence resulted in a power outage where critical life support systems, including ventilators in the Medical ICU located in the basement, failed during the flood. This led to the deaths of 18 patients, including the complainant's husband. While allowing the complaint, Justice R. Subbiah held the hospital liable for administrative negligence which contributed to the deaths of the patients. Consequently, the Commission directed the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant along with an additional cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.
Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Smt. Buragadda Sridevi
The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. C.V.S. Bhaskaram (Woman Member) and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Member), allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. This appeal contested the ruling of the District Commission, Machilipatnam (A.P.), which held the Insurance Company liable for payment and compensation despite the policy not being in the complainant's name at the time of the accident. The State Commission restated the principle that an individual is not entitled to claim damages for a vehicle when the insurance policy has not been transferred into their name.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mizoram
Mizoram State Commission Orders LPG Gas Distributors To Follow Guidelines
Case Title: Shri Thanglura vs All Gas Distributors of Mizoram and others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mizoram bench comprising Dr. Lalthansangi (Interim President), Lalhmingmawia (Member), Sanny Tochhong (Member) and C. Lalrinkima (Member) directed the LPG gas distributors in Mizoram to carry fair trade practice by implementing the LPG Marketing Discipline Guidelines fully and by establishing an online 'booking and delivery' system for consumers. The concerns were raised by Mizoram Consumers' Union, a non-profit voluntary organization which approached the State Commission regarding the poor implementation of the Direct Benefit Transfer-LPG Scheme (“DBTL”) by gas distributors and RGGLV distributors in Mizoram.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
Case Title: Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Dn and Anr. vs Premnath Singh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) held the Postal Office, Rohtas liable for delaying the admission application by 19 days due to which the Complainant's son could not get admission in JNU, Delhi. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies and the liability exemption clause under the Indian Post Office Act does not have an overriding effect to restrict Consumer Commissions from awarding compensation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising, U.T. Chandigarh
Case: Dr. Ajay Sood vs Bank of India
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Rajesh Arya (Member) directed Bank of India to pay Rs. 6 Lakhs to an NRI who had an account in the bank which resulted in a fraud of Rs 1.33 Crore rupees. Although the State Commission didn't hold the bank liable of the fraud but it noted that the bank failed to follow the RBI circulars regarding preventive measures against cheque-related fraud cases.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab
Case Title: Kuldip Kumar vs Food Corporation of India through the Divisional Manager and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench comprising Mr H.P.S. Mahal (Presiding Judicial Member) and Mrs Kiran Sibal (Member) held the Food Corporation of India's Jalandhar divisional office and Punjab regional office liable for deficiency in service for delaying the disbursement of the medical health scheme claim. The State Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant, who was a retired government employee of the Food Corporation of India.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Naresh Verma vs Singh Brothers (Shoe Palace)
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr R.K. Verma (Member), dismissed an appeal filed for the enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Shimla District Commission. The appellant cited inflation rates and number of hearings as a reason for such enhancement. The State Commission observed that the delay caused due to COVID-19 restrictions and the vacancy of the position of President cannot be attributed to the respondent. The State Commission found the District Commission's award as fair and just.
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Dinesh Kumar Tak vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench, headed by Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member), addressed a complaint related to an accident where the automatic airbags of Maruti Suzuki Brezza failed to deploy. The bench acknowledged the significance of collision details, such as force and side-impact, in determining whether the airbags should have been activated. Consequently, the Consumer Commission was deemed unsuitable for cases requiring in-depth evidence, and the complainant was granted the option to pursue the matter in a civil court.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. termed such tactics, which pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them, as 'restricted trade practice',
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case: Ms. Sangeetha Bohra vs IKEA India Private Limited
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held IKEA India liable for deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice for charging extra Rs. 20 for a carry bag and directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,020/- to the complainant.
Ernakulam (Kerala) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Dr Thirumeny M.J. vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) presided over by DB Binu (President), Ramachandran V. (Member), and Sreevidhia TN (Member), found Samsung India responsible for deficiency in service. The District Commission pointed out a common practice with manufacturing companies. These companies often attract customers with ads, but then neglect their responsibility to provide necessary spare parts and consumables. This neglect affects the proper functioning of the product over its expected lifespan, causing a significant impact on consumer rights.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Case Title: Shekhar Detha vs Zomato Ltd. Co. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member) held Zomato liable for the incorrect delivery of non-vegetarian food items to the complainant while he ordered vegetarian food items, causing him and his family mental and physical distress and hurting their religious sentiments. The bench noted that Zomato, as a commercial entity and facilitator, cannot escape its responsibilities and ordered it to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant as compensation.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI
Case: Mahesh Singh Rana vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI (Delhi) bench comprising Poonam Chaudhary (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in service for not ensuring security measures in their ATM which subsequently led to a loss of Rs 40,000/- to the Complainant.
Northeast Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Karun Kumar vs Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) dismissed a complaint against Sony India noting that although the mobile phone was under the warranty, the water damage caused by rain was not covered by the company's terms and conditions of the warranty. Further, the bench noted that the complainant himself admitted that the mobile handset was damaged due to water exposure during a rain accident.
Gurgaon (Haryana) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gurgaon District Commission Orders Bridgestone India To Replace Tyres, Pay Compensation
Case Title: Kailash Kumar Sawalka vs Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd is liable for manufacturing sub-par quality tyres which wore out prematurely, thereby, leading to significant damage and posing a safety risk to the car owner. The tyre manufacturer was directed to replace the types and compensate the car owner for mental harassment and litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Chennai (Tamil Nadu)
Case: K. Balakesari vs Holiday4U
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Chennai (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising of B. Jijaa (President), TR Shivakumar (Member) and S. Nandagopalan (Member) held Holiday4U liable for unfair trade practices for not refunding the full money to a senior citizen after his 8-night package tour to South Africa was cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic. The bench noted that Holiday4U only refunded only Rs 25,000/- of the total money of Rs 3,00,000/- paid by the complainant, thereby making it liable for unfair trade practice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Captain K.K. Nair & Anr. v. M/S Holyfaith Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam on Monday ordered the construction company, M/S Holyfaith Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., to pay compensation to a Naval Captain who lost his housing following the demolition of Holyfaith H2O apartments in Maradu, in pursuance of the Apex Court decision. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. has directed the company to pay an amount of Rs. 23,12,000/- to the complainant, apart from the compensation ordered by the Supreme Court at the time of demolition.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: Sunandha v. Proprietor, Inner Shoppe
In a significant decision, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thrissur invoked Section 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct an inner wear garment shop to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Legal Benefit Fund (LBF) maintained at Registry of the Commission, towards reparation for the loss and injury inflicted on a large number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Shajin P.V. vs Vodafone Idea Ltd
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mrs. Ravi Susha with Mrs. Moly Kutty Mathew and Mr. Sajeesh K.P as members, has allowed a consumer complaint against Vodafone Idea Ltd. The dispute was regarding a prepaid recharge made by a consumer. The consumer had purchased a recharge plan for Rs. 479/-, with the expectation of receiving 2GB of data daily for 56 days, based on a promotional offer. However, the actual data provided was only 1.5GB per day, falling short of the promised amount. Despite the consumer's efforts to resolve the issue, Vodafone did not take any action.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Panipat Commission Holds Axis Bank Liable For Delaying Release Of Fixed Deposit After Maturity Date
Case Title: M/s Siddharth Wollen Mills vs Axis Bank
The Panipat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Dr. RK Dogra (President) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member) held Axis Bank liable of deficiency of service for not releasing the Fixed Deposit of Rs 1.4 Lacs to the complainant, even after the maturity date.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla
Case Title: Nek Ram Pal vs. Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. and 2 others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member), and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member), dismissed a consumer complaint on account of it involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating. The District Commission held that a consumer commission is unsuited for such matters as they cannot be resolved summarily. The complainant was advised to pursue the matter in a competent civil court instead.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Saurabh Sinha vs Chairman, Railway Board and other
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Railway Board and Northern Railway liable for deficiency in service due to which the complainant could not seek a refund for an un-confirmed train ticket.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Anil Kumar vs The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Mr Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company liable for repudiating a genuine insurance claim made by the owner of the missing truck. While holding that a claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of delay, the District Commission ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company to disburse the insurance amount of Rs. 11,000,00, pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Bharat Kalta vs Amazon India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) held Amazon India liable for failure to deliver a 6-seater dining set worth Rs. 17,108/-. Amazon not only failed to deliver the dining set but also failed to process the refund. Along with ordering Amazon to refund the sale amount, the District Commission ordered it to give Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Surender Hohan Khanna vs Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital and Ayurveda Research Institute and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi comprising Ms. Monika A Srivastava (President), Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member) and Sh. U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute liable for failure to disclose the amount approved by the third-party health insurance administrator. The District Commission also ordered New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs. 24,329 to the complainant, which represented the difference between the initial approval and the actual claim amount.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: K.R. Prasad v. M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation to a policy holder whose claim under the 'Corona Rakshak Policy' was rejected by M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance on the ground that the policy holder had not provided treatment records for bronchial asthma.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sri C. Achuth vs The Secretary Chief Executive Office State Government and others
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held the Secretary of State Government SC/ST/Backward & Minority Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the residential site even after 9 years of the payment to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Adwait Haldar vs. M/S Magma HDI Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.
The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar allowed a consumer complaint against an insurance company. The consumer's claim was based on the allegation that his E-Rickshaw was stolen, and his insurance claim was wrongly rejected by the insurance company (Opposite Party). According to the complainant, he had a valid insurance policy and the theft occurred under distressing circumstances, where he was left unconscious by thieves after being intoxicated. He faced delays in reporting the incident to the insurance company and in filing a police report due to circumstances beyond his control.
Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Maddikunta Kistaiah vs Akhil Jonnadula, Aj Photography
The Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (President) along with Sri. Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) partly allowed a consumer complaint against a photographer for failing to deliver photographs and videos from a grandchild's first birthday celebration. For this the complainant paid Rs. 57,000/- to the photographer. This led to significant distress for the complainant, who lost out on the treasured memories of the special event due to the non-delivery of the promised album and videos.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Hira Lal vs Tata Motors Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Shri Purender Vaidya (President), Shri Yashwant Singh (Member) and Ms. Manchali (Member), found Tata Motors Limited and its authorized dealer responsible for failing to provide the car with the advertised mileage. They were held accountable for engaging in unfair trade practices and were directed to refund the car's purchase price, compensate the complainant, and cover the legal costs.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: K. Venkatasubbaiah vs Manager, State Bank of India
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K. (President), Sri Chandrashekar S. Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held SBI liable for an unauthorized fraudulent transaction from the complainant's bank account. The District Commission cited a circular issued by the RBI which exempts customers from liability for unauthorized electronic banking transactions.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III
Case Title: Mr. Ganji Kailash Chander vs. MakeMyTrip & Ors.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench presided by Sri. M. Ram Gopal Reddy along with Smt. J. Shyamala (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in Service for failing to refund a significant amount to a complainant. The complainant booked four flight tickets through MakeMyTrip for a trip to the USA, but due to COVID-19, the flights got canceled. Despite numerous requests, MakeMyTrip delayed refunding the amount to the complainant's wallet, which remained unresolved from 2020 onwards. The Commission found that this delay in refunding the amount to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. As a result, the Commission directed MakeMyTrip to refund the entire amount along with interest, compensation, and legal costs.
Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sarita Chaudhary vs Allen Career Institute
The Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Sri B. Devaraju (Member) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) ordered Allen Carrer Institute to refund the balance fee to a student who secured admission in a foreign university after paying the full coaching fee. The bench acknowledged the T&C of the refund policy however, they deemed the student's case as a 'special circumstance' and granted refund.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Lakshmy T Iyengar vs Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited and others
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Sri B. Devaraju (Member) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member), found Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited responsible for persistently requesting premium payments from the Complainant, even though the insurance company itself had made errors by entering the incorrect account number on multiple occasions.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
Case Title: Anitha Raj and Anr. vs Bharathi Airtel Ltd and Anr.
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President) and Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Bharathi Airtel Limited liable for excessively charging two of their customers who bought an international roaming pack. The District Commission held that there was a lack of clarity regarding the charges and further, Airtel did not follow TRAI guidelines which required the operator to inform customers through SMS/USSD messages upon reaching 70% of the credit limit, among other things.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Uppala Rajeev Babu vs Paytm Hyderabad & Ors.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed a consumer complaint against Paytm and Dominos directing them to compensate the complainant jointly. The complaint was regarding a Domino's gift card that the complainant purchased through Paytm but faced difficulty redeeming it for a food purchase. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, no effective solution was provided. The bench comprising of Sri Vakkanti Narsimha Rao (President) along with Sri P.V.T.R. Jawahar Babu (Member) and Smt. D. Sridevi (Member) found that despite notices and legal action taken, both companies failed to respond or rectify the problem, indicating negligence and a deficiency in service. As a result, the Commission held the companies liable, directing them to reimburse the cost of the gift card and pay compensation for the inconvenience caused.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Rubi Rani and others and HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating the claim made by the wife, as the nominee, of her deceased husband, who died in a road accident. The bench rejected the Insurance Company's contention regarding the influence of alcohol on the husband during the accident while terming it 'irrelevant' to the factual scenario.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Rabinder Kumar vs Harman International and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Shri Narayan Thakur (Member) held Consulting Rooms Private Limited (Online Seller) and Harman International Private Limited (Manufacturer) liable for selling a defective JBL Bluetooth Soundbar and Subwoofer. The District Commission ordered them to jointly and severally refund Rs. 8,999/- purchase amount, pay Rs. 4,000/- compensation and pay litigation costs amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Harjit Singh vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Toyota Kirloskar Motor and its authorized dealer, EM Pee Motors Limited, liable of deficiency in service for selling a car which with noise and excessive oil consumption issues. The manufacturer and the dealer were ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant for the harassment he faced with the newly bought car.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case: Gurbax Rai vs Daikin Air and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer, Akshoka Enterprises, Mohali, liable for selling a defective AC unit with inadequate cooling issues and for their subsequent failure to replace it even during the warranty period. They were directed to refund the billed amount, pay Rs. 7,000/- compensation and Rs. 7,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar vs HDFC Bank Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, Haryana bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held HDFC Bank Limited and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for their failure to provide compensation to a farmer who had suffered losses in his insured crops. Along with disbursing the insurance amount, HDFC Bank and the insurance company were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the farmer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case: Dr Surya Prakash vs Flipkart Pvt. Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held that complaints involving allegations of fraud, forgery, etc., cannot be entertained by Consumer Commissions and fall within the jurisdiction of a civil court. Thus, it dismissed the complaint filed by a consumer alleging fraud on the part of Flipkart, Sony India, and an online seller.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Shruti Garg vs Fire Boltt and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Fire Boltt and its Distributor, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable for their failure to replace defective headphones, well within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to jointly replace the headphones, and pay Rs. 1,000/- compensation and Rs. 1,000 legal costs.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka)
Case Title: Manish Bagi vs The Infinity Retail Limited Tading as Croma and others.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Sanjeev Kulkarni (President) and Sri Girish S. Patil (Member) held Xiaomi India's M.I. Customer Head Office and Grievance Officer along with the dealer, Infinity Retail Limited liable for selling a defective T.V. to the Complainant. The Complainant's grievances remained unaddressed after several attempts and the manufacturer and the dealer failed to even respond to his legal notice, which constituted a deficiency in service.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II
Case Title: Shaik Abdul Khader vs. Hyderabad Metro Rail
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II bench presided by Sri. Vakkanti Narsimha Rao along with Sri. P.V.T.R. Jawahar Babu (Member) and Smt. D. Sridevi (Member) recently allowed a consumer complaint against Hyderabad Metro Rail for incorrect direction signs at Malakpet Metro Station. The complaint alleged that these signs led the commuter (Complainant) in the wrong direction, causing inconvenience and a safety risk. Despite admitting fault, the metro authority didn't rectify the signs promptly. As a result, the Commission held Hyderabad Metro Rail liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, directing them to change the signs and pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for inconvenience, along with Rs. 1000/- as legal costs.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Prabhaker Rao Athri Pathri vs. EZEESHOP18
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Mrs. B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) allowed a consumer complaint against EZEESHOP18 for delivering reading glasses that did not match their advertised description. Despite promises of intelligent, photochromic, and multifocal lenses, the glasses turned out to be of standard quality. Consequently, the Commission found that the seller was liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, directing them to refund the purchase amount of Rs. 1,199/- and pay an additional Rs. 2,000/- as compensation, along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Abhishek vs Harpreet Kaur
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench led by Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) held a coaching teacher liable for failure to provide adequate coaching services, as promised, to a student preparing for the IELTS examination. The teacher was ordered to refund the fee paid by the student for availing the service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab)
Case: Surjit Singh vs Punjab Gramin Bank and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab) bench comprising Lalit Mohan Dogra (President) and Bhagwan Singh Matharu (Member) held Punjab Gramin Bank and Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The Bank and the Insurance Company failed to process the cheque for Rs. 46,645 in favour of the Complainant, which was due post the maturing of the insurance policy, as per the agreement.
Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shri Jagan Nath vs BHIM APP
The Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sh. Purender Vaidya as president and Ms. Pooja Gupta as member, allowed a consumer complaint against BHIM APP. The issue was related to a failed transaction of ₹20,000/- from the complainant's State Bank of India (SBI) account to Punjab National Bank (PNB) through BHIM APP. The commission observed that while the initial transfer failed due to technical issues with PNB's system, a subsequent attempt showed that the amount was deducted from consumer's SBI account but not credited to the PNB account. They concluded that BHIM APP (Opposite party No.1), responsible for the transaction, was liable for not ensuring the completion of the transaction. As a result, the commission held BHIM APP (Opposite Party No.1) liable for deficiency in service. BHIM App was directed to refund ₹20,000/- with 6% interest from the date of complaint, along with compensation of ₹5,000/- for mental distress and ₹3,000/- litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi
Case Title: Sameer Varma vs Kia Motors India and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Monika A Srivastava (President), Ms Kiran Kaushal (Member) and Shri U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Kia Motors India and its authorized dealer, Frontier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for their failure to resolve the car's rusting problem and discolouration. The bench rejected the contention that the discolouration was due to rising pollution levels and other external factors. It held Kia Motors and its dealer responsible for its maintenance, in the warranty period.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Neelam Sharma and Anr. vs IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and S. K. Sardana (Member) noted that the deceased driver of the insured car should be considered as effectively stepping into the shoes of the owner while operating the vehicle, therefore, is entitled to Personal Accident Cover benefit under the insurance policy.
Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Suburban Additional
Case Title: Shri Dhaval Lalit Ajmera vs. Renaissance Mumbai Convention Centre Hotel & Lakeside Chalet, Marriott Group
The Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Suburban Additional, presided by Mr. Ravindra P. Nagre along with Mr. S.V. Kalal as member, partly allowed a consumer complaint against Renaissance Mumbai Convention Centre Hotel & Lakeside Chalet for shifting a room reservation on the day of check-in without informing the complainant, causing mental agony and trauma to him and his family. Consequently, the Commission held the hotel liable for a deficiency in their services and unfair trade practices, ordering a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
Hyderabad District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissio
Case Title: Sri. Joseph Fernandez vs. Fortune99 Homes
The Hyderabad District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, led by Mrs. B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), along with Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr. B. Raja Reddy (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Fortune99 Homes for failing to deliver the possession of the purchased plots as agreed upon. The complainant paid 75% of the total amount for two plots in NCS Fortune Medi City. Despite this, the company didn't secure necessary approvals or register the plots. While acknowledging the company's failure to deliver possession as per the agreement, the Commission held Fortune99 Homes liable for deficient services, directing them to refund the entire paid amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- with 9% interest along with Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs.
Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Gurtej Singh vs. Hotel International
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora along with Smt. Suman Khanna as member, held Hotel International (Opposite Party) liable for deficient services as they charged extra GST on bottled drinks above their printed price, causing inconvenience to the customer. The commission partially allowed the consumer complaint and directed the hotel to refund the excess GST of Rs.3.25/- along with interest and pay Rs.3000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant.
Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Armaan Bakshi vs. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
The Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra along with Sh. Bhagwan Singh Matharu as member, allowed a consumer complaint against Flipkart India holding them liable for deficiency in services for delivering an empty package. The consumer ordered a backpack but received an empty package, missing the purchased item and essential documents. Despite multiple refund requests, Flipkart failed to provide a refund. Even though Flipkart claimed to be an intermediary platform, the commission held them accountable for receiving payment and thus responsible for the product's delivery. As a result, they ordered Flipkart to refund Rs.3,149/- along with 9% interest, compensate Rs.1,000/- for mental distress, and cover litigation costs.
Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nike Shoe Sole Puncture, Shimla Consumer Commission Orders Refund And Compensation
Case Title: Nek Ram Shyam vs. Nike Showroom
The Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising of Dr. Baldev Singh as president and Mr. Jagdev Singh Raitka as member allowed a complaint against a Nike Showroom. The contention was that the shoes purchased from the showroom had a manufacturing defect causing the sole to puncture within three months, falling within the warranty period. Despite the consumer's efforts to address the issue and claim the warranty, the showroom refused to offer any assistance. The Commission allowed the complaint, holding the Nike showroom (Opposite Party) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the Commission directed the showroom to refund the purchase amount of Rs.17,595/- to the complainant. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. Further, if necessary, the showroom had to collect the faulty product at its own expense.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: KVS Appa Rao and Anr. vs General Manager, South Central Railway
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Sri Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President) and Smt. D. Sreedevi (Member) held South Central Railway liable for negligence which resulted in great inconvenience (suffocation) to the passengers of AC 3 compartment in the Garib Rath train (12739) going from Vishakhapatnam to Secunderabad. The railway authority was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and pay Rs. 5,000 legal costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Selling A Book Above MRP, Hyderabad Commission Holds Amazon And Its Seller Liable
Case Title: Kethavath Naresh vs Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakhsmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member) held Amazon and its seller, Saraswati Book House liable for selling a book over the price of its MRP. The District Commission emphasized the liability of intermediary platforms to ensure that their sellers adhere to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020.
Alipurduar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in West Bengal
Case Title: Suman Nandi vs. Prem Gurung
The Alipurduar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in West Bengal allowed a consumer complaint filed by a customer who faced problems with a “tour operator”. The complainant paid Rs. 4,000/- for a car service but did not receive it on reaching the destination. Despite attempts to contact the operator, there was no response, so the complainant had to hire another vehicle for Rs. 35,000/-. The District Commission, presided by Shri Santanu Misra along with Mr. Rajib Das and Mrs. Smt. Giti Basak Agarwala, found the tour operator responsible for deficiency in their services and directed them to refund Rs. 1,500/-, along with an extra payment of Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for the distress caused.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Somashekara Reddy K V vs The Manager Hypermarket India Pvt. Ltd.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Sparmax Hypermarket Store, Yelaharika, Bangalore liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Store prohibited the concerned customer from bringing his carry bag, charged Rs. 22 for its carry bag and failed to waive off parking fee even though the customer was eligible for the offer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Siriki Sai Sumanth vs Alliance Air Aviation Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Rajareddy (Member) held MakeMyTrip and Alliance Air Aviation liable for deficiency in service for their failure to inform the Complainant regarding flight change schedule on time. Further, Alliance Air failed to provide the web check-in link to the Complainant. Both MakeMyTrip and Alliance Air were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- each.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Vishnu S. S. vs Flipkart
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Flipkart liable for cancelling the Complainant's order two times due to unforeseen circumstances and for failing to refund the deducted amount. Flipkart was directed to refund the purchase price of the product, pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.
Cooch Behar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sri Ashok Das vs. Senior Vice President, Amazon.In, Amazon India
The Cooch Behar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mrs. Rumpa Mandal along with Mr. Subhas Chandra Guin as member allowed a consumer complaint against Amazon India. The dispute was regarding a purchase made through Amazon for 30 items of Daffodils Mosquito Bug Bird Net Transparent White Barriers by the complainants. Despite payment of Rs. 17,970/- in advance, only one item was delivered, prompting cancellation and return of the order. Upon cancellation and return of the order following the prescribed procedure, the complainants did not receive the refund of the prepaid amount.
East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sandeep Sharma vs BSES
The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed a consumer complaint against BSES (Electricity Provider) regarding an unauthorized disconnection of electricity from two meters at a Delhi residence. The complainant, residing at premises with both commercial and domestic meters faced a power cut after receiving bills not in his name. BSES disconnected the electricity without allowing the complainant to address the outstanding bills first. The Consumer Commission presided by Mr. Sukhvir Singh Malhotra along with Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Bansal as members, recognized the complainant as a consumer for the domestic meter but not for the commercial one. They directed the restoration of electricity for the domestic meter and granted Rs. 5000/- compensation for service deficiency, while dismissing relief for the commercial meter.