1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)Breach Of Mandatory BIS Regulations: NCDRC Dismisses Appeal Against CCPA Order By Cloudtail India Case Title: Cloudtail India Private Limited vs Central Consumer Protection Authority The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed an appeal filed by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (Cloudtail) against the...
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Breach Of Mandatory BIS Regulations: NCDRC Dismisses Appeal Against CCPA Order By Cloudtail India
Case Title: Cloudtail India Private Limited vs Central Consumer Protection Authority
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed an appeal filed by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. (Cloudtail) against the order issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA). The CCPA's order pertained to Cloudtail’s infringement of consumer rights by selling domestic pressure cookers to consumers in breach of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) regulations.
2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd & Anr. vs. Sanjay Ghosh
The NCDRC presided by President Dr. Inder Jit Singh dismissed the Revision Petition filed by IndusInd Bank Ltd. (Bank) against Sanjay Ghosh (Complainant) and upheld the State Commission order holding that the Bank had acted in total violation of the instructions contained in the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers formulated by Reserve Bank of India.
The Revision Petition was filed by the Bank against the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order which had upheld the Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order.
3. Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs Sh. Sushil Kumar
Recently, the bench of the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consisting of Justice D.S. Tripathi (President) and Udai Singh Tolia (Member II), overturned an ex parte decision made by the District Commission (Dehradun) against KLM Airlines. The District Commission had ordered KLM Airlines to pay Rs 9.2 Lakhs in compensation to the complainant, despite the airline not submitting a written statement. The bench emphasized the significance of ensuring equitable treatment and upholding due process in legal proceedings. Additionally, it highlighted the principle of natural justice, which mandates that the commission hears arguments from both sides before reaching a verdict.
4. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Nupur Gupta vs. Vatika Sovereign Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission consisting of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), and Mr. J.P. Agarwal (Member) allowed the complaint filed against Vatika Sovereign Pvt. Ltd. (Construction Firm) for deficiency in service as it failed to complete the construction of the Apartment and handover possession to the Complainant.
5. Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Regional Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Kunwar Singh Dev
Recently, the Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Justice D.S. Tripathi (Member) and Udai Singh Tolia (Member -II) ruled that vehicle owner will not be entitled to compensation for the vehicle damaged in a road accident in the mountains in absence of hill endorsement in the driver's driving licence. Further, the bench noted that this endorsement was crucial in regions characterized by varied and challenging terrain, such as the hilly landscapes of Uttarakhand.
6. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Thiruvananthapuram)
Case Title: G.M. Anna Aluminium vs Sunil Kumar
Recently, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Thiruvananthapuram) bench comprising of Justice Sri K Surendra Mohan (President), Ajith Kumar (Judicial Member) and Radhakrishnan (Member) held a manufacturer of chili powder liable for selling chili powder packets with substantial weight deficits. Further, the bench noted that the customers generally rely on the packet labelled weight and are unlikely to suspect the genuineness of the weight displayed.
7. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: S. Venugopal vs. Aquatic Club
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission consisting of Justice Sri. K. Surendra Mohan (President), Sri Ajith Kumar D (Judicial Member) and Smt. Beena Kumari A. (Member) allowed a complaint against Aquatic Club in Kerala. The complaint revolves around the tragic death of the complainant's 22-year-old son, Abhijith, who drowned in the club’s swimming pool. While observing that the swimming pool facility was dangerous and no actual lifeguard was present, the commission found the Aquatic Club liable for deficiency in services and ruled that the drowning of the deceased in the swimming pool was a direct consequence of the negligence on their part.
8. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak
Medak Commission Orders Taxila Business School To Refund Rs 50k And Pay Rs 15k In Compensation
Case Title: D.N. Srikanth Verma vs Taxila Business School
Recently, the Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of P. Kasthuri (President), Gajjala Venkateswarlu (Member) and Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) directed Taxila Business School to refund Rs 50k and pay Rs 15k as compensation and litigation cost to a student who wasn’t unable to join the college within the stipulated time frame due to unforeseen major knee surgery. The college management was held liable for gross negligence and irresponsible conduct for deliberately delaying the refund process thereby causing hardship to the concerned student.
9. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Divya Bhola vs. Religare Health Insurance Company Limited. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) allowed the complaint against Religare Health Insurance Company Limited (Insurance Company) and dismissed the complaint against Alchemist Hospital (Hospital).
The Commission held the Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service by observing that unilateral policy terms should not be imposed on gullible trusting consumers who pay substantial premiums but at the time of compensation, the Insurance Company evades responsibility by using such one-sided clauses.
10. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad
Case Title: K.P. Abbas vs Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad bench comprising Mr Vinay Menon (President), Mrs Vidya A (Member) and Mr Krishnankutty N.K (Member) absolved Indane, the subsidiary of Indian Oil Corporation and its distributer, Matha Indane, of liability arising from a consumer complaint against faulty refilling of an LPG cylinder which led to the explosion of the residential premises of the complainant. The bench perused the evidence and found that the complainant failed to establish the cause of explosion.
11. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur
Case Title: Mohinder Singh vs National Insurance Company Limited
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held National Insurance Company Limited liable (“Insurance Company”) for paying the insurance amount of a motorcycle insured by the complainant along with litigation costs. Previously, the insurance company wrongfully rejected the complainant’s valid claim on the basis that the motorcycle was sold to another person and hence, the complainant/new owner no longer had a valid claim. The District Commission held that the insurance company failed to show that the motorcycle was sold and even the registration certificate remained to be registered under the name of the complainant.
12. Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, New Delhi
Case Title: Yogesh Saigal vs Thomas Cook (India) Pvt. Ltd
In a case involving the tragic car accident that occurred in Sri Lanka in 2019, the Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, New Delhi bench comprising of Monika Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and U.K. Tyagi (Member) has awarded Rs 50 lakh in damages to a man who tragically lost his wife, son, and father-in-law in the accident. The Delhi Commission ruled that two private travel and tour companies, Thomas Cook and Red Apple Travel Pvt. Ltd., were negligent and deficient in their services, leading to the fatal accident.
13. District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], Delhi
Case Title: Snehpal Singh vs Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Recently, the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], Delhi bench comprising Mr. Inder Jeet Singh (President), Mrs. Shahina (Member) and Mr. Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences liable for unfair trade practices for not refunding the fee submitted by a student who was dissatisfied by the classes and service provided by the coaching institute. The District Commission reiterated that charging lumpsum payment of fee in advance unjustly benefits these institutions, while also obligating the student to avail the entire course even if the quality is subpar and deficient.
14. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi
Case Title: Shri Sudhir vs Registrar, Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) reiterated that educational institutions are not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. On this premise, the complaint, against Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University (commonly known as IP University) for not initiating refund of counselling fee, was dismissed.
15. Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. Amarbir Singh vs Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd
Recently, the Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President) and Jaswinder Singh (Member) held that if there is any deficiency in service by the dealer/service provider or authorized centre regarding vehicle repairs, the manufacturer cannot be held accountable for such deficiencies. Further, it is the dealer’s and the authorized service provider’s responsibility to uphold the warranty agreements and provide service without undue charges during the warranty period.
16. Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III
Case Title: G. Thimma Reddy vs Sai Veda Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench comprising of Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member) and J. Shyamala (Member) imposed punitive damages on M/s Sai Veda Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. for operating unregistered chits and for violating provision of Chit Fund Act, 1982. The bench noted that company's actions amounted to unfair trade practices by operating unregistered chits, which not only constituted a deficiency in services but also violated regulations.
17. Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I
Case Title: Lakkireddy Lokesh Reddy vs the Operations Manager, Chichas Asli Hyderabad
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission – I bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) ruled against Chicha’s Asli Hyderabad, a well-known restaurant, for overcharging customers on pre-packaged goods. The bench found that the charging the products above the MRP, not only constitutes an unfair trade practice but also violates the amended Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, that prohibited dual MRP.
18. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
Case Title: Suresh Kumar vs Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Trackon Courier Private Limited liable for deficiency in service owing to misplacing the courier of the complainant which contained medicines, clothes and books. The District Commission held that Trackon Courier not only failed to deliver the consignment, but also failed to maintain effective communication at the time of grievances raised by the complainant. Further, it failed to substantiate that the T&C for compensation were communicated to the complainant at the time of entering into the agreement
19. Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I
Case Title: Rajender Khanna vs Zoom Cars India Private Limited
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and R. Narayan Reddy (Member) fined Zoom Car India Private Limited of Rs. 15,228 for failing to deliver a self-drive rental car on time to a customer. The order came in response to a complaint filed against the car rental service provider for deficient service and unfair trade practices.
20. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional
Case Title: Mr. Navin Jagdish Kankre vs. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional consisting of Mr. Ravindra P. Nagre (President) and Mr. S.V. Kalal (Member) allowed the complaint filed against Royal Sundaram General Insurance (Insurance Company).
It held that the action of the Insurance Company in causing unreasonable delay and rejecting the claim constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
21. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Amit Sharma vs Air Asia Airlines
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) dismissed a complaint filed against Air Asia Airlines and Make My Trip for refund of ticket money after the cancellation of the flight. The bench dismissed the complainant noting that the refund had been processed prior to the filing of the complaint renders the complainant ineligible to maintain the status of a consumer with a valid grievance.
22. Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Deepak Vasudeva Rao vs Apple India Private Limited.
Recently, the Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Devaraju (President) and V. Anuradha (Member) declined to give any relief to an iPhone 11 customer whose iPhone’s touch screen became unresponsive following the iOS 16 update as its warranty had expired. The bench noted that iPhone 11 was no longer eligible for free diagnosis and repairing due to the expired warranty.
23. Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III
Case Title: Sri. D.V. Manohar vs M/s. Go Airlines (India) Limited
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench comprising of M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member) and J. Shyamala (Member) noted that an airline cannot exempt itself from refund of tickets in cases of force majeure events that led to cancellation of flight. The bench directed Go Airlines to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and reimburse additional flight charges totalling Rs. 13,956 to a passenger whose flight to the Maldives was abruptly cancelled just a week before the scheduled departure.