Consumer Case Weekly Round-Up: 18th September 2023 – 23rd September 2023
1. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023 In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the...
1. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023
In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). This notification reveals that the National Consumer Commission and Department of Consumer Affiars have resolved a staggering 854 consumer cases in the month of August 2023 alone, whereas only 455 cases were filed during this period.
2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Removal Of Gall Bladder After Incorrect Diagnosis, NCDRC Orders Delhi Nursing Home, Bhatinda To Pay Rs. 3 Lakhs Compensation
Case Title: Arti vs. Dr. Gagandeep Goyal & 3 Ors.
Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) held a doctor at Delhi Nursing Home, Bathinda liable for negligence when a patient's gall bladder was wrongly removed during laparoscopic surgery without her consent. The National Commission concluded the doctor had acted negligently by failing to diagnose the patient's perforated appendix and neglecting to refer her to a specialist. Consequently, the doctor was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation to the patient, who was incorrectly diagnosed and operated on, resulting in her becoming bedridden.
3. Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Ford India To Compensate Lawyer For Failed Car Booking Taken 3 Weeks Before Closing Operations In India
Case title: Adv. Manu Nair G V Ford India Pvt. Ltd
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kottayam recently ordered Ford India Pvt. Ltd to pay compensation to a lawyer for failure to deliver an EcoSport Titanium car to him, after taking advance booking just 3 weeks prior to cessation of its operations in India. The booking was taken by Ford's authorized dealer at Kottayam, Kairali Ford, unaware of then forthcoming closure of Ford India.
4. Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gujarat State Commission Orders Reliance General Insurance To Pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs To The Insured For Availing Covid-19 Treatment
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Soneshbhai Vashrambhai Patel
Recently, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. J. Mehta (President) and J. G. Mecwan (Member) directed the Reliance General Insurance to pay the complainant Rs 1.5 Lakhs for rejecting the insurance claim on the ground that the 'Covid-positive' report he furnished along with other claim documents, was not from a certified laboratory. While the State Commission acknowledged that the complainant did not precisely follow the technicalities of the insurance policy but he made reasonable efforts to take requisite steps and furnish all evidence.
5. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Recurring Defects In Air Conditioner, Orissa State Commission Holds Godrej, Authorized Service Centre And Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Customer Care, M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Arjun Kumar and others
Recently, the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra (Presiding Member) upheld the Bargarh District Commission’s order holding Godrej, its authorized service centre and its dealer jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service for their failure to remedy the defects in the air conditioner which arose just within 1 month of purchase.
6. Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dispute Requires Police Investigation, Can’t Entertain, Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside District Commission’s Order
Case Title: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Dev Caterers
Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (Judicial Member-II) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) set aside a District Commission’s order against Oriental Bank of Commerce. The State Commission held that the impugned order was illegal and irregular as the District Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain a criminal matter which required thorough investigation by the police officials. Moreover, the transaction between the complainant and Oriental Bank of Commerce was commercial, keeping it outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986.
7. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Shyam Sunder Garg vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) has directed the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO) to pay Rs 30,000 to the complainant for charging extra amount after the booking of the flat property. Further, the bench also noted that arbitration clauses in agreements between consumers and builders did not limit the jurisdiction of consumer forums.
8. Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rotten Cake, Bangalore District Commission Orders Vinayaka Cake Shop To Refund Amount, Pay Compensation & Legal Costs
Case Title: Pooja Shankar vs Vinayaka Cake Shop
Recently, the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held a cake shop liable for selling a black forest cake in a rotten state and unsuitable for consumption to the complainant. The bench noted that the poor quality of the cake caused vomiting and diarrhoea among the guests invited by the Complainant on her son’s birthday.
9. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Excess Charging By OLA Cabs, Chandigarh District Commission Orders To Refund Excess Amount, Pay Compensation
Case Title: Pragati Bhatt vs. OLA Cabs
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held OLA Cabs liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices for overcharging excess fare of Rs 3,101 from the complainant who booked a ride from Jindal University to Chandigarh.
10. III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delivery Of Damaged TV, Bangalore District Commission Holds Cloudtail India For Gross Negligence
Case Title: Sri Shiv Nair vs. Amazon Development Centre and others
Recently, the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., the seller, liable for delivering a damaged Panasonic HD Smart LED TV to the Complainant. The District Commission cleared the manufacturer’s liability after assessing that the damage was caused during the delivery of the TV, which was the responsibility of the seller.
11. Nalgonda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nalgonda District Commission Holds Oriental Insurance Co. Liable For Deficiency Of Service
Case Title: Madla Srinivas Reddy vs. The Manager, Maruthi Suzuki and Anr.
Recently, the Nalgonda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Mamidi Christopher (President), Smt. S. Sandhya Rani (Female Member) and Sri K. Venkateshwarlu (Male Member) held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited wrongfully repudiated the valid claim of the owner of an insurance Maruti Suzuki Ertiga car. The District Commission emphasized the importance of the surveyor report as a substantial piece of evidence and relied on it to provide compensation to the car owner.
12. Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Need For Transparency In Liquor Pricing, Kangra District Commission Orders Sunil Wines Shop To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation, Rs. 10k Litigation Costs
Case Title: Tarun Chaurasia vs Sunil Wine Shop
Recently, the Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a liquor shop owner in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh for charging prices exceeding the Maximum Retail Price on the purchase of beer and whiskey bottles. Further, the bench also recommended to the state government that liquor prices should be prominently displayed in shops to prevent overcharging.
13. Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consequential Diagnosis To Treatment Must Be Reimbursed, Thane District Commission Holds Star Health And Allied Co. Liable
Case Title: Diliprao D Mohite vs. M/s Star Health and Allied Insurance co Ltd
Recently, the Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising V.C. Premchandani (President) and Poonam V. Maharshi (Member) held Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for rejecting the insurance claim filed by the complainant for expenses he incurred during his treatment at Jupiter Lifeline Hospital Ltd. (Thane).
14. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Live Worm Found In Food At Chili’s Restaurant, Chandigarh Commission-I Orders Refund And Compensation
Case Title: Ranjot Kaur vs. Chili's Restaurant, Elante Mall
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) ordered Chili's Restaurant to pay Rs 25,852 to a woman who found a live worm in a dish served at one of their outlets in Elante Mall, Chandigarh
15. Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Undelivered And Stolen Kashmiri Carpets, Central Delhi Commission Orders Akash Ganga Courier Company To Pay Rs. 4.8 Lakhs
Case Title: Tariq Ahmad Dar vs. Akash Ganga Courier Ltd
Recently, the Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Akash Ganga Courier liable for non-delivery of a parcel containing silk Kashmiri carpets worth Rs 6.8 Lakhs. The bench held the courier service liable for deficiency of service and ordered it to pay Rs. 4.8 Lakhs to the complainant for non-delivery of goods.
16. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II
Manufacturing Defect In Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chandigarh Commission Orders To Refund Amount, Pay Compensation And Litigation Cost
Case Title: Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur vs FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) ordered Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) India Automobiles and KAS Cars to refund Rs 61.61 Lakhs and compensation of Rs 65k to the complainant for manufacturing effect in the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
17. Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Forceful Seizure Of Car, Ludhiana Commission Orders Cholamandalam Finance Company To Pay Compensation
Case Title: Raj Kumar vs M/s Cholamangalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd
Recently, the Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, a finance company based in Chennai, liable of using forceful recovery agents for repossession of complainant’s Maruti Swift Desire Car without giving any prior notice. The bench deprecated the practice of using forceful recovery agents for repossession of vehicles and emphasized the need for proper notice.
18. Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Deficiency In Service In Booked Tour Package, Hyderabad Commissions Orders MakeMyTrip To Refund Amount, Pay 25k Compensation
Case Title: Mr. Sriharsha Ks vs M/s MakeMyTrip Private Limited & Another
Lately, the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum-I bench, led by President Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, determined that MakeMyTrip was responsible for insufficiently assisting the complainant and his wife after they encountered an accident while traveling to Manali. The bench observed that MakeMyTrip had a duty to support its customer and ensure the provision of top-notch facilities during the entire trip, which it did not fulfil.
19. Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I
Delay In Returning Property Documents, Hyderabad Commission Order Union Bank To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation
Case Title: Smt. Usha Rani Jaiswal vs Union Bank of India
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) directed the Union Bank of India to pay Rs 1 Lakhs for its failure to return a title deed submitted by complainant as collateral for an educational loan. The bench noted that the complainant had been unable to sell her property for personal needs at a reasonable price due to the non-availability of the original sale deed.
20. Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Failure To Close Account Over 35 Paise Credit Card Debt, Bangalore Commission Orders ICICI Bank To Pay 5k Compensation To Senior Citizen
Case Title: P.V. Ramesh Kumar Son of Late P.V. Jayaram vs The Officer Concerned, ICICI Credit Card Care Officer
Recently, the Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama. K (President) and Chandrashekar. S. Noola (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for causing undue harassment to a 68-year-old senior customer over a meagre 35 paise credit card debt on his closed account. The bank failed to close the customer’s account despite several requests, causing significant distress to the customer.
21. III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Assured Single Room Facility Not Available, Bengaluru Commission Orders Motherhood Hospital To Pay Compensation And Litigation Cost
Case Title: Sri Vaseemuddin. A vs M/s Motherhood Hospital and others
The III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (“Member”) held Motherhood Hospital, Bengaluru liable for providing a twin room service despite the assurance of a single room to the complainant as part of their birthing package. The District Commission opined that there is more privacy in a single room and hence, on failing to provide it, the hospital must compensate the complainants.
22. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Canada PR Visa: Consumer Forum Orders Compensation To Kerala Student 'Cheated' By Immigration Consultancy
Case Title: Ancy K. Alexander v. Parvathy Maya Shaji & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered an immigration consulting agency to compensate a student for cheating the latter in the name of obtaining permanent residency (PR) visa to Canada.The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held the Managing Director and General Manager of Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. liable to refund the 75,000 deposit made by the complainant as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.