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.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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.
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.
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.
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.
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-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-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.