National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)Not Having Valid Fitness Certificate For Vehicle Is Ground For Insurance Claim Repudiation: NCDRCCase Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amandeep Singh The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that if a transport vehicle lacks a certificate of fitness, it shall not...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amandeep Singh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that if a transport vehicle lacks a certificate of fitness, it shall not be considered validly registered under the law, providing the insurer with a valid basis to repudiate the insurance claim.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M/S. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurudarshan Singh & Anr
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that builders cannot demand interest from the buyer if the project is already delayed beyond the agreed-upon time. The Commission held the builder liable for deficiency in service for charging interest from the buyer upon an already delayed project.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Patient's Death : NCDRC Holds Max Super Speciality Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence
Case Title: Max Super Speciality Hospital Vs. Sham Singh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held Max Super Speciality Hospital liable for deficiency in service due to negligently attributing to the death of a patient. It was further held that to prove legal liability, it must be demonstrated that the doctor failed to meet the standard of care reasonably expected of a competent medical professional in that field and that this failure directly caused harm or injury to the patient.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Delay In Delivery Of Flat, Continuing Grounds For Legal Action: NCDRC Holds Emaar MGF Land Liable
Case Title: M/S. Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs. Surinder Kumar Punchhi
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the failure to deliver possession of a flat on the agreed timeline does not constitute a one-time breach but rather an ongoing violation that continues with each passing day. As such, it represents a continuing cause of action that allows the buyer to pursue legal remedies until the possession is finally handed over.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Bank of India Vs. Dr. Mahesh Kumar
Introducing Additional Document During Revision Stage Permitted If Material In Nature: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the introduction of additional documents during the revision stage is permitted if the said documents are material in nature.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Jai Dev Vs. M/S Aryan Travel Point
State Commission's Unilateral Alteration Of District Forum Order Is A Material Irregularity: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the State Commission cannot suggestively alter a District Forum's well-reasoned order unilaterally without the complainant's consent.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd vs Amit Chhokra
Collecting Transfer Charges From Subsequent Purchaser Constitutes As Deficiency In Service: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a developer requiring the buyer to pay transfer charges for a property where the developer no longer has any interest constitutes an unfair trade practice.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the act of being entitled to plot allotment under government policies, rather than engaging in transactions for personal goods or services, falls outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, the related disputes do not qualify as a deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M/S. Nandi Builders & Developers Vs. Saraswathamma
Arbitration Clause In Buyer's Agreement Does Not Bar Jurisdiction Of Consumer Fora: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the Consumer Protection Act is supplementary to the existing legislations and the presence of an arbitration clause in a buyer's agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Sevantilal J. Parekh Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Failure To Disclose Material Illness Violation Of Utmost Good Faith: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shekhar, dismissed an appeal against United India Insurance and held that the insurer has no liability if the insured fails to disclose a material fact relevant to the insurer's risk assessment.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Abhoy Kumar Bandyopadhyay Vs. M/S Elita Garden Vista Project Ltd.
No Interest Can Accure On Refusal Of Compensation Offered On Time: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that no interest can be applied to the compensation if it was offered within the stipulated time frame and subsequently refused by the other party.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M/S. W.M.W. Metal Metal Fabrics Ltd.& Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, dismissed a complaint against Oriental Insurance and held that proper procedures should be followed in case of a policy transfer. It was concluded that, in the instant case, the policy was not properly transferred, and the complainant lacked insurable interest at the time of the accident.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Smt. Amita Singh vs State Bank of India and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (“State Commission”) bench of Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held that automatic deduction of the premium amount by the intermediary bank does not make a binding insurance contract between the insurer and the insured. The bench dismissed an appeal filed against the New India Assurance Co. by holding that there existed no renewed insurance contract at the time of the loss and the Insurance Company refunded the premium which was automatically deducted by the bank.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh
Case Title: Head Claims, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs Smt. Sumitra Yadav
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh bench of Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Varma (Member) held that the insured must disclose material facts in the proposal form while availing an insurance policy. The bench allowed an appeal filed by SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which repudiated a death claim based on non-disclosure of chronic alcoholism.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana
Case Title: The Branch Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sanjeet and Ors.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of S.C. Kaushik (Member) held Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for dismissing a genuine claim based on non-disclosure of a pre-existing renal disease. The bench held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the reason of death was due to that pre-existing disease. Therefore, it wrongfully repudiated the claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
Case Title: Anil Kumar TS vs Myntra Designs Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve the issue with the Complainant's credit points within the promised deadline.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi
Case Title: Shashi Vatan vs Vijaya Bank
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi bench of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Harshali Kaur (Member) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held Vijaya Bank liable for deficiency in service and breach of trust for disclosing the Complainant's bank statements to her husband. The bench noted that there was a strained relationship between the Complainant and her husband and even a spouse cannot view the statement without the consent of the account holder.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Smita Bajaj vs Air India and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench of Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) has held Air India liable for deficiency in services for significant inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to the cancellation of a flight and the subsequent loss of baggage.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala
Case Title: Sanjeev N.R. vs Bharat Benz and Anr.
Thrissur District Commission Holds Daimler India, Its Dealer Liable For Unfair Trade Practice
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S.(Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Daimler India and its dealer, Autobahn Trucking, liable for failure to give specific instructions to the Complainant for maintaining the vehicle's minimum 'AdBlue' for its proper functioning.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
Case Title: Amrutha K.A. vs Beenu Balakrishnan
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Cynosure Institute liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to refund the Complainant's fee paid for English class, despite promising a 100% refund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
Case Title: D Ramesan vs M/s Kerala Matrimony
Consumer Court Holds Matrimony Site Liable For Not Helping Man Find Bride; Orders 25K Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ernakulam bench of D.B Binu (President), Ramachandran V(Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Kerala Matrimony liable for deficiency in services for failure to facilitate the finding of a match for the Complainant's wedding. The bench directed the company to refund Rs. 4,100/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs.