National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Builder Cannot Force Buyer To Accept Possession After Significant Delays: NCDRC Holds Sushma Buildtech Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Mahesh Gugnani Vs. M/S. Sushma Buildtech Limited Case Number: F.A. No. 347/2021 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Mahesh Gugnani Vs. M/S. Sushma Buildtech Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 347/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that builders cannot force buyers to accept possession after a significant delay. It was held that the buyer has the right to accept the delayed possession or seek compensation for it.
NCDRC Holds Omaxe Chandigarh Liable For Deficiency In Service For Delay In Possession
Case Title: M/S Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Pawan Kapoor
Case Number: F.A. No. 1845/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that in a builder-buyer case, even if possession was offered, compensation should be calculated from the scheduled date to the date of actual possession, taking into account any legal obstacles or delays in obtaining the occupancy certificate. The Commission held Omaxe Chandigarh liable for deficiency in service due to a delay in handing over possession of the flat booked by the buyer.
Case Title: The Punjab State Federation Of Cooperativehouse Building Societies Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh
Case Number: F.A. No. 4/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that consumer forums cannot arbitrate on pricing disputes since contractual property prices are binding in nature. It was held that pricing disputes come under contractual agreements and not a deficiency of service.
Appellant's Dissatisfaction With Relief Granted Does Not Imply Error In Order: NCDRC
Case Title: Shree Vinayak Co-Op HSG. Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Karwa Developers
Case Number: F.A. No. 521 /2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, held that an order from a lower forum cannot be deemed erroneous solely on the basis of dissatisfaction with the amount of relief granted.
Case Title: Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ms. Anita Dahiya
Case Number: R.P. No. 2691/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that an insurer cannot impose a pension plan on the insured if the plan hadn't been opted for at the maturity of the insurance policy.
Doctors Not Negligent If Accepted Medical Procedure Fails: NCDRC
Case Title: Ruchika Sharma Vs. Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital & Anr
Case Number: R.P. No. 1837/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a doctor cannot be held negligent merely because the result was a failure if the procedure adopted was acceptable to medical science at the time.
Case Title: TDI Infrastructure Vs. Bipin Gupta
Case Number: F.A. No. 1117/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), held that in case of default by the buyer, the forfeiture of the earnest money should be reasonable in nature. It was highlighted that according to set precedents, such forfeiture can only go up to 10% of the basic sale price.
Burden Of Proof To Prove Manufacturing Defect Is On The Complainant: NCDRC
Case Title: Randhir Singh Vs. M/S. Maharaja Auto Wheels (P) Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: R.P. No. 3149-3150/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the burden of proof to prove a manufacturing defect is on the party who makes it. Additionally, it was held that an expert report is required to prove a manufacturing defect.
Case Title: Anirudh Kumar Gupta Vs. Junior Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Distribution Co. & Anr.
Case Number: R.P. No. 2965/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the quantum of compensation should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case and it should also cover physical and emotional suffering.
Insurer's Liability Not Avoided By Driver's Unlicensed Status: NCDRC
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabi Narayan Naik
Case Number: R.P. No. 1907/2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held United India Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the denial of insurance claim citing the driver's unlicensed status. The Commission held that the insurer cannot avoid liability solely because the driver was unlicensed; the insurer must demonstrate that the driver intentionally and knowingly violated the policy conditions.
Case Title: ATS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Ashwani Gautam
Case Number: F.A. No. 755/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that subsequent allottees inherit the rights of the previous allottees. Hence, the builder charging for an open parking space constitutes a deficiency in service.
Case Title: G.S. Pal Pandian Vs. Equitas Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: R.P. No. 277/2011
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that a consumer Fora at any level had no authority to extend the deadline for submitting a written version beyond 45 days.
Case Title: Mahesh Gugnani Vs. M/S. Sushma Buildtech Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 347/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that builders cannot force buyers to accept possession after a significant delay. It was held that the buyer has the right to accept the delayed possession or seek compensation for it.
Failing To Provide Required Service On The Purchased Vehicle Is Deficiency In Service : NCDRC
Case Title: Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Henry D'souza
Case Number: R.P. No. 1614/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Maruti Suzuki liable for deficiency in service and held that failing to service a vehicle properly constitutes a deficiency in service.
Case Title: Sushma Buildtech Ltd. Vs. Aniraj Sharma & Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 197/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that a builder's failure to obtain an occupancy certificate for the property makes him liable for deficiency in service.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bank Of Baroda Vs Mr. Prem Chand Chachra and Ors.
Case Number: First Appeal No. 306/2015
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki(Judicial Member) held that banks, as trustees, have a duty to verify, at every stage, the financial position of the company which issued the debentures. The bench held that as a corporate trustee, the bank must take special care and expertise in protecting and safeguarding the financial interest of the debenture holder after exercising due diligence.
Case Title: Mohan Krishna Anand vs Northern Railway
Case Number: First Appeal No. 106/2022
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Judicial Member) held that the medical beneficiaries of the Railway Hospital fall within the definition of the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The bench held that the Complainant had the Medical Card which was issued to him after paying an amount of Rs. 7950/- and subsequent monthly instalments towards the medical allowance for the past 20 years to avail benefits towards his medical treatment.
Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Raisa X Dias vs The Governor, Reserve Bank of India and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal 36 of 2023
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench of Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) held that banks could be held liable for dishonouring the order of the Banking Ombudsman for resolution of bank-related issues. The State Commission highlighted the pro-consumer intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and remanded the matter back to the District Commission for fresh consideration of the issue based on merit, against the SBI and the RBI.
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ameet V. Mehta
Case Number: First Appeal No. A/19/12
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra bench of Dr Satish A. Munde (Presiding Officer) and V.C. Premchandani (Member) allowed an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. The bench held that the medical claim of the Complainant was settled as per duly agreed policy terms. When a window was provided to the Complainant to review and dispute the policy terms, he did not respond to the communication which indicated a lack of effort on his part.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Anita Kumari
Case No.: First Appeal No. 508 of 2022
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Simarjot Kaur (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company liable for repudiating a genuine death claim based on hyper-technical grounds. The Insurance Company failed to substantiate its claim that the Deceased was suffering from a chronic pre-existing disease and wrongfully repudiated the claim.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Failure To Provide Job-Hunting Assistance, Bangalore District Commission Holds Shine.Com Liable
Case Title: Saurabh Kumar vs The Authorized Signatory, Shine.com
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 73/2024
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K(President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannvar(Member) held Shine.Com liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to provide job-hunting services for which the Complainant paid Rs. 79,751/-.
Case Title: Sri Ishan Patel vs TVS Motor Company Ltd.
Case Number: C.C.No.77/2024
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench of Ramachandra M.S.(President), H. N. Shrinidhi (Member) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held TVS liable for deficiency in services for failing to deliver a helmet and resolve the Complainant's issue within a reasonable time.
Case Title: Mr. Tanuj Pratish Batavia and Anr. vs M/s. Go Airlines (India) Limited
Case Number: CC/87/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of M Shobha (President) and K Anita Shivakumar (Member) held Go Airlines liable for deficiency in services due to the sudden change in flight schedule by the airline and the lack of timely communication, which caused a honeymoon couple to miss pre-booked activities and incur additional costs.
Case Title: Adithi Shetty vs The Manager, Air India
Case Number: CC/293/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore bench of M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for cancelling the Complainant's flight and rebooking her on a different route to the USA, without her consent. Air India also failed to refund the full booking amount for nearly two years after the payment was made.
Bhiwani District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Chander Pati vs Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Anr.
Case Number: 103 of 2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani bench of Saroj Bala Bohr (Presiding Member) and Shashi Kiran Panwar (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to upload the complete information, including land details and Aadhar details at the governmental portal. This resulted in the rejection of the insurance claim filed under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kashish Kulbhushan Soi vs M/s Smaaash Leisure Limited and Anr.
Case Number: 490/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B. M. Sharma (Member) has issued a directive to Smaaash to honour requests for encashing the cashback bonus/points when the customer demands. Smaaash is one of Asia's biggest leisure chains which provides gaming centres, arcades and VR facilities. The bench held that Smaaash was not obligated to provide bowling passes with the remaining balance in the Complainant's gaming card, given the absence of specific T&C.
Case Title: Jaspreet Singh vs 24 Seven
Case Number: 315/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) dismissed a complaint filed against 24 Seven alleging forceful charging for carrying bags. The bench held that 24 Seven gave a clear-cut notice to its consumers who were visiting its premises to buy the goods that they should bring their carry bags for environmental concerns. Additionally, paper bags were provided for free and three different types of merchandise bags were also provided for a cost.
Price More On Website Compared To Hotel Desk, Chandigarh District Commission Holds MakeMyTrip Liable
Case Title: Vishal Gupta vs M/s Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: 293/2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B. M. Sharma (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for unfair trade practices for overcharging for a hotel room in Dwarka, Gujarat. The bench noted that there was a stark difference of Rs. 3800/- between the price charged by MakeMyTrip on its website and the price offered by the hotel at its desk.
Case Title: Prabhjot Singh vs HDFC Bank
Case Number: 8/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu(President) and B. M. Sharma (Member) held HDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for extending the tenure of EMIs of loan availed by the Complainant and reducing the EMI amount without consent of the Complainant.
Case Title: Karnail Singh and Anr. vs the Vistara-TATA SIA Airlines Limited and Ors.
Case Number: CC/598/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Vistara Airlines liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for preventing Complainants from boarding because they failed to submit a self-declaration form and other required documents on the Air Suvidha Portal. The bench held that the airline failed to communicate these requirements to the Complainants and hence, the denial of boarding was unjustified.
Case Title: V.K. Agarwal vs Max Super Speciality Hospital and Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 482 of 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu and B. M. Sharma held Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mohali liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for providing advice for consumption of milk at night, a directive that could pose severe health risks to a patient with Ulcerative Colitis. It was also held liable for charging the patient for the services which weren't rendered by the hospital staff.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Delivery Of Possession, New Delhi District Commission Holds Ansal Landmark Townships Liable
Case Title: Mrs. Sitara Shahin vs M/S Ansal Landmark Townships Private Limited
Case Number: CC/248/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shri Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Ansal Landmark Townships liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession of the booked unit within the designated time.
Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes District Commission
Case Title: Harsh Rathi vs M/s Sparta Gym
Case Number: 1032 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench of Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khuswinder Kaur (Member) held Sparta Gym, Gurugram liable for failure to refund the gym fee collected from the Complainant who did not find the services and facilities at par with the advertisements shown by the gym.
Hamirpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ashok Kumar vs State Bank of India
Case Number: 219/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Sneh Lata (Member) and Joginder Mahajan (Member) held SBI liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to freeze the Complainant's account and adequately investigate unauthorized transactions, which led to a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Case Title: Sahil Sankhyan vs Manager Customer Care, XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: 89/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Sneh Lata (Member) and Joginder Mahajan (Member) held Xiaomi India liable for deficiency in services for not replacing the mobile phone due to manufacturing defects despite the clear entitlement under the warranty provisions.
Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Murli Dhar Rathi vs The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited and Others
Case No.: CC/218/2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (West Bengal) bench of Mr Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President), Mr Dhiraj Kumar Dey (Member) and Mrs Minakshi Chakraborty (Member) held Sahara Credit Cooperative Society liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse the matured deposited amount under a recurring deposit scheme. Sahara Credit had taken deposits with the promise of higher returns but failed to refund the maturity amount despite repeated requests from the Complainant.
Case Title: Pintu Sadhukhan vs Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Case Number: CC/355/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (West Bengal) bench of Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President) and Dhiraj Kumar Dey (Member) held Whirlpool liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair or replace a washing machine with manufacturing defects exhibited within the warranty period.
Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Amit Mahajan and Anr. vs Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 94/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in services due to its unjustified rejection of a genuine claim. The bench held that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim without conducting a proper investigation or obtaining affidavits from treating doctors regarding the pre-existing disease.
Nalgonda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Badavath Chandi vs The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 14 of 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nalgonda (Telangana) bench of Sri Mamidi Christopher (President), Smt. S. Sandhya Rani (Member) and Sri Katepally Venkateshwarlu (Member) held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for repudiating a valid death claim under the Telangana Government's Rythu Bhima Scheme for farmers. LIC failed to accurately verify the deceased farmer's age, leading to repudiation and subsequent hardships to the farmer's family.
Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dharamvir Yadav vs Reliance Retail Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No: 155 of 2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari bench of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Reliance Retail and TTE Technology India Pvt. Ltd alleging manufacturing defect in TV sold to the Complainant. The bench held that merely expressing dissatisfaction does not warrant an order for the return or replacement of the LED TV.
Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: B.I.V. 3D Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: 71/2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Janam Devi (Member) held Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to issue a No-Objection Certificate despite the repayment of a loan taken for financing the purchase of the vehicle.
Case Title: Parav Sharma vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: 76/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr. Baldev Singh (President), Jagdev S. Raitka (Member) and Janam Devi (Member) held Flipkart and E-Kart liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices due to their delivery of a product in a damaged condition and their failure to facilitate its return upon request.
Case Title: Smt. Sunoru Devi and Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Case Number: 235/2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Janam Devi (Member) has held that if the vehicle has been transferred and the insurance policy is in subsistence, the same gets transferred in the name of the new owner. The bench held Reliance General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for rejecting the insurance claim.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Subsequent Price Reduction For 'Maruthi Jimmy', CCI Dismisses Compliant Against Maruti Suzuki
Case Title: Harmit Ahuja vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Case Number: Case No. 43 of 2023
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench of Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member) held that discounts offered by Maruti Suzuki over subsequent car models could not be termed anti-competitive because it devalued the earlier purchases of customers. Further, the information filed by a buyer was held to be a personal pricing dispute, which could not be covered under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.