Supreme Court 'People Don't Purchase High-End Luxurious Cars To Suffer Discomfort' : Supreme Court Holds Mercedes Benz Liable For Faults In Vehicles The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granting relief to two companies who had purchased cars from luxury car company Mercedes-Benz for the use of their...
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granting relief to two companies who had purchased cars from luxury car company Mercedes-Benz for the use of their directors. A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal was dealing with appeals arising out of a case of a car developing heating issues and another case of an accident wherein the airbags of the car did not deploy.
Case Title – M/S Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 447
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that vague terms in an insurance contract should be interpreted in favour of the insured party in the event of a dispute.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Santha Kumari
Case Number: F.A. No. 204/2022
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that two separate claim forms cannot be filed by the insured for the same occurrence as they do not change the nature of the occurrence and loss.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. S. P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case Number: F.A.No. 943/2016
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Non-Standard Basis Of Insurance Claim Is Fair If Breach Has Occured From Both Parties: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the justification of an insurance claim on a non-standard basis is deemed fair when breaches have occurred from both parties.
Case Title: Kuljit Kaur Vs. Cholamandlam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd
Case Number: R.P. No. 925/2019
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) held that consumer forums cannot entertain complaints filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Section 126 or action taken under Sections 135-140 of the Electricity Act, 2003
Case Title: Vijay Kumar vs Executive Engineer, Electricity and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 218 of 2018
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh State Commission Holds LIC Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh bench of Mr Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs Sudha Upadhyay (Member) held 'Life Insurance Corporation of India' (LIC) liable for wrongfully repudiating a genuine insurance claim based on the policyholder's failure to avail the accidental coverage after attaining majority by paying an additional amount. It was held that the policyholder passed away before the next due date of the premium instalment and therefore, the repudiation was unjustified.
Case Title: L.I.C. vs Smt. Shanti Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. A/2005/177
Delhi State Commission
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, dismissed a complaint against Oriental Insurance Ltd., citing the presence of a limitation clause. It was further held that consumer complaints are time-barred and need to be filed within two years from the date of the action unless sufficient reasons are present.
Case Title: M/S Dialmaz Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Case Number: C.C. No. 295/2016
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M (Member) held 'Aditya Birla Finance' liable for deficiency in service for charging a late fee for a loan payment despite receiving the full amount and for its failure to close the loan account and provide resolution to the Complainant's grievances.
Case Title: Ganapati Bramha vs The Authorized Signatory, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 234/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) has held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to settle the claim even after one year of the insured's death and nine months after receiving the claim application.
Case Title: Master Naman and Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.
Case Number: CC/565/2023
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc., noting that the Complainant failed to produce evidence such as tax invoice and warranty information.
Case Title: Muhammad Musharaf K vs Apple Inc.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 301/2023
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Union Bank of India liable due to its failure to refund the money wrongfully debited from the complainant's bank account while attempting to withdraw from the bank's ATM.
Case Title: Sri. G. Puttaswamy vs The Manager, Union Bank of India
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 347/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) has held Nykaa liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver the ordered product and only refunding the amount after one month of the order date.
Case Title: Diksha Negi vs Nykaa E-Retail Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: CC/474/2023
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held 'Make O Toothsi Skin Centre' liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices due to its failure to provide adequate service and unnecessary delays in sessions despite receiving full payment.
Case Title: Nidhi Singh vs The Authorized Signatory, Make O Toothsi Skin
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 90/2024
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held 'Nishitha's Developers' liable for deficiency in services for its failure to deliver possession of a flat and complete the sale transaction, despite receiving substantial payment from the buyer.
Case Title: Sri. R. Ramesh Babu vs M/s Nishitha's Developers and Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 77/2023
Ernakulam District Commission
The Ernakulam District Commission presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Whirlpool India liable for deficiency in service due to selling a product with a manufacturing defect and not taking action to rectify the defects upon complaining. However, the Commission dismissed the case against Bismi Connect, citing that dealers are not responsible for manufacturing defects.
Case Title: Raviprasad P.V. Vs. Whirlpool India Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 22/80
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)
Bangalore District Commission Holds Restaurant Liable For Damaging Customer's Car In Valet Parking
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services due to the failure of its staff to drive a car properly for valet parking which resulted in damages to the vehicle.
Case Title: Mr Mukesh M. vs The General Manager, Street 1522
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 32 1/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri DB Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon liable for delivering a defective television and failing to replace it or provide a refund.
Case Title: Aneesh T.U. vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: C.C No. 510/2018