National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Builder Can Only Forfeit 10% of Basic Sale Price In Case Of Breach Of Contract: NCDRC Case Title: Mohd. Naiem Khan Vs. M/S. Maliha Realtor Pvt. Ltd The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that the amount forfeited due to a breach of contract should be fair and justifiable....
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Builder Can Only Forfeit 10% of Basic Sale Price In Case Of Breach Of Contract: NCDRC
Case Title: Mohd. Naiem Khan Vs. M/S. Maliha Realtor Pvt. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that the amount forfeited due to a breach of contract should be fair and justifiable. In the instant case, the commission ruled that the builder can only forfeit 10% of the deposited amount and has to refund the remaining balance to the buyer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Appeal Before Higher Forum Must Align With Relief Initially Sought At Lower Forum: NCDRC
Case Title: Devendra Kumar Goel Vs. M/S. Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against Pearl Infrastructure, citing that the relief sought in the appeal differed from the original complaint, rendering it unsustainable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Agent's Role In Insurance Claim Is Limited To Forwarding Claim To Insurer: NCDRC
Case Title: GTFS Multi Services Ltd. Vs. Smt. Pravati Behera
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that an agent's liability in the insurance claim process is confined to the facilitation and forwarding of claims to the insurer. Once this role is fulfilled, they cannot be held liable for any deficiencies or delays in the claim settlement process, which are the insurer's responsibility.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Expert Opinion Or Government Inspection Required To Substantiate Manufacturing Defect Claim: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Emtex Machinery Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. M.I.C Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that as per Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, an expert opinion or government inspection is required to substantiate a manufacturing defect.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer Fora Needs To Adequately Examine A Surveyor's Report To Reject It: NCDRC
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S. Buildmet Fibres Pvt. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya, held that to reject a surveyor's report in an insurance claim, the commission must adequately examine the report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Burden Of Proof On Insurer To Show Applicability Of Exclusion Clause: NCDRC
Case Title: Liberty Videocon General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Uma Bai Dhankar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held Liberty Videocon General Insurance liable for deficiency in service for repudiating an insurance claim citing the presence of an exclusion clause in the agreement. It was held that in case of the presence of an exclusion clause, the burden to prove it lies on the insurer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Revision Petition, NCDRC Can't Interfere With Lower Fora's Order Unless Clear Error In Law: NCDRC
Case Title: Prabu Herbert Samuel (Civil Engineer) Vs. R. Rajammal
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited in scope and cannot interfere with the lower fora's order unless there is a clear error in law or procedure.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reasonable Period To Offer Possession Is Three Years If Not Specified In Agreement: NCDRC
Case Title: Mrs. Nutan Aggarwal Vs. M/S Purearth Infrastructure Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya, held Purearth Infrastructure liable for deficiency in service due to delay in possession of the booked flat, citing a lack of possession date in the agreement.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surveyors Should Adhere To Code Of Conduct And Report Should Not Be Arbitrary: NCDRC
Case Title: Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. M/S. Ujala Plastic & Case Company
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, dismissed an appeal by Universal Sompo General Insurance and held that a surveyor's report for an insurance claim should adhere to the code of conduct and shouldn't be arbitrary in nature.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Handing Over Possession To Third Party Without Buyer's Consent Is Deficiency In Service: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Maya Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.P. Ghosh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held Maya Realtors liable for deficiency in service due to handing over possession of the booked flat to a third party without the buyer's consent.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surveyor's Report Can't Be Rejected Unless Arbitrary: NCDRC
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shree Sai Laxmi Poultry Feeds & Anr
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya, allowed an appeal by United India Insurance and held that the surveyor's report in an insurance cannot be rejected unless proved to be arbitrary and unreasonable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ankur Arora Vs. Jaypee Sports International Limited & Anr
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya, held that multiple complaints against the same party, with their total claim surpassing Rs. 1 crore, are legal and within the National Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Branch Manager Cholamandalam M. S. General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Minati Dei
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, allowed an appeal by Cholamandalam General Insurance and held that the lower fora cannot decide on a party being ex parte before the expiration of the limitation period of 45 days given to the party to file the written statement.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surveyor Assessments Should Adhere To Insurance Act's Code Of Conduct: NCDRC
Case Title: S.P. Singh Yadav Vs. National Insurance Company
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held National Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service due to denial of an insurance claim based on a surveyor's arbitrary report. It was held further held that surveyor's report should be in line with the insurance act's code of conduct.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Paras Hospital Vs. Rishi Kumar Jain
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, in a petition filed by Paras Hospital, held that a medical professional is not liable simply because of an error in judgment if the chosen treatment was reasonable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kailash Tower Co-Op Housing Society Ltd Vs. M/S. Jaycee Homes & Hotels Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya, in a case against Jaycee Homes, held that the execution of a conveyance deed to the buyer is mandatory under section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act of 1963.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shyam Kumar Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Bharti Airtel liable for deficiency in service due to issuing duplicate SIM which caused monetary loss to the complaint. The commission also held that the District Forum has jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the opposite party resides, conducts business, or where the cause of action arises based on the complainant's convenience.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Not Every Death In Hospital Indicates Medical Negligence Unless Proven Otherwise: NCDRC
Case Title: Hridaylal Sahu Vs. Dr. Roshan Upadhyay & Anr
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that not every death occurring in a hospital setting can automatically be considered medical negligence based on an assumption of inadequate medical care. It was further held that in order to prove medical negligence, concrete evidence has to be provided.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Purpose Of Purchase, Not Value Determines Consumer Status: NCDRC
Case Title: Range Gowda Vs. M/S. Fire Tech Bakery Equipments
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that it's the intended purpose, not the value of the goods bought, that identifies a buyer as a consumer.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: M/S TDI Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Mr. Ram Adhar & Anr.
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, held that the ownership of multiple houses does not inherently demonstrate commercial intent. It was further held that the responsibility to prove that a purchase was made for commercial purposes lies with the builder, necessitating the presentation of documentary evidence.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Ms. Sumita Saxena Vs. M/S Ansal HI- Tech Township Ltd.
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (member), dismissed a complaint against Ansal Township, citing it to be time-barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It further held that the failure to deliver possession constitutes an ongoing issue, permitting complaints until the point where possession is denied.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Mr. Sharang Jindal Vs. M/S Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and J.P. Agrawal, held Asootech Moonshine Developers liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over possession citing force Majure clause. Furthermore, it was held that the developer needs to provide substantiating evidence to show that Force Majeure conditions caused the delay.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramashray Bhakta
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Ms. Pinki and Ms. Bimla Kumari, held that an adult of sound mind is generally bound by their signature on a document, even if they didn't read or understand it, unless they were deceived.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Ms. Pratima Saini Vs. M/S Omaxe Ltd.
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra and Ms. Pinki (member), held Omaxe Ltd. liable for deficiency in service due to a delay in delivering possession of the flat to the buyer. It was further held that merely owning multiple properties does not necessarily indicate a commercial purpose on the buyer's part.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited and Others vs Janardan Pandey and Others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating genuine death claim under the Personal Accident Life Insurance Scheme (PAIS) facilitated by the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank.
Delhi State Commission
Consumer Fora Possesses Discretionary Powers To Award Compensation: Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Mr. Madan Lal Vashist Vs. Mr. Ajit Saxena
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki (Member), held that the consumer fora have the discretion to decide on compensation to ensure fairness and encourage better service practices.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench, West Bengal
Case Title: The Branch Manager, Canara Bank vs Abanindra Barma and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench, West Bengal bench comprising Mr Kundan Kumar Kumai (Presiding Member) and Mr Swapan Kumar Das (Member) allowed an appeal filed by Canara Bank based on lack of deficiency in service on its part while acting as the financer for the Complainant's motorcycle which was stolen. The State Commission observed that the Complainant's claim was against the Insurance Company which repudiated his claim and Canara Bank could not be held liable for such disputes.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
Case Title: Gopal Verma vs HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited and Others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Ms Gita Verma (Member) and Md Shamim Akhtar (Member) held HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim based on non-filing of an FIR for the insured's accidental death. The bench held that the absence of an FIR did not undermine the validity of other documents which confirmed the cause of death. Therefore, the repudiation was held to be wrongful.
Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Sanjeev Parashar Vs. M/S M2K Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Ms. Pinki and Ms. Bimla Kumari, held M2K Infrastructure liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over the possession of the flat to the buyer. The commission held that a buyer cannot be compelled to take possession of the property after significant delays and has the right to request a refund along with compensation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
Case Title: North Bihar Power Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs Kartik Prasad Gupta
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Gita Verma (Judicial Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) held that consumer forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, do not have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against assessments made under Section 126 (assessments for unauthorized use of electricity) or actions taken under Sections 135-140 (electricity theft and other offences) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa
Case Title: Total Securities Pvt. Limited and Others vs New Pachisia and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R Bale (President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) held Total Securities Pvt. Ltd., a real estate company, liable for presenting arbitrary bills to the Complainants for maintenance without providing breakdown of expenses and other necessary details.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
Case Title: Ram Rati vs Manager / General Manager, Jan Awas Project and Connected matter
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) the Manager of Jan Awas Project liable for unfair trade practices for forfeiting the full pre-deposit amount due to the Complainants' inability to make the full payment for the flat. It was held that as per the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the manager had the authority to only forfeit the booking amount.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Raj Kumar Malik vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held that auction participants are not consumers under the Consumer Protection Act as they bid with full awareness of the site's conditions and amenities available, and thus cannot later dispute payment terms or allege consumer grievances against the auctioning authority.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly (West Bengal)
Case Title: Chandra Sekhar Das Chakladar vs Branch Manager, Canara bank
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly (West Bengal) bench of Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President) and Babita Choudhuri (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency in services and negligence for debiting a 'cheque return fee' three times without returning the cheque to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Ileni Prabhakar Reddy vs M/s Srei Equipment Finance Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of Sri M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President) and Sri Narayan Reddy (Member) held Srei Equipment Finance Limited liable for failure to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' even after the Complainant fulfilled his loan repayment obligations. The bench held that the insolvency proceedings against Srei Equipment did not bar the jurisdiction of the District Commission as the Complainant did not sue the company in the capacity of a creditor or a stakeholder.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-VIII, Central Delhi
Case Title: Shri Vasu Product P. Ltd. vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-VIII, Central Delhi bench of Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Rashmi Bansal (Member) dismissed a complaint against New India Assurance Company due to lack of documentary evidence in favour of the claim amount submitted by the insured.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)
Case Title: N. Sujatha V.L. vs SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Dr Gudla Tanuja(President) and Rahimunnisa Begum (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for issuing a credit card without the account holder's consent, which subsequently led to unjustified charges, wrongful deductions, and illegal collection of amounts.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab)
Case Title: Harmanjit Singh vs M/s Vodafone Mobile Services Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) bench of Sanjeev Batra (President), Shivani Bhargava (Member) and Manjit Singh Bhinder (Member) held Vodafone liable for deficiency in services for its failure to provide International Roaming services to the Complainant during his visits to the USA and Germany, despite the Complainant having paid for the services.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane (Maharashtra)
Case Title: Amritpal Singh Khalsa vs Amazon.in and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane (Maharashtra) bench of Dr. Richa Bansod (President), B.B. Rasal (Member) and H.M. Badgujar (Member) held Amazon, its delivery executive, the seller, and FedEx Trade Networks Transport & Brokerage liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the product or refund the money to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
Case Title: Jancy Biju Varghese vs Reliance General Insurance and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held Reliance General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service due to its failure to demonstrate proper disclosure of the exclusion clause to the insured and subsequent repudiation of the claim based on the exclusion clause pertaining to a pre-existing disease.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: Tamilselvan vs The Manager, OLA Electric Mobility Private Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu) bench of K. Ganesan(President), J. Ravindran (Member) and R. Vijaya (Member) held OLA Experience Centre in Tiruvannamalai liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver OLA Electric Scooter despite receiving full payment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: P.M Joshi Vs Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of D.B Binu (President), Ramachandran(Member) and Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held Kotak Mahindra Prime liable for deficiency in services for failing to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) despite the Complainant fully repaying the entire loan, including interest.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra)
Case Title: Mr Abdul Rashid Momin vs IndusInd Bank and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench of P.G. Kadu(President), S. A. Petkar (Member) and G. M. Kapse (Member) held IndusInd Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to communicate the conditions of holding a secondary credit card and explain why it was not eligible for EMI payments.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Ashish Soni vs Spice Retail Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench of Poonam Chaudhry (President), Shekhar Chandra (Member) and Bariq Ahmad (Member) held Apple India Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide proper after-sales services and repair the iPhone within a reasonable period.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
Case Title: Mr Sandeep S. Kadam and Anr. vs RAO IIT Academy
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench of Samindara R. Surve (President), Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Sameer S. Kamble (Member) held Rao IIT Academy liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the fee for its advance course even after the student withdrew his admission after attending just 2-3 classes.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (Kerala)
Case Title: Abijith V vs United Breweries Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (Kerala) bench of Vinay Menon (President) and Krishnankutty N.K. (Member) held United Breweries Limited, the manufacturer of Kingfisher beer, liable for deficiency in services for selling Kingfisher beer which had a piece of glass inside it.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (Kerala)
Case Title: Shafeek Paravath vs Ola Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram (Kerala) bench of Mohandasan K (President), Mohamed Ismayil (Member) and Preethi Sivaraman (Member) held Ola and its dealer liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to deliver the electric scooter as promised which led the Complainant to cancel the booking.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala
Case Title: Suraj Prakash Jindal and Anr. vs IDFC First Bank and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala bench of Neena Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held IDFC First Bank liable for deficiency in services for delaying the resolution for more than a year, concerning a dispute regarding payment of foreclosure charges.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna (Maharashtra)
Case Title: Vilas vs The Manager, Bank of Maharashtra
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna (Maharashtra) bench of Smt. Aparna Hemant Kate (President), Shri Uday Dattu Dalvi (Member) and Shri Santosh Changdeo Nikule (Member) held the Bank of Maharashtra liable for failure to adhere to guidelines issued by the RBI and the NPCI regarding reversal of money wrongfully deducted in failed transactions and failure to adequately investigate the discrepancy.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-V, Northwest Delhi
Case Title: Sushma Dang vs HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-V, Northwest Delhi bench of Sanjay Kumar (President), Nipur Chandra (Member) and Rajesh (Member) held HDFC Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine claim based on the non-disclosure of the Complainant's previous history of ileocecal TB without obtaining an independent medical opinion.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Malappuram (Kerala)
Case Title: Bineesh A vs Amazon India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Malappuram (Kerala) bench of Mohandasan K (President), Mohamed Ismayil (Member) and Preethi Sivaraman (Member) held Amazon and Appario Retail liable for deficiency in services for their failure to issue a refund despite receiving the returned product from the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
Case Title: Ankush Sharma vs General Manager, Maruti Suzuki India Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), with Purender Vaidya (President) and Manjula (Member), dismissed a consumer complaint against Maruti Suzuki and its Service Center. The bench observed that the defects in the Complainant's car were caused by water ingress due to his own negligence, which was not covered under the warranty.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-V, Northwest Delhi
Case Title: Rajender vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-V, Northwest Delhi bench of Sanjay Kumar (President), Nipur Chandra (Member) and Rajesh (Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for its failure to disburse the full insurance amount for a genuine medical claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (Kerala)
Case Title: Baiju. P vs My G and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (Kerala) bench of P.C. Paulachen (President) and Priya(Member) held MyG Digital, LG Service Centre and LG Electronics India liable for deficiency in services for withholding the Complainant's television which was sent to the service centre for repairs for an unreasonably long time.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna (Maharashtra)
Case Title: Amol vs PVK Vehicles
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalna (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Aparna Hemant Kate (President), Shri Uday Dattu Dalvi (Member) and Shri Santosh Changdeo Nikule (Member) held PKV vehicles, a dealer, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to register the vehicle despite multiple requests made by the buyer. The bench held that as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, non-registration of the vehicle restricted the Complainant from driving it.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Amit Gautam vs TATA AIG General Health Insurance Company Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu and B. M. Sharma held the insured cannot be harassed by the insurance company by demanding unnecessary documents which are not in their possession. The bench held TATA AIG General Health Insurance Company Ltd liable for unjustly and unlawfully repudiating a claim made under the policy.
Ernakulam District Commission
Case Title: Saneesh M.S. Vs. Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Ltd.
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Star Health & Allied Insurance liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It was held that coverage clauses should be interpreted broadly, and any ambiguities should be settled in favor of the insured.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-VIII, Central Delhi
Case Title: Rajender Kumar & Anr. vs Earth Infrastructures Ltd.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-VIII, Central Delhi bench of Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Rashmi Bansal (Member) held Earth Infrastructures Limited liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the possession of the flat despite receiving due consideration.
Ernakulam District Commission
Case Title: Anilkumar TS Menon Vs. Managing Director, DTDC Corporate Office
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held DTDC liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to delivering a consignment to the wrong address and refusing relief, citing the presence of a liability clause.
Ernakulam District Commission
Case Title: V.M. Philip Vs. State Bank of India
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that a customer is responsible for losses caused by their negligence, like sharing payment credentials, until they report the unauthorized transaction to the bank, after which the bank is responsible for subsequent losses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala (Punjab)
Case Title: Kuldeep vs Havells India Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala (Punjab) bench of Naranjan Singh Gill (President) and Urmila Kumari (Member) held Havells and its retailer liable for deficiency in service for failure to repair an air conditioner despite it being under warranty.