1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Fresh Period Of Limitation Runs At Every Moment During A Continuing Breach, NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition Filed By Taneja Developers Case Title: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shilpa Mehtani The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Mr Binoy Kumar...
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shilpa Mehtani
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited on preliminary grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and period of limitation. The NCDRC noted that 7 years had passed after the State Commission’s order and remanding the matter back due to a technical error would not serve the ends of justice. Further, the NCDRC held that in case of a “continuing breach”, the period of limitation runs at every moment. Hence, the complaint was held to be filed within the period of limitation as even though the last payment was made 5 years ago by the Complainant, the allotment was not done till the date of the complaint.
2. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. termed such tactics, which pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them, as 'restricted trade practice',
3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Case Title: Shekhar Detha vs Zomato Ltd. Co. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member) held Zomato liable for the incorrect delivery of non-vegetarian food items to the complainant while he ordered vegetarian food items, causing him and his family mental and physical distress and hurting their religious sentiments. The bench noted that Zomato, as a commercial entity and facilitator, cannot escape its responsibilities and ordered it to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant as compensation.
4. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sri C. Achuth vs The Secretary Chief Executive Office State Government and others
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held the Secretary of State Government SC/ST/Backward & Minority Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the residential site even after 9 years of the payment to the complainant.
5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Adwait Haldar vs. M/S Magma HDI Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.
The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar allowed a consumer complaint against an insurance company. The consumer’s claim was based on the allegation that his E-Rickshaw was stolen, and his insurance claim was wrongly rejected by the insurance company (Opposite Party). According to the complainant, he had a valid insurance policy and the theft occurred under distressing circumstances, where he was left unconscious by thieves after being intoxicated. He faced delays in reporting the incident to the insurance company and in filing a police report due to circumstances beyond his control.
6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Hira Lal vs Tata Motors Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Shri Purender Vaidya (President), Shri Yashwant Singh (Member) and Ms. Manchali (Member), found Tata Motors Limited and its authorized dealer responsible for failing to provide the car with the advertised mileage. They were held accountable for engaging in unfair trade practices and were directed to refund the car's purchase price, compensate the complainant, and cover the legal costs.
7. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: K. Venkatasubbaiah vs Manager, State Bank of India
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K. (President), Sri Chandrashekar S. Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held SBI liable for an unauthorized fraudulent transaction from the complainant’s bank account. The District Commission cited a circular issued by the RBI which exempts customers from liability for unauthorized electronic banking transactions.
8. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Lakshmy T Iyengar vs Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited and others
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Sri B. Devaraju (Member) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member), found Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited responsible for persistently requesting premium payments from the Complainant, even though the insurance company itself had made errors by entering the incorrect account number on multiple occasions.
9. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)
Case Title: Anitha Raj and Anr. vs Bharathi Airtel Ltd and Anr.
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President) and Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Bharathi Airtel Limited liable for excessively charging two of their customers who bought an international roaming pack. The District Commission held that there was a lack of clarity regarding the charges and further, Airtel did not follow TRAI guidelines which required the operator to inform customers through SMS/USSD messages upon reaching 70% of the credit limit, among other things.
10. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Rabinder Kumar vs Harman International and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Shri Narayan Thakur (Member) held Consulting Rooms Private Limited (Online Seller) and Harman International Private Limited (Manufacturer) liable for selling a defective JBL Bluetooth Soundbar and Subwoofer. The District Commission ordered them to jointly and severally refund Rs. 8,999/- purchase amount, pay Rs. 4,000/- compensation and pay litigation costs amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.
11. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar vs HDFC Bank Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, Haryana bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held HDFC Bank Limited and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for their failure to provide compensation to a farmer who had suffered losses in his insured crops. Along with disbursing the insurance amount, HDFC Bank and the insurance company were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the farmer.