Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 12th to 18th August 2024

Sufficient Cause Needs To Be Given To Condone Delay: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, held that a consumer complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24A of the act, and sufficient reason needs to be given for the condonation of the said delay.

Case Title: Shri. Devulapalli Venkate Swara Rao Vs. Pochambavi China Janga Reddy

Case Number: F.A. No. 136/2024

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Proving Sufficient Cause Does Not Automatically Entitle Condonation Of Delay: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, in a revision petition filed by the Tehsildar Taluk Office with a delay of 349 days, held that even if a sufficient cause is presented, the decision to grant a condonation for the delay is still at the Court's discretion.

Case Title: Tahsildar Taluk Office Vs. M. Selvam

Case Number: R.P. No. 2790/2023

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Insurance Policy Voidable If Presence Of Suppression Of Facts In Proposal Form: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the presence of suppression of facts in the proposal form renders an insurance policy voidable at the option of the insurer.

Case Title: Isnaka Devasenamma Vs. M/S. Max Life Insurance Company Limited

Case Number: F.A. No. 664/2022

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Builder Bound To Deliver Facilities As Promised In Advertisement: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, held that according to judicial precedents, a builder is under obligation to deliver the facilities to the buyers as promised in the brochure.

Case Title: Nitin Agarwal Vs. M/S The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

Case Number: C.C. No. 344/2013

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Cooperative Society Should Be Considered As Consumer Under Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that primary intent should be considered to determine commercial purpose. It was further held that a cooperative society, a welfare organization rather than a profit-driven entity, should be considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

Case Title: Jadar Group Coop. Jin Mill Limited Vs. Prakashchandra Suthar

Case Number: F.A. No. 833/2015

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

“Compensation” Includes Compensation For Physical, Mental Or Emotional Suffering: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held T & T Motors liable for deficiency in service for refusing timely repair services while the product was still under warranty.

Case Title: M/S. T&T Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. CJ Darcl Logistics Pvt. Ltd.

Case Number: F.A. No. 725/2021

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Insurer Cannot Deny Liability Based On Non-Transfer Of Policy: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the insurance policy gets transferred with ownership, and the insurer can't deny liability based on non-transfer of the policy.

Case Title: IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Harmanpreet Singh

Case Number: R.P. No. 1195/2022

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Misleading Statements Or Representations Must Be Shown To Prove Unfair Trade Practices: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that to establish a case of unfair trade practice, it is necessary to demonstrate that false and misleading statements or representations were made.

Case Title: Shankar Saran Vs. Chairman Apollo Hospitals

Case Number: R.P. No. 1663/2022

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Any Fact Affecting Insurer's Decision Is Material, Failure To Disclose Allows Policy Rejection: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that any fact that could impact a prudent insurer's decision is considered material, and failing to disclose it gives the insurer the right to reject the policy.

Case Title: Indumati Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation

Case Number: F.A. No. 206/2017

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Negligence In Medical Field Is Judged By Whether Injury Resulted From Negligent Act: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya, held that medical negligence is not proven by a lack of care or an error in judgment if the doctor follows an acceptable practice, even if a better alternative exists.

Case Title: Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute Vs. Tilak Raj Sikri

Case Number: F.A. No. 1882/2018

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

NCDRC Holds Eros City Developers Liable For Delay In Handing Over The Possession

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Justice Bharatkumar Pandya, held Eros City Developers liable for deficiency in service over delay in handing over the possession to the complainant. It was held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession and the reasonable period to hand over the possession is three years.

Case Title: Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gina Singh Choudhary

Case Number: F.A. No. 432/2024

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Purchaser Classified As Consumer If Dominant Purpose Is Personal Use : NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the mere employment of a few persons does not alter the nature of self-employment in a commercial venture.

Case Title: Abhimanya Chib Vs. Vipul IT Infrasoft Private Limited

Case Number: F.A. No. 157/2020