Consumer Cases Weekly Round-up: 27th November to 3rd December 2023

Electricity Connection On Particular Address Not Proof Of Ownership, Legality Of Construction: Bombay High Court

Case Title: High Court On Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary & Ors., Suo Motu Writ Petition No.2/2023

A division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Kamal Khata of the Bombay High Court has held that an electricity bill or connection on a certain address is not proof of ownership or legality of construction. An electricity distribution licensee cannot possibly assess questions of title of the property and check if the apartment or units have the necessary planning permissions, the court said. “An electricity connection application and a bill cannot be used to prove ownership because that is not even the demand of the distribution licensee... It is impossible to expect a distribution licensee to act beyond the remit of the statute to assess questions of title to the property in question let alone assess questions of whether the structure or structures or apartments or units do or do not have the requisite planning permissions.”

Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Death Of 18 ICU Patients In Chennai Hospital During 2015 Floods: State Consumer Commission Directs MIOT Hospital To Pay 20 Lakh Compensation

Case Title: Shanthi KalaiArasan vs. M/s. Miot Hospitals

The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed a significant complaint filed against MIOT Hospital, alleging negligence and service deficiency on their part. According to the complaint the hospital failed to anticipate and manage flooding during the rainy season despite warnings from government agencies. This negligence resulted in a power outage where critical life support systems, including ventilators in the Medical ICU located in the basement, failed during the flood. This led to the deaths of 18 patients, including the complainant's husband. While allowing the complaint, Justice R. Subbiah held the hospital liable for administrative negligence which contributed to the deaths of the patients. Consequently, the Commission directed the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant along with an additional cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Person Can't Claim Insurance Amount If Policy Is Not Transferred In His/her Name, Andhra Pradesh Commission Allows National Insurance Co's Appeal

Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Smt. Buragadda Sridevi

The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. C.V.S. Bhaskaram (Woman Member) and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Member), allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. This appeal contested the ruling of the District Commission, Machilipatnam (A.P.), which held the Insurance Company liable for payment and compensation despite the policy not being in the complainant's name at the time of the accident. The State Commission restated the principle that an individual is not entitled to claim damages for a vehicle when the insurance policy has not been transferred into their name.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mizoram

Mizoram State Commission Orders LPG Gas Distributors To Follow Guidelines

Case Title: Shri Thanglura vs All Gas Distributors of Mizoram and others

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mizoram bench comprising Dr. Lalthansangi (Interim President), Lalhmingmawia (Member), Sanny Tochhong (Member) and C. Lalrinkima (Member) directed the LPG gas distributors in Mizoram to carry fair trade practice by implementing the LPG Marketing Discipline Guidelines fully and by establishing an online 'booking and delivery' system for consumers. The concerns were raised by Mizoram Consumers' Union, a non-profit voluntary organization which approached the State Commission regarding the poor implementation of the Direct Benefit Transfer-LPG Scheme (“DBTL”) by gas distributors and RGGLV distributors in Mizoram.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar

Postal Departments Not Exempted From Liability For Delay Under Consumer Protection Act, Bihar State Commission Upholds Rs. 3 Lakhs Compensation

Case Title: Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Dn and Anr. vs Premnath Singh

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) held the Postal Office, Rohtas liable for delaying the admission application by 19 days due to which the Complainant's son could not get admission in JNU, Delhi. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies and the liability exemption clause under the Indian Post Office Act does not have an overriding effect to restrict Consumer Commissions from awarding compensation.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

Burden Of Proof For Manufacturing Defect Is On Complainant, Ernakulam District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Skoda Auto And Its Seller

Case Title: Beenabi Haris and Anr. vs Skoda Auto India P Ltd and Anr.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr D.B. Binu (President), Mr Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and its seller Marikar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Skoda Division, Chakkal Bypass. The reason for the dismissal was that the Complainant could not prove the manufacturing defects in the car and failed to raise the issues within the warranty period. The District Commission emphasized the necessity of expert evidence to substantiate such claims and held that the burden of proof lies on the Complainant to prove the manufacturing defects if contended.