CONSUMER CASES WEEKLY ROUND UP: DECEMBER 16 – DECEMBER 22

Insured Cannot Assume Obligation On Part Of Bank To Renew Policy: NCDRC

Case Title: State Bank of India Vs. R. Vishwanatha Pai

Case Number: R.P. No. 4248/2012

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra overruled the State Commission's order against SBI and held that the insured cannot assume obligation on the bank's part to renew the policy unless agreed otherwise.

Surveyor's Report Can Only Be Rejected Only On Valid Grounds: NCDRC

Case Title: M/S. Hundi Lal Jain Cold Storage & Ice-Factory Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case Number: F.A. No. 214/2017

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra in an appeal against United India Insurance held that a surveyor's report is mandatory for insurance claims and it can only be rejected on reasonable grounds.

Doctor Not Liable For Negligence If Chosen Treatment Recognized As Sound Medical Practice: NCDRC

Case Title: R. Harish Gupta Vs. Kumari Kritika

Case Number: R.P. No. 3005/2023

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that doctors are not liable for medical negligence if the disputed treatment is recognized as sound medical practice.

Insurance Policies Must Be Read Holistically: NCDRC Holds LIC Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Satwinder Kaur

Case Number: R.P. No. 95/2022

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi and Dr. Inder Jit Singh held that insurance policies should be read inclusively to meet the reasonable expectations of the insured.

NCDRC Cannot Act As An Appellate Court To Re-Examine Facts

Case Title: Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd. (RIICO) Vs. Dwarka Prasad

Case Number: R.P. No. 1327/2019

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that the NCDRC's revisional jurisdiction is limited in nature and it cannot act as an appellate body.

Completed Wrong With Ongoing Effects Does Not Constitute Continuing Wrong: NCDRC Dismisses Petition Against ICICI

Case Title: Naresh Kumar Sharma & Anr Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Anr.

Case Number: R.P. No. 1216/2022

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra dismissed a petition against ICICI barred by limitation and held that a completed wrong becomes a continuing wrong only when the breach of duty persists.

NCDRC Upholds The Sacrosanct Nature Of Procedural Timeline Of 45 Days For Filing Written Statement

Case title: Suman Kumar Mishra & Ors. vs Lucina Land Development ltd. & Anr.

Case No: Consumer Case No. 95 of 2024

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh has underscored the importance of procedural timeline given under the Consumer Protection Act for filing of written statement. The bench observed that the initial timeline of 30 days with extension of another 15 days must be adhered to in all respects. It held that a litigant cannot be allowed even a single day beyond the 45th day for filing the written statement.

Haryana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Haryana State Commission Holds Ansal Properties Liable For Delay In Possession, Orders Refund And Compensation

Case title: Mrs. Neeru Bala Mahendru vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited & Ors.

Case No: Consumer Complaint No.481 of 2018

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana presided by Justice T.P.S Mann (President), Mr. S. P. Sood (Judicial Member) and Ms. Manjula (Member) held Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited liable for delay in possession of residential plot for several years. Further, the commission ordered refund and compensation for deficiency in service.

Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Failure To Hand Over Commercial Space To Purchasers Is 'Deficiency In Service': Delhi State Commission

Case title: Jai Narayan vs Parsvnath developers Pvt. Ltd

Case No: Complaint Case No. 984/2019

The Delhi State Commission has held that default in delivering the commercial space by Parsvnath developers booked by the complainants is 'deficiency in service'. The bench presided by Member Bimla Kumari observed that purchasers cannot be made to wait for an indefinite period of time and thus granted adequate compensation.

Insurance Claims Cannot Be Denied For Pre-Existing Ailments Without Prior Medical Tests: Delhi State Commission

Case title: Surilla Mathur vs M/s Oriental Insurance Co. ltd

Case No: First Appeal 26/2015

The Delhi State Commission has held that denial of insurance claim on the ground of pre-existing ailments is unjustified where no medical tests were conducted before issuing the policy. A bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki has observed that common lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and hypertension cannot be treated as pre-existing diseases.

Delhi State Commission Holds LG Electronics And Croma Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Unapproved TV Display Panel Replacement

Case Title: LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mr. Chitranjan Pandey

Case No: First Appeal NO.-36/2022

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) held LG Electronics Pvt Ltd. and Croma liable for deficiency in service as they replaced the TV display Panel without the consent of the complainant.

Telangana Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Telangana State Commission Holds Tour Agency Liable For Not Providing Satisfactory Bus Services To Pilgrims

Case title: RV Tours and travels & Anr. vs BV Sarma & Ors.

Case No: F.A. 96 of 2019

The Telangana state commission has held RV Tours and travels liable for providing substandard bus services to the complainants. The bench presided by President Meena Ramanathan and Judicial member V.V Seshubabu granted compensation to each complainant amounting to Rs. 6000/- and also litigation costs of Rs. 6000/-.

Uttarakhand Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Onus On Complainant To Prove Allegations Of Deficiency In Service: Uttarakhand State Commission Overturns Lower Commission's Order Against LG Electronics

Case Title: LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Bhushan Malhotra

Case Number: F.A. No. 172/2019

The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral in an appeal filed by LG Electronics held that the onus to prove any deficiency in service lies with the complainant.

Uttarakhand State Commission Holds National Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service Over Denial Of Legitimate Claim Amount

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sh. Sachin Tyagi

Case Number: F.A. No. 09/2019

The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Mr. M.K. Singhal and Mr. C.M. Singh held National Insurance liable for deficiency in service and upheld the District Commission's order.

Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

District Commission Misapplied Supreme Court's Ruling: Chandigarh State Commission Remands Sahara Prime City Case For Fresh Adjudication

Case title: Smt. Neelima Joshi vs. Sahara Group & Ors.

Case No: Appeal No. 198 of 2024

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh presided by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held that the District Commission has misapplied the decision of Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty vs Union of India as Sahara Prime City Ltd. was not party to that case.

The State Commission remanded the case to the District Commission for fresh adjudication.

Andhra Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Charging Convenience Fee For Booking Online Movie Tickets Is Lawful: Andhra Pradesh State Commission Allows Big Tree Entertainment's Appeal

Case title: Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited vs Mr. Madhira Mahendra Naga Sairam

Case No: F.A.No.305 of 2023

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh presided by Smt. C. V. S. Bhaskaram (Woman Member) and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Judicial Member) held that the charging of convenience fee while booking online movie tickets is completely lawful.

Further, the commission allowed the appeal of Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited as there was no deficiency in service on their part.

Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Dry Cleaners Liable For Damaging Churidars

Case Title: Eapen John Vs. M/s. Jose Brothers Dry Cleaners

Case Number: C.C. No. 803/2023

The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that without opposing evidence from the other party, the claims are unchallenged and in favour of the complainant.

Unsolicited Calls Causing Annoyance Invade Privacy And Require Regulatory Action: Ernakulam District Commission

Case Title: Nithin Ramakrishnan Vs. Bajaj Finserv Ltd

Case Number: C.C. No. 278/2023

The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., in a complaint against Bajaj Finserv held that persistent calls despite requests to stop, constitute harassment and is an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Uneven Wear And Tear In The Vehicle Is 'Deficiency In Service': Thrissur District Commission Holds Manufacturer And Dealer Liable

Case title: Mithun C.G vs Avaran Associates & ors.

Case No: CC 01/16

Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held the manufacturer Piaggio vehicle pvt ltd and dealer Avaran associates liable for uneven wear and tear in a Vespa VX 125 Scooter and consequent failure to repair the same. A bench presided by Member Sri. Ram Mohan R. observed that the said defect is a neglect of consumer rights by the company and thus granted compensation amounting to Rs. 25,000 for hardship and agony undergone by the complainant. An amount of Rs. 10,000 was further directed to be paid towards litigation expenses.

Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Delhi District Commission Holds Coaching Centre Liable For Retaining Advance Fee And Not Refunding Fee for Unutilized Services

Case title: Gurjas Singh Chhabra vs Extra Marks

Case No: Complaint Case 121/2022 [ Delhi district commission, Central district]

The Delhi district commission has held Extra Marks company liable for retaining the advance fee of entire course and not refunding the same for unutilised portion of services. The bench presided by President Inder Jeet Singh and Member Rashmi Bansal condemned the practice of coaching institutes collecting lump sum fees for services which are yet to be rendered by them.