Consumer Cases Half-Yearly Digest: January To June 2024
Apoorva Pandita
19 July 2024 9:30 PM IST
Supreme Court Medical Negligence | Supreme Court Awards Rs 10 Lakh Compensation To Patient Who Developed Hoarseness In Voice After Trainee Gave Anaesthesia Case Title: J. DOUGLAS LUIZ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VERSUS MANIPAL HOSPITAL | CIVIL APPEAL NO.1700 OF 2024 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134 The Supreme Court recently awarded Rs. 10 lakhs...
Supreme Court
Case Title: J. DOUGLAS LUIZ (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VERSUS MANIPAL HOSPITAL | CIVIL APPEAL NO.1700 OF 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134
The Supreme Court recently awarded Rs. 10 lakhs compensation to a patient who developed hoarseness in his voice due to medical negligence committed by doctors while administering anaesthesia. The patient (now deceased) claimed compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs only), against the faulty operation done by the Manipal hospital which resultantly developed hoarseness in his voice. However, the District Forum had suo moto arrived at a rough and ready figure of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) payable as compensation to the appellant without furnishing any reasons for arriving at the said figure.
Supreme Court
Apple Has No Duty To Trace Stolen iPhone Using Unique Identity Number: Supreme Court
Case Title : Apple India Pvt Ltd v. Harish Chandra Mohanty and others
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 138
The Supreme Court obliterated an observation made by the Odisha State Consumer Commission that Apple India has the duty to trace a stolen iPhone with the help of a unique identity number provided by it. The Supreme Court stated that the observation made by the Consumer Commission was "unwarranted". The Bench Comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by Apple India against the Consumer Commission's order, which was passed in a complaint filed over stolen iPhone.
Supreme Court
Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out the manner in which the consumer fora must decide technical pleas raised by service providers against the maintainability of the consumer complaints on the ground that goods/services were availed by the consumer for the commercial purposes.
High Court of Bombay
The Bombay High Court bench, comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, has held that it is improper for a homebuyer to appeal before the Appellant Tribunal (MahaREAT) claiming that a concession recorded by the Authority (MahaRERA) was erroneous, without first filing an application before MahaRERA to review the order.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: The Secretary, E & NF Railway Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Eastern Railway vs Sri Jyotish Chandra Sarkar & Anr.
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Prasenjit Biswas held that consumer forum cannot assume jurisdiction when a special statue prescribes for arbitration and designates a forum for adjudication of disputes. It held that a special law takes precedence over a general law.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. vs Union of India
The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed a writ petition filed by PepsiCo to claim an exemption under certain packaging requirements mandated by Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rejection Of A Surveyor's Report Must Be Due To Arbitrariness: NCDRC
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S. Khadi Udhyog
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, held that the surveyor's report in an insurance incident can only be rejected based on pervasiveness and arbitrariness
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that the Consumer Protection Act 1986 provides a two-year limitation period for filing a complaint, and the insurer cannot reduce it through a policy clause.
Case Title: M/S. R.R. Energy Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.
Case Number: F. A. No.272/2012
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Quantification In Insurance Is Mandatory Even For Inadmissible Claims: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that in the insurance industry, quantifying a loss is a standard procedural step that surveyors must perform for every claim, regardless of whether that claim is ultimately deemed admissible or not.
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Meghana (Bio-Tech) Tissue Culture Nursery
Case Number: F.A. No. 39/2018
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Multiple Compensations For A Single Deficiency Is Not Justifiable: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held M/S Anant Raj Limited liable for deficiency in service and upheld the order by the District Forum and the State Commission of Rajasthan. However, the Commission altered the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum stating that multiple compensations cannot be allowed for a single deficiency.
Case Title: M/S Anant Raj Limited Vs. Happy Yadav
Case Number: R.P. No. 1112/2020
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Insurance Policies Should Be Interpreted Holistically In Favor Of Insured: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal by Life Insurance and held that insurance policies should be interpreted broadly, keeping in mind the interests of the policyholder and the beneficiaries.
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. Brijendra Kumar Tyagi
Case Number: F. A. No. 888/2021
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Lack of Medical Test Proves Insufficient Evidence For Alcohol Consumption: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held Oriental Insurance liable for deficiency in service due to denial of the insurance policy citing alleged drunk driving.
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bombay Traders
Case Number: F.A. No. 90/2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Venue Owner Not Obligated To Refund Advance In Case Of Late Cancellation: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that venue owners are not obligated to refund the advance amount in case of late cancellations even if the reasons are genuine because securing a booking prevents the owner from taking new bookings, which results in a loss.
Case Title: Kundan Palace Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Case Number: R.P. No. 548/2021
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the presence of an arbitration clause in the builder-buyer agreement cannot override the Jurisdiction of a Consumer Commission.
Case Title: Emaar India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gaurav Singh Khurana
Case Number: F.A. No. 923/2021
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Consumer Protection Act Co-Exists With Other Statutes: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the Consumer Protection Act serves as a complementary measure alongside other laws and allows multiple legal remedies. It was further held that remedies under this act are supplementary to other legislatures.
Case Title: Govind Narain Gupta Vs. Sudhakar Nath
Case Number: F.A. No. 612/2021
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Insurance Premium Remains Unpaid If Cheque Not Encashed: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), in an appeal against National Insurance Company, held that an insurance contract cannot be concluded if a cheque given as a premium has not been encashed. Furthermore, it was held that a cheque not being encashed due to the insured's fault is similar to the premium not being paid.
Case Title: Vaibhavi Dredging Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 862/2013
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Insured Must Report All Details Accurately, Regardless Of Importance: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), allowed an appeal by Aviva Life Insurance and held that the insured has a duty to fully disclose all information regardless of its material importance.
Case Title: Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Vs. Kariyappa
Case Number: F.A. No. 355/2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Omaxe Ltd liable for deficiency in service due to influencing the buyer to sign one-sided-clauses in the builder-buyer agreement.
Case Title: Kailash Kumari Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr
Case Number: F. A. No. 66/2018
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Warranty On Commercial Purchases Does Not Make It A Consumer Transaction: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), allowed an appeal from Telco Construction and overruled the state commission's order stating that the complainant did not qualify as a consumer only because they has received a warranty on a commercial purchase.
Case Title: Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd Vs. Stone International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case Number: F.A. No. 396/2011
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Compensation For Mental Pain And Agony Cannot Be Separate From Deficiency In Service: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held compensation for the same service deficiency cannot be given under multiple categories. Additionally, mental pain and agony are part of the service deficiency and there cannot be separate compensation for both.
Case Title: Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhalla
Case Number: R. P. No. 2388/2019
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Alleged Delays By Surveyor/Insurer Not Grounds To Reject Repudiation: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that insurance claims cannot be rejected by the insured solely because of supposed delays by the surveyor or the insurer.
Case Title: Sanjay Foods India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 834/2015
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Procedural Red Tape And Bureaucratic Delays Inadmissible As Reasons For Condonation Of Delay: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal by Hubli Electricity Company, citing that the mere presence of bureaucratic procedural delays and red tape cannot be accepted as a valid justification for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal/petition.
Case Title: Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd. & Anr Vs. Irappa Hanamappa Shebannavar
Case Number: R. P. No. 1115/2022
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Allotments In Buyer's Name Despite Being An NRI Is Legal, Source Of Funds Irrelevant: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the origin of the funds used for payment is inconsequential if the allotments are made under the complainant's name, even if the complainant is an NRI.
Case Title: JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh
Case Number: F.A. No. 886/2015
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Condonation Of Delay Is Not A Matter Of Right: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and the applicant/petitioner must present a case showing sufficient reasons that prevented them from approaching the Court/Commission within the stipulated limitation period.
Case Title: United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar G. Patel
Case Number: F.A. No. 1737/2018
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
A Buyer Can Rightfully Seek To Cancel The Agreement And Get A Refund: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, held that a buyer would be within their rights to seek cancellation of the agreement and refund of their money in case of delay of handing over the possession by the builder.
Case Title: M/S. RHC Ventures Limited Vs. Kitchannagari Sarveshwara Reddy
Case Number: C.C. No. 95/2020
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Law Of Limitation Must Be Strictly Followed As Prescribed, Despite Potential Harshness: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the law of limitation, despite potentially causing harshness to a party, must be strictly applied as prescribed by the statute, and the court lacks the authority to extend the limitation period on equitable grounds.
Case Title: Bikram Singh Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority
Case Number: F.A. No. 704/2020
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), dismissed an appeal against St. Stephen's Hospital over delay in filing the appeal by the opposite party and held that that condonation of delay is not a right, and the applicant must show sufficient reasons for the delay.
Case Title: Sunita Kumar Vs. St. Stephen's Hospital
Case Number: F.A. No. 336/2020
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Forfeiture Of Amount In Case Of Breach Of Contract Must Be Reasonable: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that when a contract is breached, the amount forfeited by the non-breaching party must be reasonable and proportionate. In the case of forfeiture of “earnest money” in a builder-buyer agreement, the amount was set to be 10% of the basic sale price.
Case Title: B.K. Malhotra Vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited
Case Number: C.C. No. 2916/2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that property disputes between owner and developer don't release parties from fulfilling contractual obligations towards the buyers.
Case Title: Ekkori Das Vs. Sodipto Chatterjee & Ors.
Case Number: F.A. No. 293/2019
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Expert Report Mandatory To Prove Inherent Defect Under Section 13(1)(C): NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, held that under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, an expert's report is mandatory to determine if there is an inherent defect with a good and the burden of proof to prove the deficiency lies with the person alleging it.
Case Title: M/S. Bharath Earth Movers Limited Vs. Thiru R Sekar & Anr.
Case Number: F.A. No. 157/2019
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Co-Promoters Liable To Refund Amounts Under Real Estate Laws: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), held that shareholders are co-promoters under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act 1963, and according to the Real Estate Act 2016, the promoter is responsible for refunding amounts owed by other prompters.
Case Title: Nari Gulabani Vs. Niraj Kakad Constructions
Case Number: C.C. No. 511/2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Pleading Ignorance No Defense For False Statements In Signed Insurance Proposal: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against Life Insurance Corporation and held that an insured who signs a proposal with false information cannot escape the consequences by claiming they signed without reading or understanding it.
Case Title: Sonia Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India
Case Number: R.P. No. 698/2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the insurer has a duty to seek complete details about the insured's medical condition and assess risks before issuing the insurance policy. If the insurer issues the policy after the insured has disclosed their existing medical conditions, even if some columns were left blank, the insurer cannot later repudiate the claim, citing non-disclosure.
Case Title: Care Health Insurance Limited Vs. Harjinder Singh Sohal
Case Number: R.P. No. 563/2022
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Government Employees Cannot Dispute Retirement Benefits In Consumer Forums: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held A government servant is not defined as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act and is entitled to claim retirement benefits only according to service conditions and relevant regulations or statutory rules.
Case Title: Punjab National Bank Vs. Rohit Malhotra
Case Number: R.P. No. 3588/2017
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Directly Remitting Insurance Claim Amount Without Mutual Consent Is Unfair Trade Practice: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held New India Assurance liable for unfair trade practice for directly depositing the insurance claim amount into the insured's account with arbitrary deductions and without mutual consent.
Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S Madhav Automotive Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: F.A. No. 1791/2018
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Not Having Valid Fitness Certificate For Vehicle Is Ground For Insurance Claim Repudiation: NCDRC
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amandeep Singh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that if a transport vehicle lacks a certificate of fitness, it shall not be considered validly registered under the law, providing the insurer with a valid basis to repudiate the insurance claim.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M/S. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurudarshan Singh & Anr
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that builders cannot demand interest from the buyer if the project is already delayed beyond the agreed-upon time. The Commission held the builder liable for deficiency in service for charging interest from the buyer upon an already delayed project.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Patient's Death : NCDRC Holds Max Super Speciality Hospital Liable For Medical Negligence
Case Title: Max Super Speciality Hospital Vs. Sham Singh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held Max Super Speciality Hospital liable for deficiency in service due to negligently attributing to the death of a patient. It was further held that to prove legal liability, it must be demonstrated that the doctor failed to meet the standard of care reasonably expected of a competent medical professional in that field and that this failure directly caused harm or injury to the patient.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Delay In Delivery Of Flat, Continuing Grounds For Legal Action: NCDRC Holds Emaar MGF Land Liable
Case Title: M/S. Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs. Surinder Kumar Punchhi
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that the failure to deliver possession of a flat on the agreed timeline does not constitute a one-time breach but rather an ongoing violation that continues with each passing day. As such, it represents a continuing cause of action that allows the buyer to pursue legal remedies until the possession is finally handed over.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Bank of India Vs. Dr. Mahesh Kumar
Introducing Additional Document During Revision Stage Permitted If Material In Nature: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the introduction of additional documents during the revision stage is permitted if the said documents are material in nature.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
State Commission's Unilateral Alteration Of District Forum Order Is A Material Irregularity: NCDRC
Case Title: Jai Dev Vs. M/S Aryan Travel Point
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the State Commission cannot suggestively alter a District Forum's well-reasoned order unilaterally without the complainant's consent.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd vs Amit Chhokra
Collecting Transfer Charges From Subsequent Purchaser Constitutes As Deficiency In Service: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a developer requiring the buyer to pay transfer charges for a property where the developer no longer has any interest constitutes an unfair trade practice.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the act of being entitled to plot allotment under government policies, rather than engaging in transactions for personal goods or services, falls outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, the related disputes do not qualify as a deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Arbitration Clause In Buyer's Agreement Does Not Bar Jurisdiction Of Consumer Fora: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the Consumer Protection Act is supplementary to the existing legislations and the presence of an arbitration clause in a buyer's agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.
Case Title: M/S. Nandi Builders & Developers Vs. Saraswathamma
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Failure To Disclose Material Illness Violation Of Utmost Good Faith: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shekhar, dismissed an appeal against United India Insurance and held that the insurer has no liability if the insured fails to disclose a material fact relevant to the insurer's risk assessment.
Case Title: Sevantilal J. Parekh Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
No Interest Can Accure On Refusal Of Compensation Offered On Time: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that no interest can be applied to the compensation if it was offered within the stipulated time frame and subsequently refused by the other party.
Case Title: Abhoy Kumar Bandyopadhyay Vs. M/S Elita Garden Vista Project Ltd.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, dismissed a complaint against Oriental Insurance and held that proper procedures should be followed in case of a policy transfer. It was concluded that, in the instant case, the policy was not properly transferred, and the complainant lacked insurable interest at the time of the accident.
Case Title: M/S. W.M.W. Metal Metal Fabrics Ltd.& Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Mahesh Gugnani Vs. M/S. Sushma Buildtech Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 347/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that builders cannot force buyers to accept possession after a significant delay. It was held that the buyer has the right to accept the delayed possession or seek compensation for it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
NCDRC Holds Omaxe Chandigarh Liable For Deficiency In Service For Delay In Possession
Case Title: M/S Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Pawan Kapoor
Case Number: F.A. No. 1845/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that in a builder-buyer case, even if possession was offered, compensation should be calculated from the scheduled date to the date of actual possession, taking into account any legal obstacles or delays in obtaining the occupancy certificate. The Commission held Omaxe Chandigarh liable for deficiency in service due to a delay in handing over possession of the flat booked by the buyer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: The Punjab State Federation Of Cooperativehouse Building Societies Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh
Case Number: F.A. No. 4/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that consumer forums cannot arbitrate on pricing disputes since contractual property prices are binding in nature. It was held that pricing disputes come under contractual agreements and not a deficiency of service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Appellant's Dissatisfaction With Relief Granted Does Not Imply Error In Order: NCDRC
Case Title: Shree Vinayak Co-Op HSG. Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Karwa Developers
Case Number: F.A. No. 521 /2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra, held that an order from a lower forum cannot be deemed erroneous solely on the basis of dissatisfaction with the amount of relief granted.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ms. Anita Dahiya
Case Number: R.P. No. 2691/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that an insurer cannot impose a pension plan on the insured if the plan hadn't been opted for at the maturity of the insurance policy.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Doctors Not Negligent If Accepted Medical Procedure Fails: NCDRC
Case Title: Ruchika Sharma Vs. Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital & Anr
Case Number: R.P. No. 1837/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that a doctor cannot be held negligent merely because the result was a failure if the procedure adopted was acceptable to medical science at the time.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: TDI Infrastructure Vs. Bipin Gupta
Case Number: F.A. No. 1117/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), held that in case of default by the buyer, the forfeiture of the earnest money should be reasonable in nature. It was highlighted that according to set precedents, such forfeiture can only go up to 10% of the basic sale price.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Burden Of Proof To Prove Manufacturing Defect Is On The Complainant: NCDRC
Case Title: Randhir Singh Vs. M/S. Maharaja Auto Wheels (P) Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: R.P. No. 3149-3150/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the burden of proof to prove a manufacturing defect is on the party who makes it. Additionally, it was held that an expert report is required to prove a manufacturing defect.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Anirudh Kumar Gupta Vs. Junior Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Distribution Co. & Anr.
Case Number: R.P. No. 2965/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the quantum of compensation should be based on the facts and circumstances of each case and it should also cover physical and emotional suffering.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Insurer's Liability Not Avoided By Driver's Unlicensed Status: NCDRC
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabi Narayan Naik
Case Number: R.P. No. 1907/2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held United India Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the denial of insurance claim citing the driver's unlicensed status. The Commission held that the insurer cannot avoid liability solely because the driver was unlicensed; the insurer must demonstrate that the driver intentionally and knowingly violated the policy conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: ATS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Ashwani Gautam
Case Number: F.A. No. 755/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that subsequent allottees inherit the rights of the previous allottees. Hence, the builder charging for an open parking space constitutes a deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: G.S. Pal Pandian Vs. Equitas Finance Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: R.P. No. 277/2011
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that a consumer Fora at any level had no authority to extend the deadline for submitting a written version beyond 45 days.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Mahesh Gugnani Vs. M/S. Sushma Buildtech Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 347/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that builders cannot force buyers to accept possession after a significant delay. It was held that the buyer has the right to accept the delayed possession or seek compensation for it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Failing To Provide Required Service On The Purchased Vehicle Is Deficiency In Service : NCDRC
Case Title: Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs. Henry D'souza
Case Number: R.P. No. 1614/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Maruti Suzuki liable for deficiency in service and held that failing to service a vehicle properly constitutes a deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Sushma Buildtech Ltd. Vs. Aniraj Sharma & Anr
Case Number: F.A. No. 197/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker (member), held that a builder's failure to obtain an occupancy certificate for the property makes him liable for deficiency in service.
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.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Central Bank of India Vs. M/S. Abhay Kumar Jain
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that banks must ensure safety and security to prevent incidents and cannot deny responsibility for the locker's contents.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Construction Work Done For Consideration That Benefits Another Party Should Be Compensated: NCDRC
Case Title: Pinaki Bhattacharjee Vs. M/S. Unique Construction
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), in an appeal against Unique Construction, held that if a party carries out additional construction not intended to be free of charge, and the other party benefits from it, the former is entitled to compensation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Commissions Cannot Condone Delay If Not Provided With Satisfactory Explanation: NCDRC
Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), in a case against Parsvnath Developers, held that the commissions cannot allow an application for condonation of delay if not provided with a sufficient cause.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Multiple Compensations For A Single Default Is Unjustified: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Exact Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rajesh Sethi
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra alongside Sadhna Shanker(member), held M/S. Exact Developers & Promoters liable for deficiency in service but set aside the state commission's order for granting compensation for mental agony, as multiple compensations cannot be granted for a single default.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Report From Expert Organization Must Be Obtained To Establish Defect: NCDRC
Case Title: Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Ushat Gulgule
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that for a consumer forum to establish a defect, an expert report from an expert organization must be produced.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surveyor's Report Is Not Final And Can be Contested With More Evidence: NCDRC
Case Title: Royal Sundaram General Insurance Vs. Ishwar Singh Mehra
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that in cases of discrepancy between the insured amount assessed by an authorized dealer and a surveyor, the claim by the dealer will take precedence. This is because the dealer's assessment is often based on a more thorough and detailed inspection, providing a more accurate estimate of the damages and repair costs.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sher Singh Vs. Manager, The New India Assurance Company
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that delay should not be excused without sufficient cause, and the fact that other parties have been granted relief does not justify excusing delay in similar cases.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/S. Gautam Construction Company & Anr. Vs. Mubarak Masih
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that there has to be proper transparency regarding the construction details, even if it's not explicitly stated in the contract.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
6% Interest Appropriate Compensation For Delay In Handover Of Property: NCDRC
Case Title: Parth M. Soneji Vs. Shree Sainath Enterprises Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held that 6% interest on the deposit is an appropriate compensation for delay in handing over possession of a property.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insurance Contracts Should Be Given Plain Meaning: NCDRC
Case Title: Muthoot Finance Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A. P. Sahi, dismissed a case against United India Insurance and held that unless the terms of an insurance contract are ambiguous, requiring further interpretation, the plain and straightforward meaning of those terms should be applied.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Nagendran
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, held VGN Projects Estates liable for deficiency in service over delayed possession of the booked flat to the owner.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Builder Cannot Forfeit Earnest Money If Possession Not Offered Within Stipulated Time: NCDRC
Case Title: Vikas Garg Vs. Estate Officer (Housing)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, held that forfeiture of earnest money cannot be done if possession is not offered within the stipulated time to the party in question.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Central Bank of India Vs. Somir Kumar Bagchi
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Inder Jit Singh held that a bank cannot change the agreed EMI amount on its own. Furthrmore, It was also held that a plea cannot be raise later in a subsequent higher court if it hasn't been raised in the initial pleadings and no related issue are framed on it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Delivery Of Possession: NCDRC Holds Emaar MGF Land Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Mohan Shyam Dubey Vs. M/S Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Justice A. P. Sahi held Emaaar MGF Land liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over the possession of the flat booked.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank Vs. Ishwar Dayal
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Syndicate Bank liable for deficiency in service and held that it is the responsibility of the bank to renew insurance or insist the insurer on renewing it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Accepting Evidence Without Filing Written Statement Is Same As Allowing A Late Reply: NCDRC
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Vs. Om Prakash Dubey
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that evidence can't be accepted without filing a written statement within 45 days. Furthermore, it was held that parties could not place retrospective reliance in appeals on judgments that are pronounced after the filing of the original complaint.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohd Siddique Khan Vs. Forest Division Officer
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held a public auction purchaser is not a consumer, and the Opposite Party is not a service provider.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Babu Ram Vs. Sartaj Ali
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the Commission can only interfere in orders by the State Commissions and the District Forums if there is a scope of illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer And Criminal Proceedings Are Distinct From Each Other with Respective Jurisdictions: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Kalindi Enterprises Vs. Suresh G Kumar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the compensation granted by the consumer commission is not akin to a criminal sentence or punishment. Unlike criminal courts, which demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt for culpable offenses, consumer complaints about service deficiencies or unfair trade practices operate under different legal standards.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Parulben Shailesbhai Chunara Vs. Dr. Vinaykumar C. Sinh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that medical opinions may vary on the appropriate course of action for treating a patient, but if a doctor follows acceptable medical practices and the court determines that they provided care with due skill and diligence, it is challenging to deem the doctor negligent even if the patient does not survive or suffers a permanent condition.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Processing Revival Of Policy After Receiving Premium Is Insurer's Fault: NCDRC
Case Title: IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Bera
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that IDBI Federal Life Insurance liable for deficiency in service due to denial of revival of the policy even after receiving the premium amount from the insured.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Canon Properties Pvt Ltd. Vs. Dum Dum Club Town Residents Association
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held Canon Properties liable for deficiency in service for withholding maintenance charges from the flat owners.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insurer Has Discretion To Reject A Surveyor's Report If It Is Arbitrary Or Unreasonable: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Shah Vadilal Jethalal Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against New India Assurance, citing the complainant's failure to demonstrate any arbitrariness or perversity in the insurer's rejection of the surveyor's report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. Shubhalaxmi Shankar Shetty
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, held Life Insurance Corporation liable for deficiency in service over invalidating an insurance case citing non-disclosure of prior non-life-threatening health conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporationof India & Anr Vs. Sunil Kumar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the terms in an insurance contract should be strictly adhered to with no scope of deviation from these terms.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sukh Lal Soni
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) is limited in nature and can only be exercised when the State Commission has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted with material irregularity.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insured Has A Duty To Disclose Pre Existing Aliments To Insurer : NCDRC
Case Title: Subhash Kumar Vs. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the contracts of life insurance are based on utmost good faith and the insured has a duty to disclose all material information, including pre existing ailments to the insurer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Vs. Manjula & 2 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the insurance policies should be interpreted broadly to align with reasonable expectations of the insured.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Benefit Of Doubt Must Go In Favour Of Passenger In Case Of Ambiguity In Railway Guidelines: NCDRC
Case Title: Asish Kumar Paul Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Eastern Railways liable for deficiency in service due to treating a passenger as ticketless because of ambiguity in their own stated guidelines.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Revisional Jurisdiction Of National Commission Is Limited In Nature: NCDRC
Case Title: Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd Vs. Anantharamegowda
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the National Commission can only intervene in an order through revisional jurisdiction if the State Commission has operated beyond its legal authority, neglected to use its jurisdiction, or acted unlawfully or with material irregularity.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M/s Shah Vadilala Jethalal vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) dismissed an appeal filed against New India Assurance Company, based on the Complainant's failure to take reasonable care to safeguard the insured property against accident, loss, and damage.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Z. Ahmed vs M/s. Coca Cola India
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) held that Coca-Cola's promotional scheme of awarding 5 Honda City cars for lucky coupon bottles was a valid promotional scheme and could not be said to be fraudulent. However, compensation to an aggrieved consumer on this basis was allowed who genuinely pursued the consumer complaint based on a genuine belief of winning a Honda City car after buying the lucky bottle.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Subhash Kumar vs Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed against Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. based on the fact that the deceased policyholder failed to disclose her preexisting ailments at the time of purchasing the policies. The NCDRC held that suppression of facts makes the policy voidable at the option of the Insurance Company.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sunita Kumar Vs. St. Stephen's Hospital
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, serves as a safeguard to the effectiveness of the law by preventing challenges that could unnecessarily prolong cases in Consumer Fora, thus preserving the integrity of the legislation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shalini Srivastava vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sandhya Shanker (Member) held that if the insured fails to disclose all material facts in the proposal form, the claim is liable to be repudiated irrespective of whether the cause of death was related to the non-disclosed facts or not.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Commission Holds Emaar Land Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Delay In Possession
Case Title: Mohan Shyam Dubey Vs. MS Emmar MGF Land Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession when projects are not completed on time.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Timeless Jewels
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Sadhna Shanker (Member) held that insurance companies cannot appoint surveyors indiscriminately solely to get a favourable report. The appointment of multiple surveyors without any reasonable cause was held to violate the IRDA Regulation No. 64.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid insurance claim of a stolen tractor based on a delayed intimation of 10 days. The NCDRC held that delay in intimation of claim was no longer an issue in insurance disputes.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: East India Transport Agency vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held that an entity engaged in commercial activities solely for the purposes of profit-making cannot be said to be covered under the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Even if the commercial entity subrogates its right to recover the amount to a 3rd party, the 3rd party would not be considered a 'consumer' for the purposes of the Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd Vs. Rajinder Sharma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that the interest rate charged for delay in possession may be altered according to market conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MS. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs. Devinder Singh Cheema
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held the builder's failure to deliver the flat on time constituted a clear deficiency, which was worsened by arbitrarily cancelling the allotment upon receiving a legal notice from the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Akash Hospital & Diagnostics Vs. Attam Chand Mandhotra
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the National Commission can only intervene in cases if it finds that the State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction and failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Mr Justice A.P. Sahi (President) upheld the Chandigarh State Commission's order against Superb MRI and C.T. Scan, a diagnosis and scanning centre, which furnished an incorrect MRI Scan which led to delayed treatment, resulting in the loss of vision in the Complainant's left eye, attributed to an undiagnosed malignant growth in the optic nerve. The appeal filed by the Scanning Centre was dismissed.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Karuna Nand Bajpayee, held that although medical professionals are not required to maintain the utmost skill levels at all times, they are still required to offer a reasonable standard of skill and care.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra And Sadhna Shanker, held New India Assurance liable for deficiency in service due to the denial of an insurance claim over an arbitrary survey report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) reiterated that Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to entertain claims/damages involving motor vehicles. Such claims could only be adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) by virtue of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), in a complaint against MVL Holding Ltd ruled that commercial space booked for doing business by way of self-employment comes under the definition of commercial purpose. The complaint was dismissed on the aforementioned ground.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), in a case against Jalandhar Improvement Trust, held that after a judgment is pronounced, the commission becomes functus officio (having performed the office), and it cannot be modified to award a higher penal interest and additional compensation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission Holds Raheja Developers Limited for Deficiency in service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) held Raheja Developers Limited liable for deficiency in services and directed to refund entire amount of booking along with 18% interest.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Ludhiana Improvement Trust Liable For Not Handing Over The Possession Of The Plot
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member), held Ludhiana Improvement Trust liable for deficiency in service over refusal to register and hand over the possession of the plot booked by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held MGF developers liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices over delay in handing over the possession of the shop booked by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds United India Insurance Liable For Denial Of The Insurance Money
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra AVSM VSM (member), held United India Insurance liable for deficiency in service over denial of the insurance money without evidence establishing a direct connection between the insured goods and the cause of the accident.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Oriental Insurance Liable For Denial Of Disbursing The Insurance Policy
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member) and AVM J. Rajendra AVSM VSM (member), held Oriental Insurance liable for service deficiency and unfair trade practices over denial of disbursing the insurance policy taken up by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds BPTP Builders Liable For Cancellation Of The Allotment Of The Flat
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Subhash Chandra(member) overturned the decision by the state Commission of Haryana and held BPTP Builders liable for deficiency in service over cancellation of the allotment of the flat booked by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission Holds Universal Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member) and Sadhna Shanker(member), held Universal Infrastructure liable for deficiency in service over non-issuance of the occupancy certificate of the flat booked by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission holds FS Housing Ltd liable for Deficiency in Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Ram Surat Ram Maurya(member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held FS Housing Ltd liable for deficiency in service over making the complainant wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat booked.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission Holds Anant Raj Ltd Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member), held Anant Raj Ltd. liable for deficiency in service over delay in handing over the flat booked by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra AVSM VSM (member), in a case against New India Assurance Company, held that the interpretation of an insurance contract must adhere to the specific terms stipulated in the contract. Any attempt to expand or reinterpret beyond the agreed terms is not permissible under the law, as it would amount to reframing the terms and conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra AVSM VSM (member), held Oriental Insurance liable for deficiency in service over cancelling the insurance claim solely based on delayed the intimation of the complainant regarding the theft of their insured vehicle.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held if possession is offered after obtaining an “occupation certificate,” the home buyer is contractually obligated to take possession, failing which would result in a breach of contract.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya (presiding member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), dismissed a review petition against Cholamandalam Insurance Company and held that it is the fundamental duty of the insured to prove that the insurance claim is payable under the insurance policy.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Vatika Limited Liable For Delay In Construction Of Residential Project
Case Title: Madhu Gupta & Anr. Vs. Vatika Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Ram Surat Ram Maurya (member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held Vatika Limited liable for deficiency in service over delay in the construction of the residential space on the plot booked by the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission Holds Raheja Developers Limited for Deficiency in service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) held Raheja Developers Limited liable for deficiency in services and directed to refund entire amount of booking along with 18% interest.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Failure To Reverse Fraudulent Transactions, NCDRC Holds HDFC Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”), New Delhi bench led by Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) held HDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services for failing to provide security measures to the credit card issued to the Complainant which resulted in unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 24,000/-. The NCDRC set aside the respective orders of East Delhi District Commission and Delhi State Commission and directed HDFC Bank to refund Rs. 24,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra as presiding member has allowed a consumer complaint against Supertech Realtor Pvt Ltd. for failing to deliver possession of a booked unit at 'Super Nova' project in Noida within the stipulated time frame despite receiving substantial payments from the complainants. The commission found that the delay in possession amounted to a deficiency in service, and as a result, directed Supertech Realtor Pvt Ltd. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainants with simple interest at 9% per annum along with litigation costs of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya as Presiding Member partly allowed a consumer complaint against Metro Builders (Orissa) for deficiencies in providing promised amenities in their "Metro Satellite City-I" project. The complaint, filed by 42 flat buyers, was regarding several unfulfilled commitments such as constructing a sewage treatment plant, club/auditorium, medical dispensary, swimming pool, gymnasium, open space, and indoor game space. The buyers alleged that despite collecting specified amounts for these facilities, several amenities were either incomplete or not provided.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Godrej Properties Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Subhash Chandra as President, held Godrej Properties liable for deficiency in service over refusal to refund the earnest money paid by the complainant, even following the cancellation of the purchase.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission Holds Oriental Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member), held that the Custom Bonded Warehouse schemes don't require the insured to own the stocked goods to claim the insurance policy and held Oriental Insurance company liable for service deficiency.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
National Consumer Commission Holds RPS Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra(member), in a complaint against RPS Infrastructure, held that relying on force majeure conditions is unacceptable unless they are adequately substantiated with specific evidence that directly connects external factors to project delays.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Compensation Beyond The Date Of The Offer Of Possession Is Not Justifiable: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra (member) in a case against Shipra Estate, held that compensation for delayed possession is typically granted only until the valid offer of possession. In this context, the claim for compensation beyond the date of the possession offer is deemed unjustifiable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, dismissed a revision petition alleging deficiency of service against Oriental Insurance.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds DLF Home Developers Ltd. Liable For Deficiency In Service, Orders A Refund
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has ruled in favor of the complainants in a case related to a flat booked in the Hyde Park Estate, New Chandigarh. The judgment, delivered by the Commission, directs the developer to refund an amount exceeding Rs. 1 crore to the complainants.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Subhash Chandra(President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), in a case relating to Oasis Landmarks, held that in the event of a contract breach, it is reasonable to forfeit only 10% of the fundamental sale price as “earnest money” and not more.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consisting of Ram Surat Ram Maurya (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (member), held that the buyer cannot be made to wait for an infinite period to deliver possession, considering such a delay as deficiency of service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) held that the guidelines to settle an insurance claim on a non-standard basis apply to both private and public insurance companies. If the claim involves the overloading of a tanker, although below 75% of the permissible limit, the claim would be proportionately reduced to the degree of overloading.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, held that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the National Commission is restricted to specific circumstances, such as when the State Commission has acted beyond its legal authority and has failed to exercise its rightful jurisdiction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that reliance on force majeure while retaining the buyer's deposits constitutes a deficiency of service and also amounts to unfair trade practice.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, held that a buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat that they have paid for.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Monika Bansal & Ors. v/s Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has re-emphasized that buyers should not be subjected to indefinite delay for possession of their property. The bench presided over by Mr. Ram Surat Ram Maurya alongside Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as member while partly allowing a consumer complaint, observed that an unreasonable delay by a builder in offering possession of flats amounted to a deficiency of service on their part.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Timeless Jewels
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Sadhna Shanker (Member) held that insurance companies cannot appoint surveyors indiscriminately solely to get a favourable report. The appointment of multiple surveyors without any reasonable cause was held to violate the IRDA Regulation No. 64.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Shalini Srivastava vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sandhya Shanker (Member) held that if the insured fails to disclose all material facts in the proposal form, the claim is liable to be repudiated irrespective of whether the cause of death was related to the non-disclosed facts or not.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid insurance claim of a stolen tractor based on a delayed intimation of 10 days. The NCDRC held that delay in intimation of claim was no longer an issue in insurance disputes.
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
The Central Information Commission, New Delhi bench comprising Shri Heeralal Samariya (Chief Information Commissioner) dismissed a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer whose requested information was not appropriately furnished by the Department of Consumer Affairs, allegedly. The Central Information Commission noted that the scope of a complaint under Section 18 was limited to the question of whether the denial of information was 'intentional' and did not extend to ordering the public authority to furnish information.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Subsequent Price Reduction For 'Maruthi Jimmy', CCI Dismisses Compliant Against Maruti Suzuki
Case Title: Harmit Ahuja vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited
Case Number: Case No. 43 of 2023
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench of Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member) held that discounts offered by Maruti Suzuki over subsequent car models could not be termed anti-competitive because it devalued the earlier purchases of customers. Further, the information filed by a buyer was held to be a personal pricing dispute, which could not be covered under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002.
Competition Commission of India
Case Title: Vivek Gupta vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority
The Competition Commission of India bench comprising Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member) and Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member) dismissed an Information submitted against New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) alleging abuse of dominance in the relevant market of sales/auctions or allotting residential plots. The Commission held that the matter seemed to be more of a dispute between the Informant and the Opposite Party, rather than an instance of the abuse of dominant position.
Competition Commission of India
The Competition Commission of India bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Deep Anurag (Member) dismissed a complaint against Talk Charge Technologies Pvt. Ltd. with the allegation of abuse of a dominant position in the relevant market for digital payment platforms in India. The Commission held that within this market, there were several service providers, both domestic and global, indicating a competitive landscape. Further, there was a lack of evidence showing that the Informant was solely dependent on Talk Charge technologies.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Case Title: Buchi Ramarao Valury vs Covai Property Centre (India) Private Limited and Ors.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Deepak Anurag (Member) closed an information filed against Covai Property Centre, its subsidiary and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers for allegations concerning abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreements under Section 4 and 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 respectively.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench comprising Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member) and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member) dismissed information filed against the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), for issuing a circular directing accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) operating under proprietorship to transition to specific legal entities by a set deadline. The CCI held that the circular was not anti-competitive as the transition to legal entities separate from their owners was necessary for accountability and compliance purposes.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Case Title: Somnath Banerjee vs Apex Lab and Others
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench, consisting of Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member), held that in the absence of evident anti-competitive behaviour, decisions concerning the purchase or sale of products are primarily influenced by the commercial considerations of market players. Consequently, the CCI closed information filed against various pharmaceutical entities for allegedly neglecting to promote a dietary supplement, as there was no vertical agreement among them.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Praveen Chauhan Vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that if possession is not delivered within 42 months or beyond 48 months, it constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of the builder.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Anita Gupta Vs. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, held HDFC Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the rejection of a health insurance claim solely on the presence of non-communication of pre-existing conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Burden Of Proving Medical Negligence Lies With The Claimant: Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Col. Jeetendra Gulati Vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ms. Suman Rana & Anr.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that even in cases where the insured violates their insurance policy terms, the insurance claim can resolved, though with modified conditions.
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.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bank Of Baroda Vs Mr. Prem Chand Chachra and Ors.
Case Number: First Appeal No. 306/2015
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki(Judicial Member) held that banks, as trustees, have a duty to verify, at every stage, the financial position of the company which issued the debentures. The bench held that as a corporate trustee, the bank must take special care and expertise in protecting and safeguarding the financial interest of the debenture holder after exercising due diligence.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohan Krishna Anand vs Northern Railway
Case Number: First Appeal No. 106/2022
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Judicial Member) held that the medical beneficiaries of the Railway Hospital fall within the definition of the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The bench held that the Complainant had the Medical Card which was issued to him after paying an amount of Rs. 7950/- and subsequent monthly instalments towards the medical allowance for the past 20 years to avail benefits towards his medical treatment.
Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Raisa X Dias vs The Governor, Reserve Bank of India and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal 36 of 2023
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench of Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) held that banks could be held liable for dishonouring the order of the Banking Ombudsman for resolution of bank-related issues. The State Commission highlighted the pro-consumer intent of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and remanded the matter back to the District Commission for fresh consideration of the issue based on merit, against the SBI and the RBI.
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ameet V. Mehta
Case Number: First Appeal No. A/19/12
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra bench of Dr Satish A. Munde (Presiding Officer) and V.C. Premchandani (Member) allowed an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. The bench held that the medical claim of the Complainant was settled as per duly agreed policy terms. When a window was provided to the Complainant to review and dispute the policy terms, he did not respond to the communication which indicated a lack of effort on his part.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Anita Kumari
Case No.: First Appeal No. 508 of 2022
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Simarjot Kaur (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company liable for repudiating a genuine death claim based on hyper-technical grounds. The Insurance Company failed to substantiate its claim that the Deceased was suffering from a chronic pre-existing disease and wrongfully repudiated the claim.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand (“State Commission”) bench of Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held that automatic deduction of the premium amount by the intermediary bank does not make a binding insurance contract between the insurer and the insured. The bench dismissed an appeal filed against the New India Assurance Co. by holding that there existed no renewed insurance contract at the time of the loss and the Insurance Company refunded the premium which was automatically deducted by the bank.
Case Title: Smt. Amita Singh vs State Bank of India and Anr.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh bench of Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Varma (Member) held that the insured must disclose material facts in the proposal form while availing an insurance policy. The bench allowed an appeal filed by SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., which repudiated a death claim based on non-disclosure of chronic alcoholism.
Case Title: Head Claims, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. vs Smt. Sumitra Yadav
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana
Case Title: The Branch Manager, Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd vs Sanjeet and Ors.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of S.C. Kaushik (Member) held Max New York Life Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for dismissing a genuine claim based on non-disclosure of a pre-existing renal disease. The bench held that the Insurance Company failed to prove that the reason of death was due to that pre-existing disease. Therefore, it wrongfully repudiated the claim.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Sapna Khemani Vs. M/S Parsvnath Dev. Ltd
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held Parvsnath Developer liable for deficiency in service due to failure to hand over the possession of the purchased property to the buyer for more than 13 years. The Commission also ruled that mere verbal claims without supporting documentation are insufficient to establish a property purchase as commercial.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Sushil Rastogi Vs. M/S Regal Emporio Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that a company bears sole responsibility for completing the construction within the agreed-upon time-frame, ensuring the complainant does not bear the consequences of their deficiencies.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar)
Case Title: Meena Devi vs The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Miss Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) held National Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse a valid accidental claim, despite acknowledging the existence of the policy and receiving all relevant documents. In the absence of a clear explanation for its conduct, the State Commission enhanced the period and amount of interest levied on it by the District Commission.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh
Case Title: Brij Bhushan vs Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) held that delay of intimation of claim to the insurance company is insignificant if the information concerning the incident was duly informed to the police within a reasonable time. Consequently, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. was held liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid accidental claim based on late intimation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar)
Case Title: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs Shiv Chandra Kumar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar) bench comprising Ms Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) set aside the order of the Vaishali District Commission against the State Bank of India. The State Commission found discrepancies in the Complainant's version, who alleged unauthorized transactions while using SBI's ATMs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs Sh, Hasim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. The allegations against the Insurance Company involved the repudiation of an accidental claim based on the absence of the Complainant's name in the insurance policy. The bench held that the Complainant failed to transfer the insurance policy into his name within 14 days of transferring the vehicle's ownership. Therefore, he was not entitled to the insurance amount.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
Case Title: Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Kumar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Ms Geeta Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. The State Commission held that it rightfully repudiated a vehicle claim because the vehicle's owner failed to disclose that the vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle, at the time of obtaining the policy. Since the insurance policy pertained to personal vehicles only, the repudiation was held to be valid.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. D.P. Dhankar Vs. MS Belgravia Projects Pvt Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held Belgravia Projects liable for deficiency in service over delay in possession of the purchased property.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held that at the stage of provisional admission, there is lack of a binding contract between the student and the school. Therefore, the student cannot be refused the refund of the provisional fee on leaving the school before a regular admission is finalized.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
U.P. State Commission Holds LIC Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Based On Insufficient Evidence
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh bench comprising Mr Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs Sudha Upadhyay (Member) held LIC liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim. The State Commission held that LIC failed to prove that the deceased was not involved in an accident. Further, repudiation based on the nominee's status as a 'wife' was held to be irrelevant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) set aside a repudiation of an insurance claim by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The State Commission held that genuine claims must not be repudiated solely based on a delay. The delay was caused due to the imprisonment of the Claimant for 4.5 years, which the State Commission found to be justified.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh bench comprising Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Varma (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of an accidental claim based on overloading of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The State Commission held that the gross vehicle weight was revised and approved by the transport department. It was further endorsed and revised in the policy document. Therefore, the repudiation was invalid.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala bench comprising Sri Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and Sri Radhakrishnan K.R. (Member) held BSNL and Mokeri Telephone Exchange liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide adequate internet/telecom services. The State Commission held that merely providing an undertaking that for a rebate in rent during the faulty period does not absolve BSNL and Mokeri.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Sh. Manoj Kumar Pant vs General Manager/Regional Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held Birla Sun Life Insurance Company liable for repudiating a valid claim based on an unreasonable policy clause excluding coverage for injuries sustained within 90 days from the issuance of the policy. It was directed to reimburse the claim amount of Rs. 6,23,896/- with interest and pay Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs to the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka
Case Title: Chandrakumar and Anr. vs Chandrakanth Kembhavi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh (President), Mr K.B. Sangannanavar (Judicial Member) and Mrs M. Divyashree (Member) remanded a matter back to the Mysuru District Commission as several discrepancies were noted in the Complainant's statement, engineer's report, and receipt of payment. The State Commission held that the issue could have been clarified if the District Commission had appointed its commissioner to inspect the construction site on the costs payable by the Complainant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Anita Gupta Vs. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, held HDFC Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the rejection of a health insurance claim solely on the presence of non-communication of pre-existing conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Praveen Chauhan Vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that if possession is not delivered within 42 months or beyond 48 months, it constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of the builder.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ms. Suman Rana & Anr.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that even in cases where the insured violates their insurance policy terms, the insurance claim can resolved, though with modified conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Burden Of Proving Medical Negligence Lies With The Claimant: Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Col. Jeetendra Gulati Vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Gita Ram Negi vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for rejecting a claim solely only based on delayed intimation of the damage to the insurance company. The bench set aside the decision of the Shimla District Commission and directed the insurance company to the insurance claim of Rs. 7,90,000 along with Rs. 50,000 for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh held LIC liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid claim based on the reason that the deceased failed to disclose the fact that he used to smoke cigarettes and bidis, at the inception of the policy. The State Commission held that LIC failed to prove the pre-existence of a lung disease. Further, it failed to prove that the deceased himself knew of any such disease at that time.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Ford against the Chandigarh District Commission's order which directed it to refund or replace a defective Ford Mustang Car. The defective engine of the car led to a sudden breakdown, causing a traffic jam and injuries to the owner while pushing it. The State Commission upheld that Ford and the Dealer were liable to provide either a refund or replacement, pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- for legal costs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) allowed an appeal by Lakaki Drycleaners that they were not liable for the Complainant's damaged garments as the Complainant proceeded to pay the bill and collected the garments without raising any objections. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission, North Goa due to lack of objection on the Complainant's part and absence of proof.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Member) dismissed an appeal against the National Insurance Company Ltd. The State Commission concluded that the Insurance Company rightly repudiated the insurance claim covering burglary risk by acting upon the surveyor's report as it is. The Appellant failed to provide the requisite claimed documents to the surveyor and thus the basis of valuation could not be formed.
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Axis Bank liable for deficiency in services in a housing loan case. The Complainant faced delays and hurdles in his loan process, eventually leading to the forfeiture of his earnest money. Despite the bank's assertion of property non-identification, the State Commission found the bank's lack of communication and failure to produce essential documents suspicious. They directed the bank to refund the processing fee and pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission adjudicated a dispute concerning the cancellation of the flight run by Jet Airways and booked through Make My Trip after insolvency proceedings had been initiated against Jet Airways under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Commission and held that the District Commission failed to take the T&C and Jet Airways' Resolution Plan into consideration. It was held that the decision of the NCLT would be final and binding upon the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) dismissed an appeal based on the complexity of the matter and the need for determination of factual intricacies. The complaint involved allegations of forgery and a dispute on the existence of the oral agreement between the concerned parties. The Complainant was set at liberty to pursue the matter with a Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr Ravishankar (Presiding Member) and Smt. Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a standard fire claim by citing the Claimant's negligence of lose wiring. The State Commission held that the root cause of the fire accident should not automatically lead to repudiation of the claim if the policy explicitly provided protection from fire accidents.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms Pinki (Member) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim for damaged marine cargo of gingers. The Insurance Company was directed to reimburse the amount along with interest. The transit companies involved in the transaction were also held negligent for damaging the cargo in transit and were directed to pay Rs. 2 Lakh compensation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner, Rajasthan
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner, Rajasthan comprising Shri Kedar Lal Gupta (Presiding Member) and Shri Sanjay Tak (Member) dismissed an appeal against LIC, filed by a policyholder who failed to disclose his pre-existing heart ailments. The State Commission held that the policyholder was not entitled to the claim as such non-disclosure resulted in the violation of the policy's terms and conditions.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) held Reliance General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services. The Insurance Company failed to honour the valid claims of the Indian travellers who received 4 bags from their luggage after a delay of more than 12 hours in Bhutan.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Amazon and its listed seller, V.K. Knitting Industries liable for unfair and restrictive trade practices for selling socks under the name of 'Marc Jacobs', which in reality had the branding of 'MARC'. Amazon continued to list it under Marc Jacobs' brand name for 4 years and the seller failed to cease the sale.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Shri A.K. Tiwari (Presiding Member) and Dr Shrikant Pandey (Member) dismissed an appeal filed against National Insurance Company Limited by the owner of 20 insured buffaloes. The Owner failed to arrange for the post-mortem of the deceased buffaloes and instead got a 'Panchnama' (record of evidence by 5 people) signed by the co-villagers. The Panchnama was held to be insufficient to prove the claim.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala bench comprising Mr Ajith Kumar (Presiding Member) and Sri Radhakrishnan K.R. (Member) held the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) liable for deficiency in service for unilaterally cancelling the buyer agreement of the Complainant and for ignoring his legitimate requests. It was held liable to refund the balance amount and pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Preetinder Singh (Member) held Flipkart, Oneplus, Oneplus's Service Centre and its seller liable for selling a defective Oneplus mobile handset which was activated way before its purchase date. The State Commission also held Flipkart liable for issuing separate bills on the pretext of double charging for the handling fee, which amounted to 'dark patterns' as per the Central Consumer Protection Authority's notification.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Pinki (Member) and J.P. Agrawal (Member) has found Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and its medical practitioners guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of a patient, ultimately leading to her demise. The commission ordered hospital and doctors to pay Rs. 5,10,000 as compensation. This amount includes Rs. 1,97,900, representing the charges for the surgical procedure performed. And 15000 for litigation charges.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (Siliguri Circuit Bench)
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (Siliguri Circuit Bench) comprising Mr Kundan Kumar Kumai (President) and Mr Swapan Kumar Das (Member) remanded a matter back to the District Commission related to a discrepancy in billing amount issued by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The State Commission held that the District Commission erroneously dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was not empowered to adjudicate on the issue. Rather, consumers can adjudicate on all types of complaints and the Consumer Protection Act complements other remedies and is not in derogation of other laws.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Shri A.K. Tiwari (President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) allowed an appeal filed by Western Central Railway against the order of the District Commission, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The matter pertained to an alleged snatching of the Complainant's gold chain from outside of the train window while sleeping in the middle birth of a reserved compartment. The State Commission observed that it was untenable to hold that such theft could happen from the middle birth as it is not exposed to the train window. The Complainant also failed to substantiate the claimed value of the gold chain with sufficient proof and the claim regarding the absence of security.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Drinkery 51, Chandigarh liable for unfair trade practice for charging more than the MRP mentioned on two Kinley Water Bottles. The bench held that the right to clean and safe water is a basic human right and the act of Drinkery 51 violated the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana bench comprising Shri V.V. Seshubabu (Member) and Smt. R.S. Rajeshree (Member) held HDFC Bank Ltd. and HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for issuing insurance policies and deducting premiums without the Complainant's consent. The bench observed that there were several discrepancies in the policy forms such as overwriting of dates, which raised serious doubts regarding the credibility of these entities.
Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench comprising Mr Naresh Katyal (Presiding Member) held National Insurance Company Ltd. Liable for failure to disburse insurance amount based on late intimation and commercial nature of the Claimant's business. The State Commission perused the evidence and found that the Insurance Company's surveyor assessed the damage and accepted liability.
West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal bench comprising Justice Manojit Mandal (President) held Green Tech IT City Private Limited liable for failure to deliver the promised residential unit within the time frame. The State Commission held that the buyer cannot be obligated to wait any longer in light of the fact that the Builder failed to complete the construction within the agreed-upon timeframe, despite legal notices.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) dismissed a complaint against National Insurance Company Limited. The State Commission refuted the Appellant's contention and held that the Insurance Company was not under any obligation to continue the insurance policy with the same terms after the natural expiry of the old policy held by the Appellant for 10 years.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh bench comprising Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Varma (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) which repudiated the Complainant's claim based on failure to disclose a pre-existing illness. The State Commission found that while the Complainant had a previous medical history, LIC failed to specify which question in the insurance proposal was answered falsely, as the proposal was made 22 years after the mentioned treatments.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh
The Additional bench, of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) held Yes Bank Limited liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver the original copy of the dishonoured cheque to the Complainant. Even though the courier company lost the cheque, the State Commission held that it was the Bank's responsibility to deliver it safely.
Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Shamim Akhtar (Member) and Ram Prawesh Das (Member) upheld an order pronounced by the District Commission, Vaishali against TATAAIG Life Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was held liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid claim of the Complainant based on non-disclosure of chronic disease in the proposal form. The State Commission reiterated that unless the undisclosed preexisting disease directly contributed to or caused death, it wouldn't disqualify the claimant from receiving benefits.
Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising R. N. Mehta (Presiding Member) and P. R. Shah (Member) held the National Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for false repudiation of medical treatment claim. While uploading the decision of the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Navsari (Gujarat), it directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 28,196 for the medical claim to the Complainant.
Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Saroj Kumar Suman vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar (President) and Mr Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) dismissed an appeal filed by the Complainant who claimed to be a valid beneficiary of an insurance policy for a motorcycle purchased by the original owner before the transfer. The State Commission observed that even though the motorcycle's ownership was transferred, the Complainant failed to update his name on the insurance certificate which led to a lack of privity between him and the Insurance Company.
Aurangabad (Maharashtra) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Aurangabad (Maharashtra) bench comprising Dr Nisha A. Chavhan (Member) and Nagesh C. Kumber (Member) held Universal Sompo General Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating the claim for 'Gopinath Mundhe Farmers Insurance Scheme' held by a deceased daily wage worker. The State Commission held that once accidental death was proven, insurance companies couldn't reject the claim based on the deceased's perceived unnecessary risk-taking.
Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising V.V.Seshubabu (Member) and R.S. Rajeshree (Member) held Poulomi Hospitals (Secunderabad) liable of unfair trade practices for removal of Complainant's kidney without his knowledge or consent. While noting the criminal nature of the act committed by the hospital, the bench directed the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs 30 Lakhs and litigation costs of Rs 25,000 to the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Maharashtra
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Maharashtra dismissed a complaint against Jupiter Hospital and its chief oncologist regarding failure to perform a whole-body PET scan timely which eventually led to the demise of the cancer patient. The State Commission observed that the Doctor carried out all necessary investigations in a prompt manner. Further, the PET Scan was optional and the patient came to the Hospital at a late stage when she was suffering from Stage II B of Cancer.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Udaipur (Rajasthan)
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Udaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shri Surendra Kumar Jain (President) and Shri Liyakat Ali (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by a Customer of the State Bank of India (SBI) who alleged liability on part of the SBI for failure to resolve his complaint related to an unauthorized ATM Card transaction. The State Commission found no deficiency on the SBI's part because it conducted a proper inquiry after the alleged unauthorized ATM card transaction and found that the transaction could not have occurred without sharing confidential ATM Card details.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms Pinki (Judicial Member) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (General Member) dismissed a complaint against M/s Angel Broking Limited and gave the option to the Complainant to approach the appreciate civil court. The State Commission observed that the complaint involved complex questions of law and fact, which are better suited for resolution in regular courts rather than consumer forums.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Rajan Sharma (Judicial Member) and Bimla Kumari (Female) held Emirates Airlines liable for deficiency in service for ignoring the request to provide water to the Complainant's son and subsequently behaving rudely while dismissing the request at 2 occasions. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs (Compensation and Litigation Costs) to the Complainant.
State Consumer Commission, Uttar Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, has ruled in favor of homebuyer against Sahara Prime City Ltd. The case sheds light on the challenges faced by the complainants who, despite substantial payments, were denied possession of their allotted unit. This decision emphasizes the imperative for accountability in real estate transactions and sets a significant precedent for consumer protection in the industry.
State Consumer Commission, Uttar Pradesh
State Consumer Commission, UP presided over by Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar, the Chairman, declared a verdict in favor of the appellant, Ketan Kumar Singh, in a dispute against S.M. College of Veterinary Sciences and Animal Research. The appeal was filed against the order of the District Consumer Protection Commission, Mathura. The appellant sought relief under the Consumer Protection Act, presenting his case against the college's refusal to refund his fees.
State Consumer Commission, Uttar Pradesh
The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, presided by Justice Ashok Kumar (President) held Air India liable for deficiency in services and directed to pay compensation and refund for the tickets.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Trade In Old Vehicle, Car Seller A Consumer: Punjab State Commission
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by H.P.S. Mahal (Judicial Member) and Kiran Sibal (Member), overturned the decision of the District Commission. They sided with an appeal against Hyundai Motors and a connected seller regarding deficiency in service.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
H.P. State Commission Allows SBI Appeal Against Customer's Plea Of Unauthorised Withdrawal From ATM
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench led by Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) allowed an appeal by the State Bank of India against the Complainant who alleged unauthorized withdrawals of Rs. 4 Lakhs from his savings bank account. The State Commission held that since the ATM Card remained in the Complainant's custody, it was his responsibility to use it cautiously and not share the secret PIN with anyone else.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr R.K. Verma (Member) held Simla Autozone, Parel, a dealer of Ashok Leyland Company, individually liable for failure to return/refund the down payment to the Complainant whose tipper exhibited several defects within the warranty period. The State Commission held that the relationship between Ashok Leyland and the Dealer was on a principal-to-principal basis, with the Dealer responsible for the down payment and possession of the Tipper.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
Case Title: Rachit Srivastava vs Grand Venice Mall and Others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh bench comprising Mr Justice Ashok Kumar (President) dismissed an appeal filed by the Complainant against Grand Venice Mall, Greater Noida and a rock-climbing company operating within its premises. The State Commission held that the Complainant failed to prove the alleged ankle injury, communication with Game Operators and other allegations made against the mall and the Game Operators.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench comprising Shri. P.G. Kadu (Incharge President), Smt. S.A. Petkar (Member) and Smt. G.M. Kapse (Member) held VLCC Health Care Ltd. liable for negligently carrying out laser hair reduction treatment on the Complainant, which led to a severe burn on her entire chin. It was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohit Nigam vs Air India Ltd. and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President), Shri. Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Shri. Sameer Kamble (Member) held Indian Airlines liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to conduct mandatory pre-flight checks which led to a delay of 24 hours. Indian Airlines merged with Air India in the year 2007.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for misrepresenting the Complainant that the term of the policies was five years and misspelling the name of the nominee. The bench directed the insurance company to refund the premiums of Rs. 2,59,997/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
Kangra District Commission Holds Puma India And Its Showroom Liable For Selling Deformed Shoes
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Puma India and its showroom liable for deficiency in services for selling deformed shoes to the Complainant. The bench directed Puma and its showroom to refund Rs. 6,299/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to supply CCTV footage of ATM to the Complainant of a failed ATM transaction of Rs. 10,000/-. The bench directed the Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the mental agony and harassment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member) held Lemon & Tree Holidays Resorts liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The Company failed to provide services even after charging Rs. 1,20,000/- for the Holiday Package Membership from the Complainant. The bench directed the company to refund Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President). Ms Mamta Kaura (Member) and Mr Narayan Thakur (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for wrongfully repudiating an accidental claim based on lack of intimation and unauthorized usage of the vehicles during the accident.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) dismissed a complaint against LIC noting that the insured carries a responsibility of accurately providing details in the proposal form. The bench held that the insured didn't disclose the pre-existing health conditions in the proposal form and that LIC rightly repudiated the claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 80,000/- from the Complainant and reverse the whole amount. The bench directed PNB to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for attempting to misguide the commission.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Mohammed Ibrahim (President) and Prakash Chandra Tripathi (Member) held United Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services repudiating a genuine claim. The repudiation was based solely on late reporting of the claim because of personal challenges.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Case Title: Brahma Nand vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Muthoot Finance Limited and Liberty General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for failure to reimburse the insurance claim even after receiving the requisite documents. Muthoot Finance, being the Complainant's employer, was also held liable for the repudiation because it acted on behalf of the insurance company to facilitate the policy to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran. V (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held Flipkart liable for failure to disclose seller information, as mandated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. The District Commission observed that such non-disclosure undermines transparency and hinders consumers' ability to make informed decisions or seek redressal.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising D.B Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran. V (Member) and Mrs Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Maruti Suzuki and its dealer liable for failure to fulfil the promised repair within a reasonable timeframe, coupled with additional damages to the car post-service. They were directed to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a medical claim based on fictitious and unclear grounds. The Insurance Company alleged fraud on the part of the insured, however, failed to verify the authenticity of his medical documents before making a decision.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Amazon liable for failure to initiate a refund after the wrongly delivered Samsung T.V. was returned to the Seller. It was directed to initiate the refund, and pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Dr. Tripti Pannu (Member) and Sh. Vijender Singh (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim for a car involved in an accident. The Insurance Company failed to provide adequate evidence to prove that the repudiation was justified based on the Complainant's irresponsive behaviour, a pre-settlement, and overvaluation of the damages.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) dismissed a complaint against Samsung, its store, and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. (the financer). The Complainant who alleged manufacturing defects with the purchased Samsung TV failed to substantiate her claim of deficiencies on the part of Samsung, the store, or the Financer. Further, the main problem with the screen was duly attended by the Financer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solan (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solan (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising D.R. Thakur (President), Vijay Lamba (Member) and Neelam Gupta (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against PNB Metlife LIC Ltd. The bench observed that the insurance company received the premium. However, the acceptance of the insurance policy was not conveyed to the insured. Therefore, the contract for insurance between the company and the deceased wasn't finalized.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench consisting of Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), dismissed a complaint against Northern Railways regarding stolen belongings. The Commission held that the responsibility for the safety of goods during a train journey lies with the passengers, unless negligence on the part of Railways is proven.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Ramachandra M.S. (President) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held Redbus is liable for deficiency in services for failure to notify the Complainant about a bus departing earlier than scheduled from the bus stop. The bench directed Redbus to refund the booking amount of Rs. 1,023.5/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Redus was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi
Case Title: Hari Mohan vs Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), found Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. accountable for wrongfully rejecting a valid medical claim. The Commission noted that while the Insurance Company approved one claim, it rejected another similar claim, raising doubts about consistent adherence to the policy terms.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Gupta vs DCB Bank Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr Harshali Kaur (Member) held DCB Bank liable for charging foreclosure fee from an individual borrower, as against the terms of the loan and RBI guidelines. The District Commission observed that the Bank wrongfully classified an individual loan as a business loan to levy foreclosure charges.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jolly PF Vs. Badriya Exclusive Furniture
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Badriya Exclusive Furniture liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Commission elucidated on the lack of an effective customer grievance redressal system in such exhibitions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
Rewari District Commission Holds Toll Plaza Liable For Double Charging Within 24 Hours
Case Title: Ram Kishan Saini vs Kathuwas Toll Plaza and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held Kathuwas Toll Plaza liable for charging twice for a return journey within 24 hours. The double charging comprised a violation of the toll rules which provide that the toll plaza is entitled to only half of the toll amount for a return journey within 24 hours.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Asha Devi and Others vs Future Generally India Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President) and Ms Mamta Kaura (Member) held Future Generally Insurance India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for repudiating a valid accidental claim by relying on an apprehensive blood sample report which had discrepancies regarding handling and testing.
Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
Case Title: Srinivs. P. Alias vs Croma Kalyan Nagar
The Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chadrashekar S. Noola and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Croma and LG liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair and replace the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant which had regular issues such as food spoilage, foul odour, and black fungus formation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Case Title: Sonu vs RBL Bank Ltd and anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R. K. Dogra (President) and Dr Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held RBL Bank Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for failure to honour the agreement made with the Complainant to return the tractor upon the payment of outstanding instalments by him. The bench directed the bank to release the tractor and directed the Complainant to pay any outstanding amount to the bank. The bank was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and SK Sardana (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for wrongful repudiation of a genuine medical claim. It held that symptoms such as cough, fever, and diabetes are typical ailments of modern life and cannot be classified as pre-existing diseases. The bench directed the insurance company to pay the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh dismissed a complaint against State Bank of India (SBI) Cards and Payment Services on the allegation of failure to reverse an unauthorized OTP-based credit card transaction. The District Commission perused the RBI Guidelines and held that a customer shall bear the entire loss resulting from unauthorized transactions if it is due to the customer's negligence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Sh. Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Sh. Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated time or initiate the refund of the amount advanced. It was directed to refund the outstanding amount, pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Chandigarh District Commission Holds Uber Liable For Charging In Excess Of Contracted Amount
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Uber India liable for unfair trade practice for charging excess fares beyond the contracted amount. It held that Uber cannot escape liability by contending that it is a mere facilitator between the drivers and the customers, as a portion of the payment made by the customer inevitably reaches Uber.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held J.W. Marriott Hotel liable for unfair trade practice for retaining full payment of the booking amount even after cancellation due to unforeseen circumstances endured by the customer. The cancellation was in line with the facilitator's (MakeMyTrip) terms and conditions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Voltas, its technician and Cool Star Refrigeration Store, Chandigarh liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair the refrigerator after charging Rs. 1,800/- from the Complainant. The District Commission directed them to refund Rs. 1,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon
Gurgaon District Commission Holds BATA Liable For Sale Of Defective Shoes And Failure To Replace
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held BATA footwear liable for selling defective shoes and subsequently, failing to replace it before the proceedings started.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Apollo Munich Health Insurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid insurance claim on the pretext of non-disclosure of a prior illness. The district Commission held that there was no nexus between the prior disease and the new ailment for which the insurance amount was being claimed.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (“District Commission”)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (“District Commission”) bench comprising Mr Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Ms Mandeep Kaur (Member) dismissed a complaint against LA Roma Pizzeria as the aggrieved customer failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding allegations of mistreatment and denial of normal water.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Stay Vista Private Limited and the Hideaway Cottage liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Stay Vista, an online hotel booking platform, failed to resolve a customer's grievance after substandard conditions at the hotel and a discrepancy in its location were reported.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Miniso India liable for charging Rs. 12 extra for the carry bag without informing the customer before making the payment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neena Sandhu (President), Smt. Ruby Sharma (Member) and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Google India liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide upgraded storage despite receiving payments. It rejected the argument of Google India that the storage services were being provided by Google LLC, which is a separate legal entity. A direct relationship between Google India and Google LLC was found and the complaint was allowed.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-west Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-west Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Airtel liable for failure to provide free DTH connection for the first 2 months, as promised in the package initially. The District Commission directed Airtel to refund the amount and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neetu Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) dismissed a complaint against IDFC First Bank and Ebix Travels because the allegations involved complex events, requiring further evidence and the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the Complainant was set at liberty to pursue the matter in an appropriate court of law.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to replace a washing machine which was damaged in transit.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Surjeet Kaur Presiding (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held SBI Card liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve disputes regarding unauthorized transactions within a reasonable time frame.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Club failed to honour the promised terms of membership and failed to rectify the issues with the validity period.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neena Sandhu (President), Smt. Ruby Sharma (Member) and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) dismissed a complaint against United India Insurance Company for repudiation of a stolen car's claim. The District Commission held that the car keys were negligently left inside the car, which contributed to the theft. Further, the FIR was filed with an unexplained delay of 30 days, which raised serious concerns regarding the validity of the claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held Oyo and 2 of its registered hotels liable for denying check-in to the Complainant, despite confirmed booking. This created significant hurdles in the career opportunity of the Complainant, for which he had made the bookings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Ernakulam District Commission Holds BATA Showroom Liable For Selling Outdated Sandals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) held BATA Showroom (MG Road), Ernakulam liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service for selling outdated sandals. The sandals turned out to be defective as their soles broke into 2 pieces within 2 days of the purchase.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Oyo Rooms and Hotel Kasauli Continental liable for failure to assure check-in, despite receiving full payment for the same. Even though the Hotel was no more tied up with Oyo, there was a lock-in requirement of 12 months during which the Hotel was responsible for honouring confirmed bookings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Mahindra & Mahindra and its authorized dealer liable for deficiency in service for failure to rectify issues with the voice recognition capacity of the infotainment system of the car. The District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 40684.50/- for the deficient infotainment system, Rs. 15,000/- compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for premature encashment of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) without the Complainant's consent. The bank was directed to reimburse the loss along with 7% interest.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru Urban bench comprising Sri. Shivarama K (President), Sri. Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Thomas Cook (India) liable for failure to procure the Complainant's Australian Visa within a reasonable time. The delay in procurement of the visa led to the cancellation of the Complainant's trip.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-I (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-I (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Sube Singh Yadav (President) and Neelam Sharma (Member) held Oyo Rooms liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide adequate transportation and other facilities as promised under the holiday package. Out of the total package amount of Rs. 1,23,896/-, Oyo was directed to make a refund of Rs. 61,948/-, pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Haldiram Product Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Haldiram engaged in the selling of stale sweets infected with fungus. It also failed to resolve the consumer's grievances by replacing only 3 bags of sweets among many.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Food Hall, Chanakya Mall liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for negligently leaving pieces of a white-coloured glove in a packed food item. Further, the Food Hall management failed to address the grievance or extend an apology to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Jaswant Singh (President), Sh. Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held Airtel and Vodafone liable for disconnecting the Complainant's mobile connections despite the fulfilment of outstanding dues. The District Commission directed them to restore the connections or pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 15,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for not honouring the complete claim for the insured stock which was burned down due to a fire accident. The District Commission held that the surveyor undervalued the claim amount without giving any justifiable reasons.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held Vmake Visas liable for failure to arrange the Canadian Permanent Residence (PR) for the Complainant within the agreed timeframe. It was directed to refund the entire collected amount, and pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 11,000/- litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neena Sandhu (President), Smt. Ruby Sharma (Member) and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Pizza Wings restaurant liable for delivering chicken roll instead of paneer roll. The District Commission directed Pizza Wings to pay Rs. 5,000/- as a lumpsum compensation amount to the aggrieved consumer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Samindara S. Surve (President), Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Shri Sameer Kamble (Member) held Hindustan Times Media Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide access to its employment platform despite receiving payments for the same. It was directed to refund the payment with interest, pay Rs. 2 Lakh consolidated compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Asian Public School, Gurgaon liable for deliberately misrepresenting the dates of admission and withdrawal to charge more fee for extra months. The school was directed to refund the extra fee and pay Rs. 15,000/- compensation and Rs. 11,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-III, South Kolkata (West Bengal)
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-III, South Kolkata (West Bengal) bench comprising Mrs. Monihar Begum (Presiding Member) and Mr. Manish Deb (Member) held UCO Bank liable for deficiency in service for failure to utilize the Core Banking Solution (CBS) facility to credit the matured fixed deposit amount in the Complainant's savings account. The Bank was directed to transfer the matured amount with interest and pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal) bench comprising Mrs Sukla Sengupta (President) and Mr Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held Marco-Polo Restaurant, Park Street (Kolkata) liable for charging more than MRP for packaged water and a 650 ml Kingfisher (S) bottle. The District Commission also held that the restaurant had a duty to serve the customers without charging additional service charges.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held One Plus and its seller, Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with a newly purchased phone, within the warranty period. They were directed to refund the amount of the phone with interest, and pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) dismissed a complaint against National Insurance Company Ltd. It found that the damage to the insured car resulted from the deliberate and wilful actions of the Complainant's son, driving into a water-logged underpass, absolving the Insurance Company of liability.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Vodafone Idea Limited liable for applying international roaming rates when the complainant was in India. Additionally, it was found guilty of abruptly deactivating both incoming and outgoing services without any prior notice or SMS alerts.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Batra (President), Ms Shivani Bhargava (Member) and Shri Manjit Singh Bhinder (Member) held Punjabi University liable for deficiency in service for failure to dispatch the requested academic transcript to a student within a reasonable time. Further, the University was also held liable for failure to refund the fee submitted to procure the said transcript.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam
Food Poisoning: Kerala Consumer Forum Directs Bakery To Pay Rs.50,000 Compensation To Family
Case title: Santhosh Mathew v K N Bhaskaran
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered a Bakery to pay compensation of 50,000 rupees to a family affected by food poisoning on consumption of its food articles. The Bench comprising President D B Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T N also commended the efforts taken by the family in taking action against the bakery.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar Mishra vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chand (Member) held IRCTC and Northeastern Railway liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the ticket when the passengers remained in the waiting list on the day of the journey. The bench directed them to refund the ticket price and pay Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for litigation cost.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab) bench comprising of Lalit Mohan Dogra (President) and Bhagwan Singh Matharu (Member) held Cholamandalam General Insurance Company liable of deficiency in services for falsely repudiating the claim citing non-supply for the documents by the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 85,800 to the Complainant and expressed concerns over the repudiation of valid claims in an overly technical manner.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (Chandigarh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (Chandigarh) bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held PNB Housing Finance Ltd. liable for imposing prepayment charges on the loan and delay in delivery of loan cheque. The bench directed it to refund the deducted amount and pay Rs. 10,000/- compensation and Rs. 8,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab) bench comprising of Lalit Mohan Dogra (President) and Bhagwan Singh Matharu (Member) held HDFC Bank liable for deficiency in service for closing the Complainant's bank account based on non-submission of Aadhar Card. Considering the mandatory requirement of compliance with KYC norms per circular and the absence of proper intimation to the complainant, the bench directed it to reactivate the account and pay Rs. 5,000 compensation and Rs. 3,000/- litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala (Punjab) bench comprising Dr Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Rajita Sareen (Member) and S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member) held Punjab State Power Corporation and Sub-Divisional Officer, (Ucha Sub-division) liable for deficiency in services for false disconnection of meter electricity connection. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind (Haryana) bench comprising of A.K. Sardana (President) and Neeru Agarwal (Member) held the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) liable for deficiency in service for false repudiation of the claim filed by the Complainant stating that benefits of the policy were fixed and not dependent on the actual expenses incurred during the treatment. Further, LIC failed to disburse the expenses incurred by the Complainant towards his surgery stating it was not a “Major Surgery”. The bench directed it to reimburse the claim and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant, along with Rs. 10,000/- litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind (“Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jind (“Haryana) bench comprising A.K. Sardana (President), Neeru Agarwal (Member) and GD Goyal (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for failure to pay the loss of crop incurred by the Complainant which was insured by him under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojna. The bench directed it to disburse Rs. 74,686/-, pay Rs. 10,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Debasish Nayak (President) and Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held LIC, India liable for deficiency in services for failure to pay maturity amount and periodic payments of the insurance policies to the Complainant. Along with the timely disbursal of the insurance amount, the bench directed it to pay Rs. 50,000, as compensation, to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sangrur (Punjab) bench comprising of Jot Naranjan Singh Gill (President) and Sarita Garg (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for not crediting the pension in the Complainant's account for seven years. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for legal costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Singh (Member) held Star Union Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for failure to pay minimum surrender value of the Insurance Company. The bench directed it to pay the surrender value, compensation and litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu)
Misplaced Courier In Transit, Karur District Commission Directs DTDC To Pay Rs. 2 Lakhs Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising Thiru. N Pari (“President) and Thiru A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) held DTDC Express Courier Service liable for deficiency in services for misplacing the Complainant's courier set to be delivered in Singapore. Further, it also failed to adequately resolve the Complainant's concerns, despite several attempts at communication. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs compensation and Rs. 10,000/- legal costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench comprising of A.K. Naveen (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Sharp Watch Investigation & Security (SWISS) liable for deficiency in services for failure to pay Rs. 6,41,439 as salary to the Complainant who was employed as a counsellor at the observation centre. It continued to deduct a certain part of the Complainant's salary without any justified reason. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 6.4 Lacs to the Complainant along with Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 5,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
Failure To Repair Manufacturing Defects; North Delhi District Commission Directs HP To Pay Rs 60.4k
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising of Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held HP liable of deficiency in services for not rectifying the manufacturing defects of the laptop sold to the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay Rs 60,490 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur (Kerala) held Syska LED Lights Private Limited (“Syska”) liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the power bank purchased by the Complainant which was under warranty. The bench directed Syska to refund the purchase amount and pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debasish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held UPSC Pathshala (Coaching Institute) liable for failure to refund the appropriate coarse fee as per its T&C after the Complainant faced several issues with its website and outdated teaching methodologies. Out of Rs. 40,000/-, the District Commission directed the Institute to refund Rs. 35,324/-, pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 10,000/- for the cost of litigation.
Ernakulum District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulum District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, consisting of Mr. D.B. Binu (President) along with Mr. V. Ramachandran, and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. as members, allowed a consumer complainant against the Proprietor, M/s JC Machinery. The complaint alleged that the complainant, a small-scale packaging industry owner, had purchased a "sheet separator machine" with specific features from the opposite party. However, upon delivery, the machine was found to be defective and lacked the promised specifications, suffering a breakdown. While holding J C Machinery liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the Consumer Commission directed the owner of J C Machinery to refund the broken machine's price along with other charges and compensation. While deciding the complaint, the bench also made an observation with respect to the 2019 Act, noting that the 2019 Consumer Protection Act adopts a more consumer-friendly approach. It emphasizes transparency and a shift from the traditional concept of "buyer beware" to "seller beware" for enhanced consumer protection.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kozhikode (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kozhikode (Kerala) bench comprising of P.C Paulachen (President), V Balakrishnan (Member) and Priya S (Member) held HP India liable for deficiency in service for selling a laptop which started experiencing multiple issues within a few days of its purchase. HP India further failed to sufficiently resolve the Complainant's continued concerns. The bench directed HP India to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) held Mahindra Tractors dealer liable of deficiency in service for delay in delivery of high security registration plate/number plate and registration certificate to the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Neena Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held State Bank of India for unauthorized deductions from the Complainant's Fastag account issued by the bank. The bench noted that the amount was deducted from the Complainant's account at a time when his car did not even cross the Toll Plaza. Consequently, SBI was directed to refund the amount and pay compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II South Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II South Delhi bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and U.K. Tyagi (Member) held CarDekho.com liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for not refunding the booking amount to the Complainant after it declined to deliver the purchased car to the Complainant. The District Commission directed CarDekho to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (Central Delhi)
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (Central Delhi) bench comprising Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Shahina (Female Member) held the Delhi Dental & Medical Centre liable for deficiency of service for providing dentures with excessive height and not according to physical features of the Complainant. The District Commission directed it to refund the amount and pay compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid insurance claim based on alleged non-cooperation by the family members of the deceased. The District Commission dismissed the Insurance Company's contention and held that the responsibility to honour the T&C of the policy fell on the Insurance Company.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Moga (Punjab) bench comprising Smt. Priti Malhotra (President) and Shri Mohinder Singh Brar (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance liable for repudiating a valid insurance claim filed by the nominee of the deceased insured person. The District Commission rejected the claim of the insurance company that the deceased account holder did not make POS e-commerce transactions within the stipulated period, based on evidence explicitly showing an e-commerce transaction made from the account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Indian Bank liable for failure to refund Rs. 10 Lakhs transaction amount which was lost in an unauthorized manner. Due to JIO's deficient service, the Complainant's mobile number was issued to another sim card, paving the way for 2 unauthorized transactions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
Rewari District Commission Holds Gas Agency And ICICI Lombard House Liable For Indane Cylinder Blast
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) ordered Rewari Gas Service Agency and M/s ICICI Lombard House to compensate the Complainant who encountered a cylinder blast incident, leading to a severe damage of his house. The District Commission noted that as per the agreement between Rewari Gas Service Agency and the manufacturer, IOCL LPG, the Gas Agency was responsible for bearing expenses related to transportation, and storage, and indemnifying IOCL against any loss or damage arising from the storage, handling, or transportation of gas cylinders.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debashish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held the Post Office, Madhupatna S.O., liable for deficiency in service. The Post Office's Bank wrongfully deducted a certain percentage of promised interest from a senior citizen's account based on the absence of her PAN number during the opening of the account. The District Commission held that it failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove its contentions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debasish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Flipkart Internet Private Limited liable for deficiency in service. Flipkart failed to resolve the Complainant's concerns, who received a defective Cadbury's Bourn Vita Chocolate Health Drink Pouch, of a different size. The District Commission dismissed Flipkart's argument that it is a mere online platform facilitator by highlighting that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 outlines the duties of e-commerce platforms, emphasizing the need for genuine transactions and product supervision.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr. R. K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Nykaa and Delhivery Courier liable for deficiency in services for delivering beauty products worth Rs. 17,541/- in damaged condition when they were left outside the Complainant's house. The bench directed them to refund the purchase amount, pay Rs. 5k compensation and Rs. 5.5.k litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Kasim vs Yatra Online Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to inform the Complainant about the requirement of transit visa for the connecting flight and for failure to provide a direct layover-free flight, in line with the Complainant's requirements. The bench directed Yatra Online to pay Rs. 56,504/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Narendra Prem Chand Rana and another vs The Branch Manager, State SBI of India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Mr Narayan Thakur (Member) held State Bank of India liable for wrongfully penalizing its borrowers for failure to timely furnish the completion certificate of the house, for which they applied for a home loan under the SBI Realty Home Loan Scheme. The District Commission held that SBI demanded the certificate after six years and didn't issue a prior notification to the Complainants for the same.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Toshiba India Pvt Ltd. Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Toshiba India and the carrier liable for deficiency in service over substandard product and concealment of relevant information during the purchase by the complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held John Elevators Private Limited liable of deficiency in service for delay in installation of the lift. The bench directed it to complete the lift work within two months and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,05,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Jaswant Singh (President), Shri Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held New India Assurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating based on commercial usage of the vehicle. The District Commission noted that the Insurance Company failed to substantiate its claims with proof. Therefore, it allowed the complaint and ordered it to pay Rs. 1.48 lakhs to the Complainant, along with Rs. 25k compensation and Rs. 11k litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (Kerala) bench, composed of Mr Vinay Menon (President), Mrs Vidya A (Member), and Mr Krishnankutty N.K. (Member), directed the complainant to compensate the doctor for filing a malicious complaint alleging a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. The complainant accused the doctor of intentionally providing a medical certificate to her husband, detailing her depressive disorder. The District Commission dismissed the complaint against the doctor due to a lack of evidence demonstrating the doctor's knowledge and intention to cause potential harm to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Sri Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), Sri P.V.T.R. Jawahar Babu (Member) and Smt. D. Sreedevi (Member) held Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India liable for wrongfully repudiating the insurance claim filed by the deceased's wife, despite submission of all required documents. The District Commission rejected LIC's argument that the patient suppressed the information regarding a pre-existing disease and concluded that there was no nexus between the alleged disease and the patient's death. LIC was directed to disburse Rs. 20 lakhs, and pay Rs. 25k compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Non-Disbursal Of Policy Amount, Jodhpur District Commission Holds United India Insurance Co. Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyan Sundar Lata (President) and Smt. Afsana Khan (Member) directed United India Insurance Co. to disburse 75% of the Insured Declared Value (IDV) to the Complainant whose insured car was stolen when left unattended during the Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission noted that the Complainant's actions violated the insurance policy, however, the circumstances were so that the case deserved a successful claim on a non-standard basis.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr Shyam Sundar (President) and Afsana Khan (Member) held Foresta Café, Jodhpur liable for failure to provide regular drinking water to customers, indirectly compelling them to buy bottled water for which they charge more than the bottle's M.R.P. The café was directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- compensation and Rs. 2,500 legal costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shri Prakash Chandra Pagaria (President) and Shri Jai Dixit (Member) directed Amazon to refund the purchase price of the shoes returned by the Complainant. The District Commission held that Amazon did not make an effort to clarify its contention regarding the return of the wrong product by the Complainant and its failure to refund any amount constituted a deficiency in service. The shoe manufacturer was not held liable for the same.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) held Rao IIT Academy liable for refunding the fee to the Complainant, whose daughter did not attend one single class due to the Complainant's transfer. The District Commission noted that despite having no express agreement between the coaching institute and the Complainant, the coaching institute was liable to refund the fee.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shri Gyarsi Lal Meena (President) and Smt. Hemlata Agrawal (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited and its dealer, Ranger Firms Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging Rs. 15 in excess of the products' value after applying the discount. They were directed to refund Rs. 15/-, pay Rs. 10,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) held Bank of India, Kirti Nagar branch liable for failure to exercise due diligence under RBI'S Cheque Truncating System (CTS) Scheme and Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The bank's negligence led to the issuance of the chequebook to an unauthorized person, who later transferred 2 cheques, thereby causing loss to the original account owner.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, West Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) held National Insurance Company Ltd. liable for arbitrary repudiation of a valid insurance claim filed by the Complainant who was hospitalized to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Punjabi Bagh. By giving weight to the treating doctor's certificate justifying the admission and continued follow-up, the District Commission highlighted the Insurance Company's responsibility to indemnify the insured against medical risks through the collection of premiums.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt. G. Venkateswari (President), Smt. P. Vijaya Durga (Member) and Sri Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Union Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for its failure to investigate a couple of unauthorized transactions made from the Complainant's account. The District Commission emphasized the responsibility of the bank to promptly address customer complaints and conduct investigations.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench, presided over by Sh. Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), has allowed a consumer complainant filed against a gym. A group of people, who had purchased gym memberships in 2019 by paying varying amounts, filed a complaint when the gym, in 2020, issued a notice about discontinuing services due to relocation. Despite the complainants seeking a refund, the gym did not comply. The Commission found that the gym had admitted the refundable amount due to the complainants and, after relocating, failed to refund it, thus constituting a deficiency in service. Consequently, the Commission directed the gym to refund the respective amounts with interest along with compensation and litigation costs.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District) presided by Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar along with Harpreet Kaur Charya as a member has held Northern Railways liable for deficiency in their services on account of a complaint raised by a passenger. The complaint alleged that despite booking a third AC train ticket for a comfortable journey, the passenger faced distressing conditions during his travel from New Delhi to Indore. The main grievance was the unhygienic and unsatisfactory state of the train toilets, lacking proper cleanliness and water supply.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President) and Tripti Pannu (Member) held the ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide adequate security to the Complainant's account which led to several unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 4.89 Lacs. The bench directed the bank to reverse the unauthorized transactions and pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for litigation costs and compensation for deficiency in service.
Ernakulum Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulum Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided over by Sh. D.B. Binu, along with Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N as members, recently allowed a consumer complaint filed against Kalyan Silks Trichur. The complaint was filed by a retired Professor who alleged that two bridal sarees purchased from the textile retailer's Ernakulam showroom were damaged due to material and manufacturing defects. The Commission, while allowing the complaint, stated that Kalyan Silks didn't give clear care instructions for the sarees, creating a service deficiency. As a result, the commission ordered Kalyan Silks to compensate the consumer with Rs. 25,000 and pay back the sarees' cost, Rs. 30,040, along with an additional Rs. 20,000 for the litigation costs.
Ernakulum Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam Consumer Forum, comprising of Mr. D.B. Binu as President, along with Mr. Ramchandran V. and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. as Members, found Luxury Droom responsible for deficiency in services due to a misleading advertisement made by them. While the complainant was expecting a discounted Rolex watch to be delivered, he received a duplicate Rolex watch with damaged plating. Despite promises of a quick refund, the complainant faced delays. Thereby, noting Luxury Droom's failure to keep promises and use of misleading advertisements, the Consumer Forum directed them to refund Rs.13,990/- for the watch, compensate Rs.30,000/- for deficient services, and pay Rs.10,000/- as proceedings cost.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit-III
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit-III bench comprising Sudip Niyogi (President) and Subir Kumar Dass (Member) held Exotica Orchids liable for deficiency in services for sending damaged plants to the Complainant and subsequently failing to provide pick-up facility to ensure a smooth return. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 4,730/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (“Telangana”)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (“Telangana”) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and B.Raja Reddy (Member) dismissed a complaint against Gulf AirLines noting that the burden of proving the deficiency of service lies on the party making claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) And Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held United India Insurance Company Ltd liable for deficiency of service for falsely repudiating the insurance claim by reporting the incident as theft despite compelling evidence which suggested that it was burglary. The bench directed it to pay an insurance claim of ₹13,40,941/- and ₹20,000/- as compensation to the Complainant. It was also directed to pay a litigation cost of ₹10,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance Co. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for falsely repudiating the insurance claim stating that the insured died of chronic kidney disease which wasn't covered by the policy. The bench noted that the insured died of a heart attack and the insurance company didn't provide sufficient evidence that would suggest otherwise. The bench directed the insurance company to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 2,66,986/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit – II
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit – II bench comprising Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held Apple India Pvt. Ltd, Systematix Media (Imagine) and Reliance Digital are liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices to the Complainant for selling a defective MacBook Air to the Complainant. The bench directed them to refund Rs. 57,890 along with a compensation of Rs. 17,367 and Rs. 5,000 for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Purender Vaidya (President) and Pooja Gupta (Member) held HDFC Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for falsely repudiating the claim. The bench noted that the insurance company promised to pay the full value of the investment after the lock in period which was repudiated at a later stage. Further, the insurance company failed to treat the Complainant's claim similar to an identical claim made by his wife where monetary concessions were granted. The bench directed the insurance company to pay the value of the insurance policy and a compensation of ₹ 10,000/- along with ₹ 5,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (“Kerala”)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (“Kerala”) bench comprising of S.K. Sreela (President) and Stanly Harold (Member) held Chicking Store liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for charging Rs. 20/- extra for packaging. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 15k Compensation and Rs. 5k Litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit-III
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit-III bench comprising Sudip Niyogi (President) and Monihar Begum (Member) held Oriental Bank of Commerce and Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in service for falsely repudiating a valid insurance claim, based on delay in remitting the premiums. The bench directed them to disburse Rs. 66,790/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 30,000/- for compensation and litigation costs incurred by the Complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Jaya Rama vs Amazon India and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), and C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) held Lenovo's authorized service centre liable for deficiency in services for failing to resolve an issue in a Lenovo Idea Pad Laptop. The bench directed the service centre to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) held an authorized dealer of Volkswagen India liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to issue the tax invoice/bill for the extended warranty benefits accrued to the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) held Ferns N Petals liable for unfair trade practices for failure to deliver the order on time and not letting the Complainant cancel the order. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 1,311/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Kavita Rani vs IDBI Bank and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyal (Member) and Dr Amita Aggarwal (Member) held SBI General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for failure to appoint a qualified loss assessor within the prescribed time frame and for not conducting the loss assessment or settle the claim within the stipulated period under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Beema Yojna scheme. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 77,706.3/- to the Complainant for the loss of the insured crop and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr. R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Oscar Super Speciality Hospital & Trauma Centre liable for deficiency in services for wrongfully charging the Complainant for the treatment despite him being an Aayushman card holder. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 20,615/- to the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held One 97 Communications India Limited (Paytm) liable for deficiency in services for failure to reverse the amount after a transaction failure which was reflected as "transaction status failure.” The bench directed it to refund Rs.826.37/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- along with Rs.3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa bench comprising Sanjay Motiram Chodankar (President) and Jayson Rodrigues (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for the delay in settling an insurance claim. The bench directed it to pay the claim of Rs. 17,531.26/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the metal agony incurred by him.
Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Failure To Initiate Full Refund As Per T&C, Bangalore District Commission Holds Myntra Liable
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Vijaykumar M Pawal (President), B Devaraju (Member) and V Anuradha (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services for failure to honour the 14-day return policy published on its website and for charging higher than the MRP on the packaging. The bench directed it to refund Rs.17,999/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in services for false repudiation of claim filed by the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay the claim of Rs.30,338/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Vijaykumar M Pawale (President), B Devaraju (Member) and V Anuradha (Member) held British Airways liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund the ticket price despite cancellation of the flight. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 78,131/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Cuttack District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Orrisa) bench comprising Debasish Nayak (President) and Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund excess amount deducted during a single online transaction.
U.T. Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Vinod Kumar vs HDFC Ergo Health Insurance Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held HDFC Ergo Health Insurance Ltd. liable of deficiency in services for repudiation of a genuine claim stating that the Complainant didn't disclose his pre-existing alcoholic liver disease. The bench directed it to pay the claim amount of ₹ 2,51,136/- to the Complainant and pay ₹ 20,000/- as compensation along with ₹ 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit - II (Central)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit - II (Central) bench comprising Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held Tata Motors and its dealer liable of deficiency in services and negligence for selling a vehicle with manufacturing defeats and without inspection to the Complainant. The bench directed them to replace the defective vehicle and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with Rs. 30,000 for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr. Amita Aggarwal (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for false repudiation of insurance claim on basis of non-submission of documents which were not essential for claim settlement. The bench directed it to pay the claim of Rs.25,300/- and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr Amita Agarwal (Member) held SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for failure to fulfil its duties under the operational guidelines of Fasal Beema Yojna. Despite the Complainant's timely intimation of loss, it held that the insurance company did not inspect the Complainant's field within the prescribed period. Furthermore, it held that the insurance company did not adequately explain the localization of claim intimation in their written statement and evidence.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that an affidavit stating that the food served was inferior in quality would be sufficient to prove the deficiency of service and discharge the onus on the customer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kozhikode (Kerala) bench comprising Sri P.C. Paulachen (President), Smt. Priya S Bal (Member) and Sri V. Balakrishnan (Member) held Samsung liable for deficiency in service for its failure to provide resolution to the Complainant seeking to utilize a coupon code to buy Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro for a cheaper amount. The District Commission directed Samsung to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant and Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (II)
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (II), Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shyam Sundar (President) and Balveer Khudkhudia (Member) held ICICI bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to block the credit card after the Complainant asked the customer care which subsequently resulted in an unauthorized transaction of Rs. 32,640/- under the credit card. The bench directed the bank to pay the transaction amount of Rs. 32,640/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Sri M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), Smt. J. Shyamala (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member) held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for deficiency in services. LIC repudiated a valid life insurance claim based on non-disclosure of the insured's subsequent policy with another insurance company. The District Commission observed that the second insurance policy at another company was availed after the LIC policy. Therefore, the question of non-disclosure did not arise. Thereafter, the District Commission directed LIC to pay Rs. 8 Lakh to the nominees along with Rs. 25k compensation and Rs. 5k litigation costs.
Jodhpur (Rajasthan) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II
Cancellation Of Bus An Hour Before Departure, Jodhpur District Commission Holds Travel Agency Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shyam Sundar (President) and Balveer Khurkhuria (Member) held Shri Nathnama Travel Agency liable for cancelling the passenger's bus at the last moment without any justifiable reason. The passenger was left stranded and had to incur additional expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for repudiation of a genuine claim filed by the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay the claim amount of ₹ 79,90,953/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹ 20,000/- along with ₹ 10,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held OnePlus and its service centre liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to provide a satisfactory solution to the genuine grievance of the Complainant for repair of the phone which was under warranty. The bench directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 7,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. And its dealer liable for deficiency in service for failure to replace the rusted parts of the Complainant's car and rectify the defects free of cost under warranty.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Wedding Wish liable of deficiency in services for failure to provide matching profiles to the Complainant which didn't align with his preferences. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 7,500/- for the litigation costs.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Oneplus Liable For Failure To Provide Spare Parts
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held OnePlus over deficiency in service due to failure to provide the necessary spare parts for the product to address the defects.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in services for repudiation of a genuine claim where the Complainant was involved in an accident which resulted in complete loss of the vehicle and death of his helper. The bench directed it to pay the claim amount of ₹ 14,99,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹ 40,000/- along with ₹ 10,000 for the litigation costs.
Jaipur (Rajasthan) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Shri Subesingh Yadav (President) and Shrimati Neelam Sharma (Member) held State Bank of India (SBI) liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully deducting money from the Complainant's account and failing to resolve the issue.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) held the New India Assurance Company Ltd liable for deficiency in services for falsely repudiating the claim even though the Complainant submitted the registration certificate of the hospital. The District Commission held that insurance companies cannot adopt a hands-off approach regarding claims during a pandemic when people are facing hardship. The bench directed it to pay the insurance claim of Rs. 45,840/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C. LAKSHMI PRASANNA (Member) held Union Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide security measures to the Complainant's bank account and her credit card which resulted in unauthorized transactions of Rs. 88,232/- from her account. The bench, noting that the bank already paid Rs. 20,790/-, directed it to pay Rs. Rs. 67,437.52/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs. 20,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Glow Designers liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices over the delivery of subpar products to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to reimburse the full amount of vehicle repair expenditure incurred during a hit and run case. The bench directed the insurance company to pay the claim amount of Rs. 6,961/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,500/- to the Complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India Liable For Not Providing Post Purchase Services
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. BInu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N., in a complaint against Samsung India, was determined that the manufacturer's incapacity to offer spare parts shortly after the purchase raises doubts about their dedication to post-purchase service, amounting to a deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and Umesh Kumar Tyagi (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank liable for deficiency in services for converting the credit amount of different credit cards owned by the Complainants into instalments without permission. The bench directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to assist the Complainant when a hotel based in London informed him that no reservation existed in his name.
The bench directed it to pay Rs. 4,34,420/- for the alternate arrangement made by the Complainant along with Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation costs incurred by him. It was also directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- for punitive damages in the consumer welfare fund.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. BInu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Asten Properties liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices over the delay in handing over the booked flat. Despite the developer's argument about the existence of an arbitration clause, the commission emphasized that such a clause does not negate the Consumer Commission's jurisdiction.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising M. Shobha (President), Suma Anil Kumar (Member) and Anita Shivakumar (Member) held Myntra of unfair trade practices for unilaterally cancelling an order without the consumer's consent and crediting the refund amount as store credit in Myntra account. The bench directed it to either complete and deliver the order or pay the order amount of Rs. 63,768/- along with Rs. 20,000/- for compensation and Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant. It was also directed to deposit Rs. 20,000/- in the consumer welfare fund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Air India liable of deficiency in services for failure to provide services to the Complainants who booked flight tickets from New York to Delhi worth Rs. 8,24,964/-. During their journey, the complainants were forced to use stools to support themselves which also exacerbated their medical condition. Keeping all facts in mind, the District Commission directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Chayra (Member) held National Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for repudiation of a valid claim, based on an exclusion clause which was never supplied to the Complainant. The bench directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to him. Additionally, it imposed costs of Rs, 20,000/- on the agent of the insurance company.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Chandigarh Railways and IRCTC liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for unilaterally downgrading the train tickets from 2 AC berths to that of 3 AC. The bench noted that they were obligated to provide refund to the Complainant under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. It directed them to refund the ticket difference of ₹1,005/- and pay a compensation of ₹5,000/- along with ₹4,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwini Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Big Bazar liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund money for the items missing in the order delivered to the Complainant. The bench directed Big Bazar to refund Rs. 546/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs. 10,000.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Neena Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Big Bazar liable for deficiency in services for charging Rs. 7/- for a carry bag without adequately informing the Complainant for the additional charge. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 7/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak (Telangana) bench comprising Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (President) and Sri Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) held Benling India Energy and its dealer, M/s SAN Motors liable under the product liability laws pursuant to the explosion of an e-scooter in the Complainants' premises. Referring to sections 84 to 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission outlined the avenues for consumers to claim remedies against product manufacturers for unreasonably dangerous and defective goods likely to jeopardize user safety. A total compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs was ordered to be paid to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000 legal costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising of Dr. Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held liable Amazon for failing to provide services of its wallet, Amazon Pay, to the Complainant in which he deposited Rs. 10,000. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Canara HSBC Insurance Company Ltd. liable for repudiation of the claim based on previous ailments without conducting medical examination of the insured before issuance of the policy. The bench directed it to pay the claim money of ₹ 10,18,726/- and compensation of ₹ 50,000/- along with ₹ 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Kushwinder Kaur (Member) held Oyo liable for deficiency in services for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and his guest when he was denied accommodation in an Oyo hotel even after making payment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
Failure To Update CIBIL Score, Ludhiana District Commission Holds Standard Chartered Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank liable for deficiency in services for indicating an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Complainant's CIBIL Score even though he settled all the claims with the bank.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Punjab) bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Prakash Yadav (Member) held Flipkart and its seller liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the product and refunding money four months after filing the complaint. The bench directed it to pay the interest rate of four months on the refund amount and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and B Rajareddy (Member) held Volkswagen and its showroom liable for deficiency in services for increasing the price of the vehicle without informing the Complainant and selling a vehicle with defective screen and scratches all over the dashboard and horn pad. It directed them to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and to replace the defective parts of the vehicle along with paying Rs. 20,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (Kerala) recently held that the insurance claim of a Corona Rakshak Policyholder cannot be declined merely citing mildness of his symptoms. Bench comprising Smt. S.K. Sreela (President) and Sri. Stanly Harold (Member) thus held Future Generali India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating the claim of the Complainant for COVID-19 hospitalization.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali (Punjab) bench comprising S.K. Aggarwal (President) and Paramjeet Kaur (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the ticket price after the cancellation of the flight from Delhi to Chandigarh due to weather conditions. The bench directed Air India to refund Rs. 6,464/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental distress, harassment, and litigation expenses endured by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban, (Karnataka)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban, (Karnataka) bench comprising M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Anil Kumar (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to safeguard the credit points in Complainant's account which led to multiple unauthorized transactions. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 45,489/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her. It was also directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Diva Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) held DTDC liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the complete order by the promised delivery date. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (Punjab) bench comprising Justice RL Mittal (President) and Sharda Attari (Member) held Vishal Mega Mart and its parent company, Air Plaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., liable for deficiency of services for charging the price for an item which was advertised as “buy one get one free”. The bench directed them to pay the excess amount of Rs. 194.18/- and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rohtak (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Tripti Pannu (Member) and Vijender Singh (Member) held Reliance Trends and its parent company, Reliance Retail liable for unfair trade practices for charging Rs. 7/- for carry big without the consent of the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Mr. Mayur Mullaguri and Anr. vs M/s Etihad Airways and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Ram Gopal Reddy (President), J Shyamala (Member) and R Narayan Reddy (Member) held Etihad Airways liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund the air ticket price following the cancellation of flight due to COVID-19 restrictions. The bench directed it to refund the amount of Rs. 2,76,709/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide a breakdown of the bonus payment after the maturity of the insurance and for arbitrarily increasing the premium. The bench directed it to refund the increased premium collected from the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit – II (West Bengal)
Documents Destroyed Due To Fire In Storage Area, Kolkata District Commission Holds IDBI Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit – II (West Bengal) bench comprising Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held IDBI Bank liable of deficiency in services for its failure to take utmost care of security and safety of the original documents stored in its storage facility which resulted in destruction of the original documents in a fire incident.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for collecting money without the final sanction of the layout by the authorities and arbitrary delay in construction and the unilateral change in terms and conditions. It was directed to refund Rs. 9,00,500/- to the Complainant and pay Rs. 30,000/- compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Mr Shyam Sundar (President) and Mr Balvir (Member) held AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. Liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to sanction the loan for the requested amount despite issuing a letter of acceptance to the Complainant, leading to a great financial loss to him. The District Commission directed it to refund half of the processing fee submitted by the Complainant along with Rs. 5000 for compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula bench comprising Satpal (President), Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held GoIbibo and Aeroflot Airlines for negligence and deficiency in services for failure to inform the Complainant about the rescheduling of the flight and failure to provide vegetarian food to the Complainant. The bench directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to settle the claim of Rs. 18 lakh after the demise of a valid policyholder. The bench directed PNB to pay the claim amount of Rs. 18 lakh to the nominee and pay Rs. 5,000 compensation along with Rs. 5,500 for the litigation costs incurred by her.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar (President) and Afsana Khan (Member) held Future General Total Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully charging the insured based on 'no-payment received' despite faulting at its end. The District Commission concluded that the insurance company committed an error or negligence by not presenting the cheque in the bank, thereby resulting in the lapse of the insured's insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for its failure to provide safety and security of electronic banking transactions which resulted in unauthorized transactions of Rs. 64,999/- from the Complainant's bank account. The bench directed SBI to pay Rs. 64,999/- to the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held United India Insurance Company Limited liable for repudiating an accidental claim based on certain terms which were never supplied to the insured. The Insurance Company was directed to disburse the full claim payment, as originally communicated by the agent.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Rekha Sayannavar (Member) and Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Justdial liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to render its services to provide consumer leads to a coaching institute despite receiving payments for advertisements. The bench directed Justdial to refund Rs. 6 lakh to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, New Delhi bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and UK Tyagi (Member) held Air India Limited liable for deficiency in services and negligence for failure to provide compensation to the Complainants after the cancellation of the flight 25 minutes before the departure. The bench directed the airline to pay compensation and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) held Lenovo India liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective product to the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay the price of the laptop of Rs. 61,441/- to the Complainant and compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khuswinder Kaur (Member) held Zudio Solutions liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for charging Rs. 10/- for the carry bag from the Complainant. The bench directed Zudio Studios to refund Rs. 10/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and B. Rajareddy (Member) held Realme liable for deficiency in services for selling a mobile phone which started experiencing issues with battery backup and display within one year of the purchase. The bench directed it to refund the amount of Rs. 10,499/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Go Digit General Insurance Ltd. liable of deficiency in services for failure to settle a genuine claim within its settlement commitment of 30 days. The bench directed it to pay the claim of Rs. 13,36,080/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Amazon liable for deficiency in services for selling a foot massager which was severely damaged due to torn packaging to the Complainant and failure to refund the amount. The bench directed Amazon to refund the sum of Rs.39,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with Rs.7,500/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for deducting Rs.7183/- from the Complainant's account labelling as “other miscellaneous services” without providing adequate notice and satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the bank to refund the amount of Rs. 7183/- to the Complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (Kerala)
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kasaragod (Kerala) bench comprising Krishnan K (President) and Beena KG (Member) held Pizza Hut liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to provide air conditioning services and charging Rs. 99/- for one glass of lime water, whereas the prevailing standard rate was Rs. 10/-. The bench directed Pizza Hut to refund the excess amount and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, Delhi
Case Title: M/s Capital Builders vs Mitsubishi Motors Corporation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Excel Motors, Mitsubishi's authorised Service Centre liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the vehicle despite Complainant paying Rs. 3,44,000/-. The bench directed the service centre to refund Rs.3,44,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur-II
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur-II bench comprising Dr Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Afsana Khan (Member) held Spice Jet liable for deficiency in services of providing seat filled with dirt and no safety vest with the Complainant's seat. The bench directed Spice Jet to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Annie Gupta vs Turkish Airlines and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sandhu (President) and BM Sharma (Member) held Turkish Airlines liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to refund the full amount of the ticket which was cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdown imposed by the Government of India. The bench directed the airline to refund the remaining balance amount of Rs. 2315/- to the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Vijesh Bahadu vs Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd. noting that the Complainant had earlier already settled a claim with the insurance company on a net salvage basis and sold the vehicle to a third party, without informing the insurance company. The bench held that this rendered the Complainant unqualified as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Rahil Mahajan vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held IRCTC, Northern Railway and Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for serving hot soup with a dead cockroach and expired bread to the Complainant when he was travelling with his mother on Shatabdi Express from New Delhi to Chandigarh. The bench directed them to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to he Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Raj Jindal and Anr. vs Air India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for cancellation of a flight without providing operational reasons which caused inconvenience to the Complainants. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation expenses.
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) with Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), found the National Insurance Company responsible for unfair practices under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint filed by residents of Usman Colony in Baramulla claimed that the insurance company did not provide an insurance claim for their insured house after it was damaged by an earthquake. Consequently, the commission allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 6 lakhs, along with 10% interest for the house damage, as well as Rs. 50,000 for the distress caused.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to ensure the validity of the number, despite accepting payment and confirming the booking, constitutes a deficiency.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that manufacturers, retailers, and service providers must deliver quality products and services to safeguard consumer rights.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to failure to adequately investigate the unauthorized transactions from the Complainant's account and preserve crucial evidence. The bench directed the bank to refund the disputed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) directed Samsung to resolve the contentions raised by the Complainant regarding the malfunctioning of the AC within 30 days. The bench held that failure to do so will make Samsung liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar (Member) held Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for pressuring the Complainant to pay for its 5-year membership and failure to provide promised services or process the refund. The bench directed Country Inn to refund Rs. 40,440/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a completely different product to the Complainant. The Complainant ordered a pair of shoes but Myntra delivered ladies' sandals to him. The bench directed Myntra to refund ₹7611/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹2000/- along with ₹2000/- for litigation costs.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held ICICI bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to return original documents to the Complainant within 1 month of loan disbursement.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Van Heusen and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited liable of deficiency in services for charging Rs.50/- for taxes over Maximum Retail Price for the product. The bench directed them to refund Rs. 50/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 1500/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund the premium amount expeditiously when the Complainant requested cancellation of the subject policy within the free lock (the initial period in which one can cancel their insurance policy without paying for the surrender charges). The bench directed the insurance company to refund the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs.7,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Uber India liable for deficiency in services for charging ₹ 1334/- for a distance of 8.83 km. The bench directed Uber to pay an amount of ₹ 7000/- to the Complainant as compensation along with ₹ 3,000/- as litigation costs. It was also directed to deposit ₹ 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in services for repudiating the genuine claim of the Complainant who had undergone treatment for Dengue Fever. The bench directed the insurance company to reimburse the medical treatment of Rs. 31,627 /- and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held that imposing conditions like, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” on consumers, constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Department of Legal Metrology and other relevant departments were requested to conduct periodic inspections of Seller to ensure compliance.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Thomas Cook liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for refusal to refund the tour package amount, despite the Complainant's medical emergency.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President) and V. Janardhan Reddy (Member) held IRCTC liable for deficiency in services for cancelling the tickets without providing adequate reasons and informing the Complainant about one hour before the train departure.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to furnish vital information regarding the policy during signing is deemed an unfair trade practice.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that although insurance agreements are legally binding and need to be interpreted strictly, the insurers should also have a responsibility to make sure that the terms of the contract are communicated clearly and understood, especially regarding important matters like pre-existing conditions.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Samsung India and its dealer liable for deficiency in service due to their refusal to repair the product purchased by the complainant during its warranty period.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Paravoor Engineers liable for deficiency in service for selling a faulty machine and refusing to repair the product during its warranty period.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that the company's failure to fulfil its contractual duties and not removing the hypothecation on the complainant's vehicle constitutes a deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr S.K. Sardana (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank for failure to reverse a series of unauthorized transactions totalling Rs. 2,60,000/-. The Bank could not prove any negligence on the Complainant's part. Further, the Complainant informed the bank promptly within 3 days, as per the RBI guidelines.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (Punjab) bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Mandeep Kaur (Member) held Videocon liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace the LED TV which malfunctioned within the warranty period. The bench directed Videocon to replace the LED TV or pay the sale price of Rs. 49,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi SM (Member) held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for failure to return the property documents submitted as pledge by the Complainants. The bench directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest and litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the deficiency in services.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank and Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for demanding money from the Complainant to settle the Credit Card due despite him paying Rs. 15,500/- for full and final settlement. The bench directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Axis Bank Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for arbitrable deduction of “Consolidated Charges” from the Complainant's bank account without providing adequate notice and satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the bank to refund the full amount of Rs. 40,000/- deducted from the Complainant's account and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable of deficiency in services for false repudiation of claim made by the Complainant as legal heir of her husband. The bench directed PNB to pay the claim of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held IDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services for freezing the bank account of the Complainant without providing adequate reasons. The bench directed the bank to unfreeze the Complainant's savings account and pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for reduction of a legitimate claim amount without satisfactory reasons. The bench directed the insurance company to the remaining claim of Rs. 1,67,969/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi SM (Member) held POCO liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective mobile phone with motherboard issues to the Complainant. The bench directed POCO to refund Rs. 20,999/-, representing the value of the mobile phone and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr. R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr. Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Manyavar and Paytm liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the money deducted from the Complainant's account despite showing “transaction failed”. The bench directed Manyavar and Paytm to refund Rs. 9496/- to the Complainants and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complaints along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore bench comprising Vijay Kumar. M. Pawale, B. Devaraju and V. Anuradha held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for not providing interest subsidy during the loan tenure to the Complainant. The bench directed the bank to provide the interest subsidy to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 2,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi
Unilaterally Increase Of Loan Tenure, Delhi District Commission Holds ICICI Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Delhi bench comprising Monika A Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and UK Tyagi (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in services for unilaterally increasing the loan tenure without informing the Complainant. The bench directed the bank to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Shaurya Vir Singh Pathania vs Himachal Road Transport Commission, Office at Old Bus Stand, Cart Road, Shimla, H.P and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member) held Redbus and Himachal Road Transport Commission (HRTC) liable for deficiency in services failure to inform the Complainant of the change in Bus route and failure to refund the ticket to the Complainant. The bench directed HRTC and Redbus to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant covering the ticket price and compensation for the mental agony and litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against St. Edward's School noting that education cannot be considered a commodity and education institutes providing services cannot be considered as service providers under the Consumer Protection Act.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (Punjab) bench comprising Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Suman Khanna (Member) held Sony liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair a home theatre which was within the warranty period. The bench directed Sony to replace the home theatre with a new one and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmed (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for the delay in delivering the Complainants' luggage, six days after they arrived in New York. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Complainants along with Rs. 25,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by them.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Jaipur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Nimal Sharma (Member) and Dr. Subesingh Yadav (President) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair the ACs sold to the Complainant which were within the warranty period. The bench directed LG to refund ₹ 28,950/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹ 5,000 and ₹ 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Jio Mart liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide essential details about the manufacturer, return, refund, or installation services to the Complainant when he purchased a Chimney from the website. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 13,999/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Eureka Forbes of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to inform the Complainant about the critical limitations of the water purifier. The bench directed Eureka Forbes to refund the cost of the water purifier, Rs. 10,799/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab) bench comprising Dr Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held Easy Day liable for unfair trade practices for charging Rs. 10/- for a non-woven fabric carry bag without providing prominent notice at the entrance of the store. The bench directed it to refund the Rs. 10/- charged for the carry bag and pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Sh. Narayan Thakur (Member) held Fortis Hospital and its doctor liable for medical negligence for their failure to provide standard medical services to a patient suffering from Choledocholithiasis, a liver disease. The Hospital and the concerned doctor were directed to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala (“District Commission”) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Coolcare Refrigeration, Samsung's authorized service centre liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with the fridge which persisted even after the replacement of multiple parts.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President) and Monka Bhagat (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to inform the Complainant about the discontinuation of his insurance policy from Apollo Munich Health Insurance Company Ltd. The bench directed Canara Bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Dhananjay Yadav vs IDBI
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held IDBI Bank liable for failure to initiate a refund to the deceased's nominee after exercising its call option right regarding a bond bought by the deceased.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Vikas Bansal vs BYJU's Tuition Centre
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, consisting of Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held Byju's liable for failing to deliver the promised amenities in a course and subsequently, failing to refund the amount despite acknowledging it.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Sh. Rajender Singh Raja vs Vikas Travels and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi bench of Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Vikas Travels and its bus owner liable for deficiency in service for failure to stop the bus at the designated stop. They were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the aggrieved passenger.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: George Thattil vs The Proprietor, Chukkiri Royal Bakery and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Britania and Chukkiri Royal Bakery (Seller) liable for selling underweight biscuit packets, which constituted a violation of both the Legal Metrology Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: S. Sridevi and Anr. vs The Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu) bench of N. Pari (president) and A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company liable for failure to honour a genuine insurance claim by citing pre-existing illness as a reason. The bench held that the treatment sought by the Complainant was not related to the preexisting illness and was also not excluded under the insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: Abbas M. vs Manager/Authorized Person, Doc & Mark and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Doc and Mark shoes and its Dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for destroying the Complainant's shoes before the proceedings, which was seen as an attempt to destroy evidence and prevent the Complainant from providing defects.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-1, Lucknow
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-1, Lucknow has directed Hotel Le Meridian, Jaipur to pay the complainant, Dr. Colonel Ajay Bahadur, an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant to the date of judgment within 45 days from the date of Judgment.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Failure To Provide Job-Hunting Assistance, Bangalore District Commission Holds Shine.Com Liable
Case Title: Saurabh Kumar vs The Authorized Signatory, Shine.com
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 73/2024
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K(President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannvar(Member) held Shine.Com liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to provide job-hunting services for which the Complainant paid Rs. 79,751/-.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sri Ishan Patel vs TVS Motor Company Ltd.
Case Number: C.C.No.77/2024
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench of Ramachandra M.S.(President), H. N. Shrinidhi (Member) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held TVS liable for deficiency in services for failing to deliver a helmet and resolve the Complainant's issue within a reasonable time.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Tanuj Pratish Batavia and Anr. vs M/s. Go Airlines (India) Limited
Case Number: CC/87/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of M Shobha (President) and K Anita Shivakumar (Member) held Go Airlines liable for deficiency in services due to the sudden change in flight schedule by the airline and the lack of timely communication, which caused a honeymoon couple to miss pre-booked activities and incur additional costs.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Adithi Shetty vs The Manager, Air India
Case Number: CC/293/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore bench of M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for cancelling the Complainant's flight and rebooking her on a different route to the USA, without her consent. Air India also failed to refund the full booking amount for nearly two years after the payment was made.
Bhiwani District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Chander Pati vs Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank and Anr.
Case Number: 103 of 2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani bench of Saroj Bala Bohr (Presiding Member) and Shashi Kiran Panwar (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to upload the complete information, including land details and Aadhar details at the governmental portal. This resulted in the rejection of the insurance claim filed under the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) scheme.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kashish Kulbhushan Soi vs M/s Smaaash Leisure Limited and Anr.
Case Number: 490/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B. M. Sharma (Member) has issued a directive to Smaaash to honour requests for encashing the cashback bonus/points when the customer demands. Smaaash is one of Asia's biggest leisure chains which provides gaming centres, arcades and VR facilities. The bench held that Smaaash was not obligated to provide bowling passes with the remaining balance in the Complainant's gaming card, given the absence of specific T&C.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jaspreet Singh vs 24 Seven
Case Number: 315/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) dismissed a complaint filed against 24 Seven alleging forceful charging for carrying bags. The bench held that 24 Seven gave a clear-cut notice to its consumers who were visiting its premises to buy the goods that they should bring their carry bags for environmental concerns. Additionally, paper bags were provided for free and three different types of merchandise bags were also provided for a cost.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Price More On Website Compared To Hotel Desk, Chandigarh District Commission Holds MakeMyTrip Liable
Case Title: Vishal Gupta vs M/s Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: 293/2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B. M. Sharma (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for unfair trade practices for overcharging for a hotel room in Dwarka, Gujarat. The bench noted that there was a stark difference of Rs. 3800/- between the price charged by MakeMyTrip on its website and the price offered by the hotel at its desk.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Prabhjot Singh vs HDFC Bank
Case Number: 8/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu(President) and B. M. Sharma (Member) held HDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for extending the tenure of EMIs of loan availed by the Complainant and reducing the EMI amount without consent of the Complainant.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Karnail Singh and Anr. vs the Vistara-TATA SIA Airlines Limited and Ors.
Case Number: CC/598/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Vistara Airlines liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for preventing Complainants from boarding because they failed to submit a self-declaration form and other required documents on the Air Suvidha Portal. The bench held that the airline failed to communicate these requirements to the Complainants and hence, the denial of boarding was unjustified.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: V.K. Agarwal vs Max Super Speciality Hospital and Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 482 of 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Amrinder Singh Sidhu and B. M. Sharma held Max Super Speciality Hospital, Mohali liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for providing advice for consumption of milk at night, a directive that could pose severe health risks to a patient with Ulcerative Colitis. It was also held liable for charging the patient for the services which weren't rendered by the hospital staff.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Delivery Of Possession, New Delhi District Commission Holds Ansal Landmark Townships Liable
Case Title: Mrs. Sitara Shahin vs M/S Ansal Landmark Townships Private Limited
Case Number: CC/248/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shri Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Ansal Landmark Townships liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession of the booked unit within the designated time.
Gurgaon District Consumer Disputes District Commission
Case Title: Harsh Rathi vs M/s Sparta Gym
Case Number: 1032 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench of Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khuswinder Kaur (Member) held Sparta Gym, Gurugram liable for failure to refund the gym fee collected from the Complainant who did not find the services and facilities at par with the advertisements shown by the gym.
Hamirpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ashok Kumar vs State Bank of India
Case Number: 219/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Sneh Lata (Member) and Joginder Mahajan (Member) held SBI liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to freeze the Complainant's account and adequately investigate unauthorized transactions, which led to a loss of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
Hamirpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sahil Sankhyan vs Manager Customer Care, XIAOMI Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: 89/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hamirpur (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Sneh Lata (Member) and Joginder Mahajan (Member) held Xiaomi India liable for deficiency in services for not replacing the mobile phone due to manufacturing defects despite the clear entitlement under the warranty provisions.
Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Murli Dhar Rathi vs The Branch Manager, Sahara Credit Cooperative Society Limited and Others
Case No.: CC/218/2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (West Bengal) bench of Mr Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President), Mr Dhiraj Kumar Dey (Member) and Mrs Minakshi Chakraborty (Member) held Sahara Credit Cooperative Society liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse the matured deposited amount under a recurring deposit scheme. Sahara Credit had taken deposits with the promise of higher returns but failed to refund the maturity amount despite repeated requests from the Complainant.
Howrah District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Pintu Sadhukhan vs Whirlpool of India Ltd.
Case Number: CC/355/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Howrah (West Bengal) bench of Debasish Bandyopadhyay (President) and Dhiraj Kumar Dey (Member) held Whirlpool liable for deficiency in services for failure to repair or replace a washing machine with manufacturing defects exhibited within the warranty period.
Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Amit Mahajan and Anr. vs Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: C.C. No. 94/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in services due to its unjustified rejection of a genuine claim. The bench held that the Insurance Company repudiated the claim without conducting a proper investigation or obtaining affidavits from treating doctors regarding the pre-existing disease.
Nalgonda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Badavath Chandi vs The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 14 of 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nalgonda (Telangana) bench of Sri Mamidi Christopher (President), Smt. S. Sandhya Rani (Member) and Sri Katepally Venkateshwarlu (Member) held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for repudiating a valid death claim under the Telangana Government's Rythu Bhima Scheme for farmers. LIC failed to accurately verify the deceased farmer's age, leading to repudiation and subsequent hardships to the farmer's family.
Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dharamvir Yadav vs Reliance Retail Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No: 155 of 2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari bench of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Reliance Retail and TTE Technology India Pvt. Ltd alleging manufacturing defect in TV sold to the Complainant. The bench held that merely expressing dissatisfaction does not warrant an order for the return or replacement of the LED TV.
Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: B.I.V. 3D Electronics Pvt. Ltd vs Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: 71/2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Janam Devi (Member) held Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to issue a No-Objection Certificate despite the repayment of a loan taken for financing the purchase of the vehicle.
Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Parav Sharma vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: 76/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr. Baldev Singh (President), Jagdev S. Raitka (Member) and Janam Devi (Member) held Flipkart and E-Kart liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices due to their delivery of a product in a damaged condition and their failure to facilitate its return upon request.
Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Smt. Sunoru Devi and Ors. vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
Case Number: 235/2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Janam Devi (Member) has held that if the vehicle has been transferred and the insurance policy is in subsistence, the same gets transferred in the name of the new owner. The bench held Reliance General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for rejecting the insurance claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Samsung liable for deficiency in services for selling a defective Galaxy Z Fold phone and failing to repair it within the warranty period. The bench directed Samsung to refund Rs. 1,58,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 36,300/- along with litigation costs of Rs. 15,000/- incurred by him.
Case Title: Kanwaljit Singh vs Samsung Auth. Service and Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 235/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai bench of PG Kadu (President), GM Kapse (Member) and SA Petkar (Member) held Air India liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for providing defective seats with reclining problem. The bench directed Air India to pay a compensation of Rs. 80,000/- to the Complainant along with litigation costs of Rs. 20,000/- incurred by him.
Case Title: Rear Admiral Anil Kumar Saxena, Retired vs Air India Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 169/2023
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai bench of PG Kadu (President), GM Kapse(Member) and SA Petkar (Member) has dismissed a consumer complaint against VLCC Health Care Ltd for its alleged failure to provide promised hair reduction following laser hair removal treatment. The bench noted that the Complainant failed to duly attend all the laser sessions and requested appointments exclusively on Saturdays and Sundays, which were never guaranteed by VLCC.
Case Title: Jheel Nakul Kanungo Nee vs VLCC Health Care Ltd.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 293/2021
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) dismissed a complaint against Ivy Hospital and its doctor alleging Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy without the Complainant's knowledge. The bench held that the Complainant failed to provide any evidence of negligence or deficiency in the medical care provided by the doctors at the hospital.
Case Title: Ritu vs Dr Vijay Bansal and Anr.
Case Number: CC/769/2022
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve the issue with the Complainant's credit points within the promised deadline.
Case Title: Anil Kumar TS vs Myntra Designs Private Limited
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi bench of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Harshali Kaur (Member) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held Vijaya Bank liable for deficiency in service and breach of trust for disclosing the Complainant's bank statements to her husband. The bench noted that there was a strained relationship between the Complainant and her husband and even a spouse cannot view the statement without the consent of the account holder.
Case Title: Shashi Vatan vs Vijaya Bank
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench of Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) has held Air India liable for deficiency in services for significant inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to the cancellation of a flight and the subsequent loss of baggage.
Case Title: Smita Bajaj vs Air India and Ors.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, Kerala
Thrissur District Commission Holds Daimler India, Its Dealer Liable For Unfair Trade Practice
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S.(Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Daimler India and its dealer, Autobahn Trucking, liable for failure to give specific instructions to the Complainant for maintaining the vehicle's minimum 'AdBlue' for its proper functioning.
Case Title: Sanjeev N.R. vs Bharat Benz and Anr.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Cynosure Institute liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to refund the Complainant's fee paid for English class, despite promising a 100% refund.
Case Title: Amrutha K.A. vs Beenu Balakrishnan
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, Kerala
Consumer Court Holds Matrimony Site Liable For Not Helping Man Find Bride; Orders 25K Compensation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ernakulam bench of D.B Binu (President), Ramachandran V(Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Kerala Matrimony liable for deficiency in services for failure to facilitate the finding of a match for the Complainant's wedding. The bench directed the company to refund Rs. 4,100/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs.
Case Title: D Ramesan vs M/s Kerala Matrimony
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.
