Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: July 2024

Apoorva Pandita

9 Aug 2024 7:15 PM IST

  • Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: July 2024

    Supreme Court 'People Don't Purchase High-End Luxurious Cars To Suffer Discomfort' : Supreme Court Holds Mercedes Benz Liable For Faults In Vehicles The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granting relief to two companies who had purchased cars from luxury car company Mercedes-Benz for the use of their...

    Supreme Court

    'People Don't Purchase High-End Luxurious Cars To Suffer Discomfort' : Supreme Court Holds Mercedes Benz Liable For Faults In Vehicles

    The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) granting relief to two companies who had purchased cars from luxury car company Mercedes-Benz for the use of their directors. A bench of Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Pankaj Mithal was dealing with appeals arising out of a case of a car developing heating issues and another case of an accident wherein the airbags of the car did not deploy.

    Case Title – M/S Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.

    Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 447

    Orissa High Court

    Consumer Commission Has No Jurisdiction To Entertain Matters Coming Under Purview Of SARFAESI Act: Orissa High Court

    Case Title: The Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Jharsuguda v. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal & Anr.

    The Orissa High Court has held that the Consumer Commissions do not have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding which is subject matter of adjudication by Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or Appellate Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act').

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

    Failure To Provide SMS Alerts For Unauthorized Transactions, NCDRC Holds HDFC Bank Liable

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Dr Inderjit Singh (Presiding Member) held HDFC Bank liable for failure to resolve the Complainant's grievances pertaining to multiple unauthorized transactions. Further, it failed to ensure SMS alert service for amount deduction.

    Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Satish Baishya

    Case No.: Revision Petition No. 57 of 2024

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

    Consumer Forums Can't Entertain Complaints Involving Allegations Of Embezzlement: NCDRC

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed against the postal department pertaining to the confiscation of the Complainant's recurring deposit account due to allegations of embezzlement. The NCDRC held that such disputes require a detailed examination of evidence and do not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.

    Case Title: Vineet Kumar Dixit vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr.

    Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3383 of 2017

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

    Ambiguous Insurance Terms Should Be Interpreted In Favour of Insured: NCDRC Holds Bajaj Allianz Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that vague terms in an insurance contract should be interpreted in favour of the insured party in the event of a dispute.

    Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Santha Kumari

    Case Number: F.A. No. 204/2022

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

    NCDRC Holds Oriental Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service While Holding That Filing Two Claims For Same Occurrence Is Unsustainable

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that two separate claim forms cannot be filed by the insured for the same occurrence as they do not change the nature of the occurrence and loss.

    Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. S. P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd

    Case Number: F.A.No. 943/2016

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

    Non-Standard Basis Of Insurance Claim Is Fair If Breach Has Occured From Both Parties: NCDRC

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the justification of an insurance claim on a non-standard basis is deemed fair when breaches have occurred from both parties.

    Case Title: Kuljit Kaur Vs. Cholamandlam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd

    Case Number: R.P. No. 925/2019

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

    NCDRC Holds New Delhi Institute Of Management Studies Liable For Misleading Student For Joining MBA Course

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) held New Delhi Institute of Management Studies liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for misleading a student into joining its MBA course with the false assurance that the course was being offered in association with Madhuraj Kamraj University.

    Case Title: New Delhi Institute of Management Studies vs Shamaneshwaram and 2 Ors.

    Case No.: Revision Petition No. 346-347 of 2019

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

    Failure To Provide Plot-Buyer's Agreement, NCDRC Holds DLF Homes Panchkula Liable For Deficiency In Service

    The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of Justice A.P. Sahi (President) held DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to execute the plot-buyer's agreement and subsequently, cancelling the booking after charging excessive forfeiture amount.

    Case Title: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. vs DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

    Case No.: C.C. No. 1937 of 2017

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh

    Insurance Contracts Based On 'Utmost Good Faith', Suppression Of Material Facts May Lead To Repudiation: Madhya Pradesh State Commission

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Srikant Pandey (Member) dismissed an appeal against LIC based on the fact that the deceased insured had suppressed material facts regarding her health and had declared herself 'healthy' even though she was receiving treatment at a hospital.

    Case Title: Hariram Singh Kushwaha vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 1442 of 2019

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh

    Surveyor's Report Holds Evidentiary Value, Can't Be Disregarded Without Valid Reasons: Madhya Pradesh State Commission

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) held that a surveyor's report in insurance claims holds significant evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded without valid reasons. Subsequently, the bench dismissed an appeal against Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company, as it had already paid the amount determined by the surveyor.

    Case Title: Alok Khandelwal vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Others

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 1303 of 2017

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana

    Crop Damage Due To Adverse Reaction By Pesticide, Haryana State Commission Holds ADAMA India, Its Seller Liable

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Justice T.P.S. Mann (President), Mr S.P. Sood (Member) and Mrs Manjula (Member) held ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd., a pesticide manufacturer, and its Seller liable for delivering defective pesticides which led to approximately 70%-80% damage to the Complainant's crops.

    Case Title: ADAMA India Pvt. Vs Jitender and Anr.

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 1267 of 2018

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand

    Two Minors Treated As One Unit For Accident Claim, Uttarakhand State Commission Dismisses National Insurance Appeal

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench of Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held National Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid accidental claim based on exceeding seating capacity of 6 against the permissible limit of 5 passengers in the vehicle. It was held that there were two minors inside the vehicle at the time of the accident, who were considered as 'one unit'. Therefore, there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

    Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs Kanchan Paliyal and Anr.

    Case No.: 19.07.2024

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh

    Act Of Unauthorized Use Of Electricity Does Not Fall Within Ambit Of Consumer Protection Act: Madhya Pradesh State Commission

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri A.K. Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Srikant Pandey (Member) held that acts of unauthorized use of electricity and offences under Sections 126 and 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Case Title: M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran and Anr. vs Smt. Renu Sikarwar

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 1643 of 2023

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar

    Consumer Forums Do Not Have Jurisdiction To Entertain Complaints Of Pending Electricity Bills Under Electricity Act, 2003: Bihar State Commission

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) held that consumer forums cannot entertain complaints filed by a consumer or any person against the assessment made under Section 126 or action taken under Sections 135-140 of the Electricity Act, 2003

    Case Title: Vijay Kumar vs Executive Engineer, Electricity and Anr.

    Case No.: Appeal No. 218 of 2018

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh

    Uttar Pradesh State Commission Holds LIC Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh bench of Mr Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs Sudha Upadhyay (Member) held 'Life Insurance Corporation of India' (LIC) liable for wrongfully repudiating a genuine insurance claim based on the policyholder's failure to avail the accidental coverage after attaining majority by paying an additional amount. It was held that the policyholder passed away before the next due date of the premium instalment and therefore, the repudiation was unjustified.

    Case Title: L.I.C. vs Smt. Shanti Singh

    Case No.: First Appeal No. A/2005/177

    Delhi State Commission

    Consumer Complaints Must Be Lodged Within Two Years From Date Of Cause Of Action: Delhi State Commission

    The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, dismissed a complaint against Oriental Insurance Ltd., citing the presence of a limitation clause. It was further held that consumer complaints are time-barred and need to be filed within two years from the date of the action unless sufficient reasons are present.

    Case Title: M/S Dialmaz Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

    Case Number: C.C. No. 295/2016

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi

    Delhi State Commission Holds Ansal Housing Liable For Failure To Deliver Flat Possession Within Stipulated Time

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held 'Ansal Housing Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver a flat within the stipulated contractual period. The bench held that reasons such as 'demonetization' and court orders banning groundwater extraction were insufficient to justify the delay.

    Case Title: Mr Vikas Jain and Anr. vs Ansal Housing Ltd.

    Case No.: Complaint Case No. 146/2022

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand

    Deciding Time-Barred Consumer Complaints Is Illegal, Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside Order Against Shriram General Insurance Co.

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench of Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held that deciding a time-barred complaint on merits would be illegal and consumer fora must assess the limitation period before admitting the complaint. The order of the Haridwar District Commission was set aside for deciding a time-barred complaint on merits.

    Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Smt. Umesh

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 113/2022

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa

    Insurer Not Liable For Unreasonable Delay In Claim Intimation, Goa State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Oriental Insurance Company

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) dismissed an appeal against Oriental Insurance Company, based on an unreasonable delay on the Complainant's part while intimating the Insurance Company and submitting a repair-estimate report.

    Case Title: Mr Paul Colaco vs Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

    Case No.: First Appeal 31 of 2023

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh

    Alcohol As Contributing Factor In Deceased's Illness, Madhya Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri AK Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Monika Malik (Member) dismissed an appeal against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, based on the deceased's medical reports which confirmed alcohol as a contributing factor in his illness. It was held that the repudiation was valid as the illness of the deceased was not specified to be covered under the policy.

    Case Title: Smt. Komesh Singh vs P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.

    Case No.: Appeal No. 1100/2023

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh

    No Expert Report To Substantiate Manufacturing Defect, Himachal Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Toyota, Its Dealer

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench of Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr RK Verma (Member) dismissed a complaint against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer, Anand Toyota. It was held that the Complainant failed to substantiate the manufacturing defects with expert reports and affidavits. He also continued to extensively drive the car despite the alleged defects.

    Case Title: Amit Rana vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

    Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 06/2018

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand

    District Commission Must Refer Points Of Difference To Third Member If Two Presiding Members Don't Agree: Uttarakhand State Commission

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr BS Manral (Member) allowed an appeal based on the District Commission's failure to follow the proper procedure under Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sh. Kailash Chand Joshi

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 111 of 2019

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana

    Repeated Repairs Do Not Automatically Imply Manufacturing Defect, Expert Evidence Needed: Haryana State Commission Allows Hero MotoCorp's Appeal

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Mr Naresh Katyal (Judicial Member) and Mrs Manjula Sharma (Member) held that in order to prove a manufacturing defect in a vehicle, an expert report is mandatorily required. Repeated repairs and recurring defects do not automatically prove the presence of a manufacturing defect.

    Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and Anr. vs Rajender Singh

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 1060 of 2019

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar

    Educational Institutions Are Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act, Bihar State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Bihar School Examination Board

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) reiterated the settled position that education institutions rendering education are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It dismissed an appeal filed against the Bihar School Examination Board for an attendance-related issue.

    Case Title: Biresh Manjhi vs The Headmaster-cum-Centre Superintendent and Others

    Case No.: Appeal No. 325 of 2023

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh

    Muscle Injury Due To Excessive Training, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Raw House Fitness, Its Gym Trainer Liable

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held Raw House Fitness, a gym in Chandigarh and its trainer liable for instructing a strenuous workout to a new joinee which caused him a medical problem named 'Rhabdomyolysis'. The gym was also held liable for imposing one-sided terms and conditions via its membership agreement.

    Case Title: Sh. Simranjeet Singh Sindhu vs Manager, Raw House Fitness and Anr.

    Case No.: Appeal No. 161 of 2024

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh

    In Absence Of Fundamental Breach Of Insurance Policy, Up To 75% Expenses Can Be Claimed On Non-Standard Basis: Madhya Pradesh State Commission

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Mr A.K. Tiwari (Presiding Member) and Mr Shrikant Pandey (Member) reiterated that when there is no 'fundamental breach' of an insurance policy, the insured can claim up to 75% of the expenses incurred on a non-standard basis from the Insurance Company. The non-standard claims are negotiated claims which cater to situations where all terms, conditions and warranties of the policy are not fully complied with.

    Case Title: Rajesh Sahu vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Anr.

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 558/2023

    West Bengal State Commission

    West Bengal State Commission Holds Canon India Liable For Deficiency In Service,Directs To Replace Camera

    The West Bengal State Commission, presided by Mr. Subhra Sankar Bhatta and Mr. Nityasundar Trivedi, overturned a decision by the District Commission and held Canon India liable for deficiency in service for not providing free repair service within warranty period. It was also held the District Commission erred in its judgement by drawing conclusions contrary to the evidence curtailing justice and undermining neutrality.

    Case Title: Santanu Roy Chowdhury Vs. M/S Canon India Pvt Ltd.

    Case Number: F.A. No. A/285/2019

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

    Delhi State Commission Holds Emaar MGF Liable For Failure To Deliver Flat Within Stipulated Time

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held 'Emaar MGF Land Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession of a flat within the stipulated time. Emaar was also held liable for arbitrarily cancelling the flat and forfeiting the amount paid by the buyers.

    Case Title: Mrs Jakkidi Lakshmi Reddy and Anr. vs Emaar MGF Land Limited

    Case No.: Complaint Case No. 145/2020

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh

    Himachal Pradesh State Commission Holds Shriram General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Claim

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) held 'Shriram General Insurance Company' liable for repudiating a personal accidental claim based on the fact that the insured owner was not himself driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was held that the policy insured the deceased owner and he was well within his rights to appoint another person as the driver.

    Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs Rateshwari Devi and Others

    Case No.: First Appeal No. 13/2022

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh

    Chandigarh State Commission Holds Swiggy Liable For Unilateral Deduction Amount For Undelivered Products

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held Swiggy liable for unilateral deduction of half amount for undelivered products during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was held that while it was not liable for delivery disruptions given the special pandemic circumstances, the deduction of the amount from the Complainant's payment amounted to unfair trade practice.

    Case Title: Sh. Vishal Gupta vs Swiggy and Others

    Case No.: Appeal No. 2 of 2024

    State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar

    Bihar State Commission Holds Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim

    The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Ms Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) held 'Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company' liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim based on the non-disclosure of a pre-existing illness. It was held that the Insurance Company failed to discharge the burden of proof that the deceased had knowingly concealed a pre-existing illness.

    Case Title: Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance vs Abhay Kumar

    Case No.: First Appeal No. A/58/2021

    West Bengal State Commission

    Not Obtaining Written Consent Before Treatment Is Medical Negligence: West Bengal State Commission

    Case Title: Dr. Prasenjit Das Vs. Smt. Aditi Sarkar(Minor)

    The West Bengal State Commission, presided by Justice Manojit Mandal, held a doctor liable for deficiency in service by committing medical negligence by not obtaining written consent from the patient before the treatment.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

    Ambala District Commission Holds Air India Liable For Failure To Refund Booking Amount For Cancelled Flight Due To COVID-19

    Case Title: Ganesh Dass Nagpal and Anr. vs Air India and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench of Neena Sandhu (President) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for its failure to refund the ticket price following the cancellation of flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)

    Hisar District Commission Holds New India Assurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Genuine Claim

    Case Title: Vikram vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a genuine claim under Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyayay Pashu Beema Yojna (Govt. of Haryana) due to a clerical error.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka)

    Delivery Of Different Watch Instead Of Tommy Hilfiger, Udupi District Commission Holds Myntra And Titan Liable

    Case Title: Mr. Agam R vs M/s. Myntra Designs Private Limited

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Myntra and Titan liable for deficiency in services for delivering a different branded watch instead of Tommy Hilfiger and subsequently failing to refund the money.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore (Tamil Nadu)

    Tahsildar And District Collector Held Liable For Failure To Measure Property Despite Receiving Challan Payments Thrice: Vellore District Commission

    Case Title: K. Sigamani vs The Tahsildar, Taluk Office and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore (Tamil Nadu) bench of Meenakshi Sundaram (President) and Asghar Khan (Member) held the Tahsildar of Anaicut Taluk village and the District Collector of Sathuvachari District, Vellore, liable for deficiency in services for their failure to measure the property of the Complainant despite the Complainant paying necessary fees on three occasions.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)

    Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds ICICI Prudential Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Death Claim

    Case Title: Mutchakarla Naidu vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for acting in bad faith while dismissing a genuine insurance claim and for taking an inconsistent stance throughout the proceedings.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)

    Hisar District Commission Holds Xiaomi India, Its Authorized Service Centre Liable For Failure To Rectify Phone's Manufacturing Defects

    Case Title: Sumit Pannu vs Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and Ors.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized service centre liable for negligence and unfair trade practices due to their failure to repair a smartphone with manufacturing defects.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (Kerala)

    Kannur District Commission Holds Aditya Birla Health Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Based On Unsubstantiated Pre-Existing Disease

    Case Title: Ajesh Kumar V.V. vs Adithya Birla Health Insurance Company Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (Kerala) bench of Ravi Susha (President), Molykutty Mathew (Member) and Sajeesh K.P. (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance liable for deficiency in services due to its repudiation of a genuine claim without providing substantiating medical reports on alleged pre-existing conditions.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)

    Gurgaon District Commission Holds AEGON & Religare Life Insurance Co Liable For Wrongfully Repudiating Genuine Claim

    Case Title: Kiran Malhotra vs AEGON & Religare Life Insurance Company Limited

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench of Sanjeev Jindal (President) and Jyoti Siwach (Member) held AEGON & Religare Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine medical claim despite receiving all necessary documents from the insured.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)

    Intermediary Platforms Must Display Contact Details And Address Of Sellers, Hisar District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable

    Case Title: Umed Kumar vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in services for failure to display the name, address, and contact details of sellers and failure to return the defective product provided to the Complainant.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka)

    Premature Closure Of Fixed Deposit, Failure To Provide Resolution, Udupi District Commission Holds Bank Of Baroda Liable

    Case Title: Melwin D'Mello vs Bank of Baroda

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Bank of Baroda liable for deficiency in service for prematurely closing the fixed deposit of an NRI customer and erroneously adjusting it against another customer's loan account.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)

    Mysore District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.

    Case Title: Nandini C.S. vs The Manager (Legal), M/s ICICI Lombard Gen

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari(President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) dismissed a complaint against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company for a personal accident cover, as the deceased driver was driving a borrowed vehicle. There was a lack of consumer-service provider relationship between the Insurance Company as the insurance policy was in the name of another insured person.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh)

    Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds Amazon, Its Seller Liable For Failure To Initiate Return Of Product

    Case Title: Jamana Vinay Kumar vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of G Venkateswari (President), P Vijaya Durga (Member) and Karaka Ramana Babu (Member) held Amazon and its seller liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to facilitate the return of a product despite promising to do so.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra)

    South Mumbai District Commission Holds Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Genuine Claim

    Case Title: M/s. Sumit Tours & Travels vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench of P.G. Kadu(President), G.M. Kapse (Member) and S.A. Petkar (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance liable for deficiency in services due to the repudiation of a genuine claim of theft. The bench noted that the driver took reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle, absolving the Complainant of negligence.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu)

    Tiruvannamalai District Commission Holds Zoom Car Liable For Renting Defective Car And Failure To Provide Prompt Assistance

    Case Title: Mr. S. Diwakar vs Zoomcar India Private Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvannamalai (Tamil Nadu) bench of K. Ganesan(President) and R. Vijaya (Member) held Zoom Car liable for deficiency in services for providing a malfunctioning car to the Complainant, coupled with negligence in offering timely assistance and mishandling the situation.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)

    Mysore District Commission Holds Kotak Mahendra Insurance Co Liable For Dishonouring Policy Terms

    Case Title: P. Shantharamu vs M/s. Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance Company Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of Smt. A.K. Naveen Kumari(President), Smt. M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Sri. Maruthi Vaddar(Member) held Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance Co. liable for failure to honour policy terms which stipulated a 20% refund of the premium amount on withdrawal after 3 years of availing the policy.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)

    Mysore District Commission Holds Royal Enfield, Its Dealer Liable For Failure To Replace Or Provide Refund For Bike With Defects

    Case Title: Sri. Sreejith vs The Manager, Royal Enfield Global and Ors.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Royal Enfield and its dealer liable for deficiency in services due to delivering a Himalayan Granite bike with a petrol leak tank and smoke emanating from the engine. They further failed to initiate a refund or replace the bike.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka)

    Belagavi District Commission Holds Oriental Insurance Company Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Genuine Medical Claim

    Case Title: Sangamnath Murgeppa Kardeguddi vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka) bench of A.S. Sadalage (President) and S.S. Kadrollimath (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine hospital claim without providing valid reasons.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)

    Responsibility Of Bank To Prevent Unauthorized Transactions , Bangalore District Commission Holds SBI Liable

    Case Title: K. Venkatasubbaiah vs Manager, State Bank of India

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to safeguard the FD account of a customer which resulted in unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 25,000/-.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Urban Bangalore

    Bangalore District Commission Holds HDFC Ergo Health Insurance Co Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Claim Based On Unsubstantiated Pre-Existing Disease

    Case Title: B.S. Sathya Kumar and Ors. vs HDFC Ergo Health Insurance Ltd and Ors.

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Urban Bangalore bench of Shivarama K ((President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held HDFC Ergo Health Insurance liable for deficiency in services for rejecting a genuine claim based on a pre-existing condition without substantiating it with medical evidence.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

    Deduction Of Instalments After Loan Settlement, Shimla District Commission Holds ICICI Bank Liable

    Case Title: Bhadur Singh Pundir vs ICICI Bank Tower and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Ms Janam Devi (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for deduction of loan instalments even after receiving full repayment and failure to issue a 'No Dues Certificate'.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)

    Hyderabad District Commission Holds Indigo Airlines Liable For Delay Delivery Of Baggage, Failure To Provide Real-Time Updates

    Case Title: Mr Syed Javed Akhtar Zaidi vs M/s. Indigo Airlines

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Indigo Airlines liable for deficiency in services for delivering checked-in baggage after 18 days of the flight's landing. It also failed to provide real-time updates to the aggrieved passenger.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)

    Mysore District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Failure To Honour T&C For Mobile Exchange Offer

    Case Title: Karthik H.K vs Flipkart Internet Private Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held Flipkart liable for wrongly deducting Rs. 600/- from the exchange value of an old phone, even after an increased exchange value was promised in its advertisement of the mobile exchange offer.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)

    Hisar District Commission Holds Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Claim

    Case Title: Naresh Kumar vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance & others

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Amita Agarwal (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and its agent liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine claim on technical grounds without valid reasons.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)

    Change In Colour Of Garment Ordered, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds Ajio Liable

    Case Title: S. Mini vs AJIO

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan(President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held Ajio liable for deficiency in services for failure to replace or issue a refund for a kurtha that experienced a colour change subsequent to washing.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)

    Failure To Repair TV Under Warranty, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds OnePlus Liable

    Case Title: Sutanterpal Singh vs General Manager, One Plus Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench of P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju V.R. (Member) held OnePlus liable due to its failure to repair the television despite it being within the warranty period.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)

    Hyderabad District Commission Holds PuR Energy, Its Dealer Liable For Failure To Rectify Battery Issues With E-Scooter

    Case Title: K. Srinivasa Reddy vs PuR Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi(President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and D. Madhavi Latha(Member) held PuR Energy Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer liable for deficiency in services for failing to rectify the battery issues of the electric scooter with manufacturing defects.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Cancellation And Reallotment Of Hotel Bookings, Bangalore District Commission Holds Yatra Online Liable

    Case Title: Nakul Munjal vs Yatra Online Private Limited

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of M. Shobha (President), K. Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held Yatra Online liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for hotel bookings that were cancelled and re-allotted, which were not up to the satisfaction of the complainant.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)

    Hyderabad District Commission Holds EduBridge Learning Liable For Failure To Refund Fee To Dissatisfied Student

    Case Title: Sai Kumar vs EduBridge Learning and Ors.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi(President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held EduBridge Learning liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to refund the course fee after a student who was dissatisfied with the quality of services offered by the institute after attending two classes.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)

    Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds Vivo, Its Service Centre Liable For Failure To Repair Phone Under Warranty

    Case Title: Praveen S. vs The Manager, Vivo 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 Vivo and its service centre liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to repair a mobile phone under warranty. They had argued that the displayed damage resulted from physical causes outside the warranty coverage but did not provide any supporting terms or conditions.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

    Ernakulam District Commission Holds United India Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim

    Case Title: Preethy Gloria vs The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for failure to obtain a signed declaration form or verify facts before issuing the policy and subsequently repudiating the claim.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Failure To Ship/Deliver Product Despite Receiving Payment, Bangalore District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable

    Case Title: Akshay Gangadharan vs Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd Block B (Begonia)

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in services due to its failure to ship or deliver a product despite receiving payment and its failure to resolve the issue.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhajjar (Haryana)

    Rupay Card Holder Scheme, Jhajjar District Commission Holds Oriental Bank , PNB Liable For Failure To Disburse

    Case Title: Rambir and Ors. vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jhajjar (Haryana) bench of Dr Shahabuddin (President), Shriniwas Khundia (Member) and Veena Ranil (Member) held Oriental Bank of Commerce and Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services due to their failure to disburse insurance amount under the Rupay Card Holder Scheme. The scheme provided accidental coverage to the cardholder.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)

    Delivery Of Different Sofa, Failure To Refund, Hyderabad District Commission Holds Pepperfry Liable

    Case Title: Kotti Nagasri vs The Authorized Signatory, Pepperfry Limited

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Pepperfry liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a 19-inch sofa instead of the 35-inch sofa ordered by the Complainant and for refusing the return or refund.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Eureka Forbes Liable For Failing To Rectify Defective Vacuum Cleaner Despite Warranty

    Case Title: Ashok Kumar Rangaswami vs M/s. Eureka Forbes Limited

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Eureka Forbes liable for deficiency in services failing to rectify issues with a defective vacuum cleaner, even when the period of warranty was ongoing.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal)

    Unauthorized Debit Despite Cancellation Of Booking, Central Kolkata District Commission Holds SBI Credit Card Services Liable

    Case Title: Snehasish Chakraborty vs SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal) bench of Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held SBI Credit Card Services liable for deficiency in services for debiting the amount from the Complainant's account despite the transaction being cancelled.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Air India, Cleartrip Liable For Failure To Inform Cancellation Of Flight

    Case Title: Sujana Sathendran and ors vs Clear Trip Pvt Ltd and Anr.

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Air India and Cleartrip liable for deficiency in services for failure to inform the Complainants promptly about the cancellation of their flight which resulted in inconvenience to them.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Increased Premiums By Mere Change In Policy's Name, Bangalore District Commission Holds ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Liable

    Case Title: Mr K. Velu vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for increasing the annual insurance premium by more than 15% by just changing the existing policy's name.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab)

    Banks Can't Deduct Membership Fee For Lost Credit Cards, Jalandhar District Commission Holds RBL Bank Liable

    Case Title: Suresh Kumar vs RBL Bank Ltd and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab) bench of Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held RBL Bank liable for deficiency in services for charging a membership fee, late fee, and other charges despite the Complainant reporting that the credit card was lost and should be blocked.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)

    Can't Repudiate Claim For Undisclosed Medical Condition Discovered Later, Bangalore District Commission Holds HDFC ERGO Health Insurance Liable

    Case Title: Chetan Stanely Crasta vs HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held 'HDFC ERGO Health Insurance Co.' liable for deficiency in services. The bench held that rejecting a legitimate claim on the grounds of a pre-existing medical condition, discovered later and not intentionally withheld by the insured, was unjustified and constituted a breach of service standards.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)

    Failure To Replace Damaged Shoes Despite Warranty, Kurukshetra District Commission Holds Skechers Liable

    Case Title: Supriti vs Skechers Retail India Pvt. Ltd and Anr.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench of Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Ramesh Kumar (Member) and Neelam(Member) held Skechers liable for deficiency in services for selling a pair of shoes that started to deteriorate within a short span of time.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Restaurant Liable For Serving Cold Food, Failing To Resolve Issues With Aggrieved Customers

    Case Title: Mrs Tahara vs M/s Udupi Garden Restaurant and Ors.

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services for serving cold, stale, and tasteless food, resulting in health complications for the consumer.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana)

    Hyderabad District Commission Holds Singapore Airlines Liable For Failure To Check Passenger's Vaccination Status Leading To Denial Of Entry

    Case Title: Karan Tibrewala vs Singapore Airlines and Ors.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Singapore Airlines liable for deficiency in services due to improper verification of a passenger's vaccination status, which subsequently led to her denial of entry in Singapore.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab)

    Jalandhar District Commission Holds Instagram Seller Liable For Sending Damaged Garment, Failure To Resolve Grievances

    Case Title: Twinkle vs Fashion Insta by Shanaya

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar (Punjab) bench of Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna(Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held an Instagram page, '@fashion_insta_by_shanaya', liable for deficiency in services for delivering a defective shirt to the Complainant and failing to reply to the grievances raised by the Complainant.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Body Fit Chairs Liable For Selling Malfunctioning Massager

    Case Title: Dr Sonali R. vs Manager, Body Fit Chairs

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Body Fit Chairs liable for deficiency in services for selling a malfunctioning body massager that caused pain and inconvenience to the customer. Body Fit Chairs Pvt. Ltd. provides massage and relaxation products in India.

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal)

    Central Kolkata District Commission Holds National Insurance Co. Liable For Repudiating Claim On Mere Delay In Reporting

    Case Title: Kapil Deo Singh vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal) bench of Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held National Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for repudiating a genuine claim based solely on the delayed notification of the stolen car by the insured. The bench held that mere delay in informing the Insurance Company should not invalidate the claim, particularly when the claim is genuine.

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Aditya Birla Finance Liable For Failure To Close Loan Account, Charge Late Fee

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M (Member) held 'Aditya Birla Finance' liable for deficiency in service for charging a late fee for a loan payment despite receiving the full amount and for its failure to close the loan account and provide resolution to the Complainant's grievances.

    Case Title: Ganapati Bramha vs The Authorized Signatory, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.

    Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 234/2023

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh

    Failure To Settle Claim After 1 Year Of Insured's Death, Chandigarh District Commission Holds LIC Liable

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) has held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failing to settle the claim even after one year of the insured's death and nine months after receiving the claim application.

    Case Title: Master Naman and Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.

    Case Number: CC/565/2023

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Apple Due To Lack Of Evidence Establishing Liability

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa(President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc., noting that the Complainant failed to produce evidence such as tax invoice and warranty information.

    Case Title: Muhammad Musharaf K vs Apple Inc.

    Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 301/2023

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Union Bank Of India Liable For Failure To Refund Wrongfully Debited Money

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench of Shivarama K (President) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Union Bank of India liable due to its failure to refund the money wrongfully debited from the complainant's bank account while attempting to withdraw from the bank's ATM.

    Case Title: Sri. G. Puttaswamy vs The Manager, Union Bank of India

    Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 347/2023

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh

    Failure To Deliver Product, Process Refund Promptly, Chandigarh District Commission Holds Nykaa Liable

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) has held Nykaa liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver the ordered product and only refunding the amount after one month of the order date.

    Case Title: Diksha Negi vs Nykaa E-Retail Pvt. Ltd and Anr.

    Case Number: CC/474/2023

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds 'Make O Toothsi Skin Centre' Liable For Failure To Provide Adequate Laser Service

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held 'Make O Toothsi Skin Centre' liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices due to its failure to provide adequate service and unnecessary delays in sessions despite receiving full payment.

    Case Title: Nidhi Singh vs The Authorized Signatory, Make O Toothsi Skin

    Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 90/2024

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Nishitha's Developers Liable For Failure To Deliver Possession Of Flat, Register Sale Deed

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held 'Nishitha's Developers' liable for deficiency in services for its failure to deliver possession of a flat and complete the sale transaction, despite receiving substantial payment from the buyer.

    Case Title: Sri. R. Ramesh Babu vs M/s Nishitha's Developers and Anr.

    Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 77/2023

    Ernakulam District Commission

    Dealer Not Responsible For Manufacturing Defects: Ernakulam District Commission Holds Whirlpool India Liable For Deficiency In Service

    The Ernakulam District Commission presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Whirlpool India liable for deficiency in service due to selling a product with a manufacturing defect and not taking action to rectify the defects upon complaining. However, the Commission dismissed the case against Bismi Connect, citing that dealers are not responsible for manufacturing defects.

    Case Title: Raviprasad P.V. Vs. Whirlpool India Ltd.

    Case Number: C.C. No. 22/80

    Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)

    Bangalore District Commission Holds Restaurant Liable For Damaging Customer's Car In Valet Parking

    The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held a restaurant liable for deficiency in services due to the failure of its staff to drive a car properly for valet parking which resulted in damages to the vehicle.

    Case Title: Mr Mukesh M. vs The General Manager, Street 1522

    Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 32 1/2023

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

    Failure To Replace Defective Television, Provide Refund, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Amazon and Cloudtail Liable

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri DB Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon liable for delivering a defective television and failing to replace it or provide a refund.

    Case Title: Aneesh T.U. vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

    Case No.: C.C No. 510/2018

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

    Ernakulam District Commission Holds Future Generali India Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Genuine Medical Claim

    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 Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service. The Insurance Company wrongfully repudiated a genuine medical claim under the Corona Rakshak Policy.

    Case Title: Ajaychand V. vs Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

    Case No.: C.C. No. 487/2021

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

    Ernakulam District Commission Holds Visudha Sadhu Janasangham Liable For Failure To Disburse Promised Cremation Benefits

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri D.B. Binu (President), Sri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Visudha Sadhu Janasangham, Thoppumpady (Kochi) liable for failure to give promised cremation benefits to its shareholders as per its binding bye-laws. The society was established for the purpose of financing the cremation of its members or their heirs.

    Case Title: Mary Bonifus and Anr. vs Visudha Yousepin Jana Sangham

    Case No.: C.C. No. 534/2023

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (Himachal Pradesh)

    Kullu District Commission Holds New India Assurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Genuine Claim

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) bench of Mr Purender Vaidya (President) and Ms Manchali (Member) held that an FIR filed by an uninvolved third party cannot be used by the Insurance Company to dispute the insured's version of facts regarding the accident. As a result, National India Assurance Company was held liable for wrongful repudiation of a genuine accidental claim.

    Case Title: Chhering Dolma vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

    Case No.: Complaint No. 14/2022

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

    Intentional Withholding Of Spare Parts Amounts To Restrictive Trade Practice, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Sony, Its Service Agent Liable

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench of Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. held Sony and its authorized Service Agent liable for restrictive trade practice and deficiency in service for failure to provide repair services on account of unavailability of spare parts for the TV purchased by the Complainant. The Complainant was instead offered to buy a new product at a special price.

    Case Title: Abdul Razzak vs Sony India and Anr.

    Case No.: C.C. No. 461/2019

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana

    Ludhiana District Commission Holds 'Behrouz Biryani', Swiggy Liable For Delivering Non-Veg Biryani Instead Of Veg

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana bench of Shri Sanjeev Batra (President) and Ms Monika Bhagat (Member) held 'Behrouz Biryani' and Swiggy liable for delivering chicken biryani instead of veg biryani. They further failed to properly address the Complainant's grievances, which constituted a violation under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

    Case Title: Vasu Gupta vs Behrouz Biryani and Anr.

    Case No.: Complaint No. 105 dated 17.03.2022

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

    New Scooter, Recurring Issues , Ernakulam District Commission Holds Honda Motorcycle, Its Seller Liable

    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 Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized seller liable for failure to rectify recurring issues with a newly bought Active scooter.

    Case Title: Nidhi Jain vs Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.

    Case No.: Complaint Case No. CC/22/50

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh

    Chandigarh District Commission Holds HDFC Bank, Phoenix ARC Liable For Illegally Demanding Outstanding Balance For Unauthorized Credit Cards

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II U.T. Chandigarh bench of Shri Amrinder Singh Sindhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member) held HDFC Bank and Phoenix ARC Private Limited liable for illegally demanding outstanding amount from the Complainant w.r.t. to two credit cards wrongfully issued under her name, which she never actually used.

    Case Title: Paramjit Kaur Pasricha vs HDFC Bank Ltd and Anr.

    Case No.: CC No. 539/2023

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh)

    East Godavari District Commission Holds Aditya Birla Health Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Claim

    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Godavari (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Sri D. Kodanda Rama Murthy (President), Sri S. Suresh Kumar (Member) and Smt. KS.N.. Lakshmi (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Ltd. liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid health insurance claim based on pre-existing diseases. The bench noted that the Complainant disclosed all material pre-existing conditions and even paid an extra premium for it.

    Case Title: Alluri Venkata Rama Raju vs Aditya Birla Capital and Anr.

    Case No.: CC No. 67/2023



    Next Story