Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: June 2024
Apoorva Pandita
16 July 2024 7:00 PM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Limitation Period Under Policy Is Shorter Than Statutory Period For Filing Complaint, Unenforceable And Void: NCDRC Holds Oriental Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that the Consumer Protection Act...
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.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions:
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.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions:
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.
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.
