Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: May 2024
Apoorva Pandita
6 Jun 2024 8:30 AM IST
Supreme Court Consumer Protection Act 1986 | Onus Of Proving That Service Was Availed For 'Commercial Purpose' Is On Service Provider : Supreme Court Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out...
Supreme Court
Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out the manner in which the consumer fora must decide technical pleas raised by service providers against the maintainability of the consumer complaints on the ground that goods/services were availed by the consumer for the commercial purposes.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Rejection Of A Surveyor's Report Must Be Due To Arbitrariness: NCDRC
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S. Khadi Udhyog
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, held that the surveyor's report in an insurance incident can only be rejected based on pervasiveness and arbitrariness
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Central Bank of India Vs. M/S. Abhay Kumar Jain
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that banks must ensure safety and security to prevent incidents and cannot deny responsibility for the locker's contents.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Construction Work Done For Consideration That Benefits Another Party Should Be Compensated: NCDRC
Case Title: Pinaki Bhattacharjee Vs. M/S. Unique Construction
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), in an appeal against Unique Construction, held that if a party carries out additional construction not intended to be free of charge, and the other party benefits from it, the former is entitled to compensation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Commissions Cannot Condone Delay If Not Provided With Satisfactory Explanation: NCDRC
Case Title: Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Abhinav Sharma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), in a case against Parsvnath Developers, held that the commissions cannot allow an application for condonation of delay if not provided with a sufficient cause.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Multiple Compensations For A Single Default Is Unjustified: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Exact Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd Vs. Rajesh Sethi
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra alongside Sadhna Shanker(member), held M/S. Exact Developers & Promoters liable for deficiency in service but set aside the state commission's order for granting compensation for mental agony, as multiple compensations cannot be granted for a single default.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Report From Expert Organization Must Be Obtained To Establish Defect: NCDRC
Case Title: Honda Cars India Ltd. Vs. Ushat Gulgule
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that for a consumer forum to establish a defect, an expert report from an expert organization must be produced.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surveyor's Report Is Not Final And Can be Contested With More Evidence: NCDRC
Case Title: Royal Sundaram General Insurance Vs. Ishwar Singh Mehra
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that in cases of discrepancy between the insured amount assessed by an authorized dealer and a surveyor, the claim by the dealer will take precedence. This is because the dealer's assessment is often based on a more thorough and detailed inspection, providing a more accurate estimate of the damages and repair costs.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sher Singh Vs. Manager, The New India Assurance Company
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra held that delay should not be excused without sufficient cause, and the fact that other parties have been granted relief does not justify excusing delay in similar cases.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/S. Gautam Construction Company & Anr. Vs. Mubarak Masih
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra and Sadhna Shanker(member), held that there has to be proper transparency regarding the construction details, even if it's not explicitly stated in the contract.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
6% Interest Appropriate Compensation For Delay In Handover Of Property: NCDRC
Case Title: Parth M. Soneji Vs. Shree Sainath Enterprises Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Maurya and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held that 6% interest on the deposit is an appropriate compensation for delay in handing over possession of a property.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insurance Contracts Should Be Given Plain Meaning: NCDRC
Case Title: Muthoot Finance Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A. P. Sahi, dismissed a case against United India Insurance and held that unless the terms of an insurance contract are ambiguous, requiring further interpretation, the plain and straightforward meaning of those terms should be applied.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Nagendran
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, held VGN Projects Estates liable for deficiency in service over delayed possession of the booked flat to the owner.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Builder Cannot Forfeit Earnest Money If Possession Not Offered Within Stipulated Time: NCDRC
Case Title: Vikas Garg Vs. Estate Officer (Housing)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia, held that forfeiture of earnest money cannot be done if possession is not offered within the stipulated time to the party in question.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Central Bank of India Vs. Somir Kumar Bagchi
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Inder Jit Singh held that a bank cannot change the agreed EMI amount on its own. Furthrmore, It was also held that a plea cannot be raise later in a subsequent higher court if it hasn't been raised in the initial pleadings and no related issue are framed on it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Delivery Of Possession: NCDRC Holds Emaar MGF Land Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Mohan Shyam Dubey Vs. M/S Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Justice A. P. Sahi held Emaaar MGF Land liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over the possession of the flat booked.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank Vs. Ishwar Dayal
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Syndicate Bank liable for deficiency in service and held that it is the responsibility of the bank to renew insurance or insist the insurer on renewing it.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Accepting Evidence Without Filing Written Statement Is Same As Allowing A Late Reply: NCDRC
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Vs. Om Prakash Dubey
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that evidence can't be accepted without filing a written statement within 45 days. Furthermore, it was held that parties could not place retrospective reliance in appeals on judgments that are pronounced after the filing of the original complaint.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohd Siddique Khan Vs. Forest Division Officer
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held a public auction purchaser is not a consumer, and the Opposite Party is not a service provider.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Babu Ram Vs. Sartaj Ali
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the Commission can only interfere in orders by the State Commissions and the District Forums if there is a scope of illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Consumer And Criminal Proceedings Are Distinct From Each Other with Respective Jurisdictions: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Kalindi Enterprises Vs. Suresh G Kumar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the compensation granted by the consumer commission is not akin to a criminal sentence or punishment. Unlike criminal courts, which demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt for culpable offenses, consumer complaints about service deficiencies or unfair trade practices operate under different legal standards.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Parulben Shailesbhai Chunara Vs. Dr. Vinaykumar C. Sinh
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that medical opinions may vary on the appropriate course of action for treating a patient, but if a doctor follows acceptable medical practices and the court determines that they provided care with due skill and diligence, it is challenging to deem the doctor negligent even if the patient does not survive or suffers a permanent condition.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Processing Revival Of Policy After Receiving Premium Is Insurer's Fault: NCDRC
Case Title: IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Bera
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that IDBI Federal Life Insurance liable for deficiency in service due to denial of revival of the policy even after receiving the premium amount from the insured.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Canon Properties Pvt Ltd. Vs. Dum Dum Club Town Residents Association
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held Canon Properties liable for deficiency in service for withholding maintenance charges from the flat owners.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insurer Has Discretion To Reject A Surveyor's Report If It Is Arbitrary Or Unreasonable: NCDRC
Case Title: M/S. Shah Vadilal Jethalal Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against New India Assurance, citing the complainant's failure to demonstrate any arbitrariness or perversity in the insurer's rejection of the surveyor's report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. Shubhalaxmi Shankar Shetty
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Subhash Chandra, held Life Insurance Corporation liable for deficiency in service over invalidating an insurance case citing non-disclosure of prior non-life-threatening health conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporationof India & Anr Vs. Sunil Kumar
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the terms in an insurance contract should be strictly adhered to with no scope of deviation from these terms.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Sukh Lal Soni
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) is limited in nature and can only be exercised when the State Commission has either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or acted with material irregularity.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Insured Has A Duty To Disclose Pre Existing Aliments To Insurer : NCDRC
Case Title: Subhash Kumar Vs. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the contracts of life insurance are based on utmost good faith and the insured has a duty to disclose all material information, including pre existing ailments to the insurer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Vs. Manjula & 2 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held that the insurance policies should be interpreted broadly to align with reasonable expectations of the insured.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Benefit Of Doubt Must Go In Favour Of Passenger In Case Of Ambiguity In Railway Guidelines: NCDRC
Case Title: Asish Kumar Paul Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, held Eastern Railways liable for deficiency in service due to treating a passenger as ticketless because of ambiguity in their own stated guidelines.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Revisional Jurisdiction Of National Commission Is Limited In Nature: NCDRC
Case Title: Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd Vs. Anantharamegowda
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the National Commission can only intervene in an order through revisional jurisdiction if the State Commission has operated beyond its legal authority, neglected to use its jurisdiction, or acted unlawfully or with material irregularity.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M/s Shah Vadilala Jethalal vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) dismissed an appeal filed against New India Assurance Company, based on the Complainant's failure to take reasonable care to safeguard the insured property against accident, loss, and damage.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Z. Ahmed vs M/s. Coca Cola India
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) held that Coca-Cola's promotional scheme of awarding 5 Honda City cars for lucky coupon bottles was a valid promotional scheme and could not be said to be fraudulent. However, compensation to an aggrieved consumer on this basis was allowed who genuinely pursued the consumer complaint based on a genuine belief of winning a Honda City car after buying the lucky bottle.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Subhash Kumar vs Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed against Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. based on the fact that the deceased policyholder failed to disclose her preexisting ailments at the time of purchasing the policies. The NCDRC held that suppression of facts makes the policy voidable at the option of the Insurance Company.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sunita Kumar Vs. St. Stephen's Hospital
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, serves as a safeguard to the effectiveness of the law by preventing challenges that could unnecessarily prolong cases in Consumer Fora, thus preserving the integrity of the legislation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shalini Srivastava vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sandhya Shanker (Member) held that if the insured fails to disclose all material facts in the proposal form, the claim is liable to be repudiated irrespective of whether the cause of death was related to the non-disclosed facts or not.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Commission Holds Emaar Land Liable For Deficiency In Service Due To Delay In Possession
Case Title: Mohan Shyam Dubey Vs. MS Emmar MGF Land Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice A.P. Sahi, held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession when projects are not completed on time.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Timeless Jewels
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Sadhna Shanker (Member) held that insurance companies cannot appoint surveyors indiscriminately solely to get a favourable report. The appointment of multiple surveyors without any reasonable cause was held to violate the IRDA Regulation No. 64.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid insurance claim of a stolen tractor based on a delayed intimation of 10 days. The NCDRC held that delay in intimation of claim was no longer an issue in insurance disputes.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: East India Transport Agency vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held that an entity engaged in commercial activities solely for the purposes of profit-making cannot be said to be covered under the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Even if the commercial entity subrogates its right to recover the amount to a 3rd party, the 3rd party would not be considered a 'consumer' for the purposes of the Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd Vs. Rajinder Sharma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held that the interest rate charged for delay in possession may be altered according to market conditions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MS. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt Ltd Vs. Devinder Singh Cheema
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker(member), held the builder's failure to deliver the flat on time constituted a clear deficiency, which was worsened by arbitrarily cancelling the allotment upon receiving a legal notice from the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Akash Hospital & Diagnostics Vs. Attam Chand Mandhotra
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the National Commission can only intervene in cases if it finds that the State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction and failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Case Title: Somnath Banerjee vs Apex Lab and Others
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench, consisting of Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms Sweta Kakkad (Member), and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member), held that in the absence of evident anti-competitive behaviour, decisions concerning the purchase or sale of products are primarily influenced by the commercial considerations of market players. Consequently, the CCI closed information filed against various pharmaceutical entities for allegedly neglecting to promote a dietary supplement, as there was no vertical agreement among them.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Praveen Chauhan Vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that if possession is not delivered within 42 months or beyond 48 months, it constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of the builder.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Anita Gupta Vs. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, held HDFC Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the rejection of a health insurance claim solely on the presence of non-communication of pre-existing conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Burden Of Proving Medical Negligence Lies With The Claimant: Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Col. Jeetendra Gulati Vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ms. Suman Rana & Anr.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that even in cases where the insured violates their insurance policy terms, the insurance claim can resolved, though with modified conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Sapna Khemani Vs. M/S Parsvnath Dev. Ltd
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held Parvsnath Developer liable for deficiency in service due to failure to hand over the possession of the purchased property to the buyer for more than 13 years. The Commission also ruled that mere verbal claims without supporting documentation are insufficient to establish a property purchase as commercial.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Sushil Rastogi Vs. M/S Regal Emporio Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that a company bears sole responsibility for completing the construction within the agreed-upon time-frame, ensuring the complainant does not bear the consequences of their deficiencies.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar)
Case Title: Meena Devi vs The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Miss Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) held National Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse a valid accidental claim, despite acknowledging the existence of the policy and receiving all relevant documents. In the absence of a clear explanation for its conduct, the State Commission enhanced the period and amount of interest levied on it by the District Commission.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh
Case Title: Brij Bhushan vs Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) held that delay of intimation of claim to the insurance company is insignificant if the information concerning the incident was duly informed to the police within a reasonable time. Consequently, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. was held liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid accidental claim based on late intimation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar)
Case Title: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs Shiv Chandra Kumar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Bihar) bench comprising Ms Gita Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) set aside the order of the Vaishali District Commission against the State Bank of India. The State Commission found discrepancies in the Complainant's version, who alleged unauthorized transactions while using SBI's ATMs.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs Sh, Hasim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. The allegations against the Insurance Company involved the repudiation of an accidental claim based on the absence of the Complainant's name in the insurance policy. The bench held that the Complainant failed to transfer the insurance policy into his name within 14 days of transferring the vehicle's ownership. Therefore, he was not entitled to the insurance amount.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
Case Title: Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Kumar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Ms Geeta Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. The State Commission held that it rightfully repudiated a vehicle claim because the vehicle's owner failed to disclose that the vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle, at the time of obtaining the policy. Since the insurance policy pertained to personal vehicles only, the repudiation was held to be valid.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. D.P. Dhankar Vs. MS Belgravia Projects Pvt Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held Belgravia Projects liable for deficiency in service over delay in possession of the purchased property.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Dhananjay Yadav vs IDBI
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held IDBI Bank liable for failure to initiate a refund to the deceased's nominee after exercising its call option right regarding a bond bought by the deceased.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Vikas Bansal vs BYJU's Tuition Centre
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, consisting of Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held Byju's liable for failing to deliver the promised amenities in a course and subsequently, failing to refund the amount despite acknowledging it.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Sh. Rajender Singh Raja vs Vikas Travels and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi bench of Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Vikas Travels and its bus owner liable for deficiency in service for failure to stop the bus at the designated stop. They were directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the aggrieved passenger.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: George Thattil vs The Proprietor, Chukkiri Royal Bakery and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Britania and Chukkiri Royal Bakery (Seller) liable for selling underweight biscuit packets, which constituted a violation of both the Legal Metrology Act and the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: S. Sridevi and Anr. vs The Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu) bench of N. Pari (president) and A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company liable for failure to honour a genuine insurance claim by citing pre-existing illness as a reason. The bench held that the treatment sought by the Complainant was not related to the preexisting illness and was also not excluded under the insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: Abbas M. vs Manager/Authorized Person, Doc & Mark and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held Doc and Mark shoes and its Dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for destroying the Complainant's shoes before the proceedings, which was seen as an attempt to destroy evidence and prevent the Complainant from providing defects.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-1, Lucknow
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-1, Lucknow has directed Hotel Le Meridian, Jaipur to pay the complainant, Dr. Colonel Ajay Bahadur, an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant to the date of judgment within 45 days from the date of Judgment.
