Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: December 2023
Apoorva Pandita
2 Jan 2024 6:30 PM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Delay In Construction And Delivery Of Flat, NCDRC Directs DK Reality To Refund Amount With Interest Case Title: Amresh Pednekar vs. D.K. Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member, partly allowed...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Delay In Construction And Delivery Of Flat, NCDRC Directs DK Reality To Refund Amount With Interest
Case Title: Amresh Pednekar vs. D.K. Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member, partly allowed a consumer complaint against D.K. Realty India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party) for the delay in construction of a housing project named "Livsmart." The main contention was based on the delay in delivering the flat as per the agreed timeline and subsequent failure to respond to the complainant's requests for cancellation and refund. As a result, the Commission held D.K. Reality liable, directing them to refund the entire amount deposited along with 9% interest per annum.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S M.R. Filling Station
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) bench led by Dr. Inderjit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., based on its limited revisional jurisdiction which only allows for cases involving material irregularity, illegality and jurisdictional error in the order of the lower fora. The NCDRC upheld the Punjab State Commission's order and directed New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to disburse Rs. 5,74,170/- to the Complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Dancing Swing Ride Accident, NCDRC Directs Rizvana Amusement Co. To Pay Rs. 35 Lakhs to Complainant
Case Title: Abhimanyu Singh vs Rizvana Amusement and 2 others
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench led by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) held Rizvana Amusement, an amusement swing operator liable for deficiency in service due to an accident on a 'Dancing Chairs' swing which caused serious injury to the Complainant. The NCDRC awarded Rs. 25,00,000/- as pecuniary compensation and Rs.10,00,000/- as non-pecuniary compensation to the Complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Dharamvir Singh and Anr. vs Jai Prakash Associates Limited and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Mr Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Bhartkumar Pandya (Member) held Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. and its subsidiary, Jaypee Sports Int. Ltd. liable for failure to deliver the possession of the housing unit to the Complainant within the stipulated time. Further, the Builder's defence that the agreement had an arbitration clause was rejected as it was held that Consumer Forum's remedies stand in addition to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Kalinga Eye Hospital vs Bhabagrahi Sahu and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by Kalinga Eye Hospital and Research Centre while acknowledging its limited revisional jurisdiction which can only be exercised in the case of illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The NCDRC considered the submissions made by the parties and found no reason to interfere with the orders of the District Commission, Deogarh and State Commission, Odisha.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
Case Title: Western Central Railway Division Vs Rajendra Kumar Agrawal & Another
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh allowed an appeal filed by the Western Central Railway Division, Jabalpur against a passenger who alleged theft of his belongings while travelling on the train. The State Commission held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for the stolen luggage when the Complainant himself wasn't vigilant.
West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah and Anr. vs Arindam Goswami
The Siliguri Circuit bench of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Mr Kundan Kumar Kumai (Presiding Member) and Mr Swapan Kumar Das (Member) allowed an appeal filed by the Railway Managers of Eastern Railway. Originally, their written version was not accepted by the District Commission because they failed to file it within 45 days. While extending the period of limitation, the State Commission noted that even though the Railway Managers had quoted the wrong section of appeal under the old Consumer Protection Act, the same cannot invalidate the substance of the matter.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. Monica Gogia vs. Mr. Goldy Sahni
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of 'healthcare' services being included in the ambit of 'services' under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Arvinder Singh Aneja & Anr. Vs M/S Agrante Reality Ltd.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) stated that when dealing with builder services lacking a defined timeframe, a reasonable duration for fulfilling the contract under the Indian Contract Act 1872 falls within 24 to 48 months. The bench further argues that the complainants cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to get the benefits of the hard-earned money they have spent to purchase the property in question.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Daya Ram Vs. Karol Bagh Post Office
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) rejected the arguments of respondent based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in light of allegations of negligence. The bench further highlighted that if an addressee of the letter can reasonably demonstrate the likelihood of intentional negligence by a Postal Department employee, the responsibility shifts to the department to substantiate its denial.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi State Commission Holds BPTP Builders Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Mr. Aurangzeb Khan Vs. M/S Bptp Ltd.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) held the Opposite Party as deficient in providing its services to the Complainant for failing to hand over the possession of the flat within a reasonable time period.
Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The Chairman, Railway Board and others vs Premshila Devi and others.
The Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) and Md Shamim Akhtar (Member) held the Railways Board, East-Central Railways and the Divisional Rail Manager of the Samastipur Division liable for failure to protect the lives of the passengers. The passengers were robbed, hit and stabbed when the train was going to Motihari station. The State Commission upheld its jurisdiction and held that consumer commissions can grant additional remedies even when certain remedies have already been granted under the Railways Act.
Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Denial Of Insurance Claim, Bihar State Commission Dismisses Appeal By Reliance Nippon Life Insurance
Case Title: Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gharohari Devi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) and Shamim Akhtar (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company which contended misrepresentation of age on the policy holder's part while availing the policy. The State Commission held that the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden of proof in light of the fact that the company's advisor himself filled out the proposal form after verifying the policyholder's age.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University vs Sh. Sudhanshu Sain and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench, comprising Mr Justice D.S. Tripathi (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal against the impugned order of the District Commission, Haridwar, on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act requires the President of the District Commission to be present in each proceeding along with at least one member. Since the impugned order was decided by a bench solely comprising members of the District Commission, it was nullified, and the matter was remanded back to the District Commission for a fresh hearing.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam
Case Title: M.S. Sajeev Kumar v. Hewlet-Packard Global Soft PVT Ltd. & Ors.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that the issuance of poorly printed bills on low-quality paper or with inferior ink amounts to 'deficiency of service' or 'unfair trade practice'. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. relied upon the decision in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. (2001), which laid down that the inclusion of terms and conditions and other particulars in bills is crucial for ensuring consumers' rights to be informed about the prices of products or services they purchase or hire.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Case Title: Parminder Oberoi vs Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Yatra Online and British Airways liable for unilateral cancellation of the Complainant's ticket and subsequent denial for adequate refund or resolution for over 2 years. The District Commission asked them to refund the Complainant's ticket amount, and pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation for mental agony, Rs. 50,000/- deterrent compensation and Rs. 33,000/- legal costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Beenabi Haris and Anr. vs Skoda Auto India P Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr D.B. Binu (President), Mr Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and its seller Marikar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Skoda Division, Chakkal Bypass. The reason for the dismissal was that the Complainant could not prove the manufacturing defects in the car and failed to raise the issues within the warranty period. The District Commission emphasized the necessity of expert evidence to substantiate such claims and held that the burden of proof lies on the Complainant to prove the manufacturing defects if contended.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Case Title: Virender Singh Yadav vs State Bank of India and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for its failure to ensure the safety of the Complainant's debit card and bank account. SBI issued 2 unsolicited ATM cards within a short time, which violated the RBI guidelines. Further, it failed to avoid fraudulent transactions from the Complainant's account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Case Title: Vishal Yadav vs Cloud Nine Hospital
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Cloud Nine Hospital liable for conducting a mock-drill for child abduction soon after the baby was born, without informing the family. The hospital staff further failed to inform the gender of the child for 30 minutes while the family stayed in a perplexed situation due to the sudden mock drill.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam
Case Title: Santhosh M.S. v. Manager, Sports Terrain
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that repeated installation of inferior quality football turf despite payment of the full amount for installing a superior quality turf, would constitute unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. held that the failure of the supplier to provide FIFA standard 'LIMONTA' brand artificial turf despite accepting full payment for the same, amounted to a clear deficiency in service, and consequently awarded Rs. 1,14,700/- as compensation to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam
Case Title: Aliyar T.M. v. M/S SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that unauthorized transactions exceeding the credit limit of an account holder, particularly when such a person did not opt for over-the-limit transaction, would constitute a deficiency of service. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. relied upon the decision in State Bank of India v. P.V.George (2019) which laid down the duty of care banks have in protecting the interests of the customer, including safeguarding them from unauthorized transactions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam
Case Title: Zeba Salim v. M/S VLCC Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered a refund of fees to a student who had enrolled in courses offered by VLCC Institute, Kochi, but subsequently got cancelled due to failure on the part of the institute to offer timely classes, even through online mode. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N., underscored the importance of protecting consumers in the education sector, by ensuring refund of fees to students who choose to leave a course midway.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Vineet Marwaha vs. Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, presided by Mr. Pawanjit Singh along with Ms. Surjeet Kaur and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sardana as members, recently allowed a consumer complaint against MakeMyTrip (Opposite Party No. 1). The complainant had booked a hotel through Goibibo (Opposite Party No. 2), for a family vacation. However, just before the journey, they were informed of the hotel's unavailability, leading to cancellation and a refund. The commission found that despite the cancellation claim due to the hotel being non-operational, the same rooms were available online at significantly higher rates. Thereby the commission concluded that the cancellation was arbitrary and caused immense mental harassment to the complainant. As a result, MakeMyTrip was held responsible for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and directed to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.7000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Urban)
Case Title: Krishnappa N. vs. Owner, Hotel Prashanth
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Urban) has held a hotel liable for deficiency in service for serving only biriyani without any pieces of chicken to a customer who had ordered Chicken Biryani. The commission presided over by President M. Shobha P, partly allowed the complaint and directed the owner of the hotel to refund Rs 150 paid towards the amount paid for the Chicken Biryani and Rs.1,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the order.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Aravind G. John v. M/S Arya Bhangy Motors
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held M/S Arya Bhangy Motors liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for providing a 2017 model Honda Unicorn motorcycle with bent chassis and instability to a customer who had specifically requested the 2018 model. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. ordered the dealer to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,05,660/- to the complainant for the 'significant service deficiency' as a result of which the latter endured considerable inconvenience and hardship.
Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka)
Case Title: Jeevan Kumar vs Reliance Retail Limited
The Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Sri B. Devaraju (Member) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited liable for deficiency in service for cancelling the return request of the wrong product after it voluntarily acknowledged its fault and agreed to schedule a return as soon as possible.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Deepika Bhardwaj vs Ajio and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited and its lifestyle brand, AJIO liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for selling and delivering a laptop briefcase over its original MRP.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Vatsal Agarwal vs Make My Trip India and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Ms Yogita Dutta (Mmeber) held MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. and its Relationship Manager liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for their failure to refund the entire amount of a booked trip which was cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission noted that a resolution was reached and a refund was initiated only after the filing of the complaint. Therefore, MakeMyTrip was directed to pay compensation and litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)
Case Title: Krishan Rohilla vs Snapdeal
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Mrs Tripti Pannu (Member) and Sh. Vijender Singh (Mmeber) held Snapdeal liable for deficiency in service for their failure to refund the purchase amount of a returned product in the designated account. The District Commission noted that Snapdeal negligently processed the refund to a 3rd-party's account, due to which the original Complainant had to suffer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens vs The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
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 Samsung India Electronics Private Limited liable for unfair trade practices for its failure to provide spare parts of its products in the market, thereby carrying a restrictive trade practice and indirectly coercing the customers to buy new products instead of repairing the existing products.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Dr. Ponna Srinivas vs Amazon Hyderabad and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member) held Amazon and Appario Retail Private Limited, a listed 3rd-party seller liable for delivery and subsequent failure to return a smartwatch. The District Commission held that Amazon's role as an intermediary does not absolve it of liability. Further, even the seller was held liable as it sent a pink coloured watch, instead of a sandy cream colour, as advertised.
South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Maharashtra)
Case Title: Kalpanashantilal Shah Vs Grofers India Pvt. Ltd. (Blinkit).
The South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Maharashtra) bench comprising Shri Pradeep G. Kadu (President), Smt. S.A. Petkar (Member) and Smt. G.M. Kapse (Member) held Blinkit liable for failure to refund the cost price of an undelivered grocery item. The District Commission directed Blinkit to refund the amount, and pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Karthik Mohan v. Ministry of Indian Railways
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) stated that the passengers have the right to timely and quality services and shouldn't be subject to the whims of the administration. It was further asserted that the Railways must provide valid reasons for any significant delays due to unforeseeable circumstances. The Judgment reaffirmed that passengers' time is invaluable, and they deserve compensation for undue delays unless the Railways can prove a justifiable cause.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Srikala Yenigalla vs OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakhsmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member) held Ola Electric Technologies Private Limited liable for delivering a wrong-coloured scooter twice to the Complainant. Despite several attempts at communication and resolution, Ola failed to deliver the colour originally requested by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Captain [Indian Navy] K.K Nair & Anr. V. M/s Holy Faith Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) provided relief to the complainants in an ex-parte case asserting that the absence of the first opposite party, along with their failure to challenge the complainants' claims, indicated an implicit acknowledgment of the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices against them.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case Title: Anita Kachroo vs MakeMyTrip
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Sri Ramachandra M.S. (President), Sri H.N. Shrinidhi (Member) and Smt. Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for its failure to refund the unfinished transaction amount of Rs. 44,086/-, despite multiple attempts at resolution made by the Complainant. The District Commission also ordered MakeMyTrip to pay Rs. 10,000/- compensation amount and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case Title: E. Venkataramana vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd and others.
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S. Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized seller, Girias Investment (P) Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for their failure to replace or refund the purchase amount of a defective LG Dishwasher despite assurance.
Circuit bench of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai
Case Title: V. Mythili vs Joseph Hospital and Anr.
The Circuit bench of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai led by Thiru S. Karuppiah (Presiding Judicial Member) held Joseph Hospital, Tirunelveli (Tamil Nadu) and its doctor liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The patient was coerced into buying expensive and extra medicines from the Hospital's pharmacy only. Further, she was also forced to buy blood from the blood bank, despite the communication that her sister had the same blood group.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Mahesh Chand Jain Vs Bank of Baroda And Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President), Ravi Kumar (Member) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse full insurance amount claimed after presenting all the important documents such as hospital bills and receipts. The District Commission noted that denial of benefits as per the T&C and cancellation of the policy at a later stage constituted a deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Godavari, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh)
Case Title: Ponnapalli Rama Krishna vs Eluru Municipal Corporation and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Godavari, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Sri D. Kodanda Rama Murthy (President), Sri S. Suresh Kumar (Member) and Smt. K.S.N. Lakshmi (Member) held Eluru Municipal Corporation and its Revenue Officer liable for deficiency in service and failure to verify its records. The authorities continued to send demand notices to the Complainant even after his tap supply was disconnected. The District Commission concluded that the Municipal Corporation was not entitled to collect water tax after the supply had been cut off.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, Punjab
Case Title: Bhanu Kaushal vs Yes Bank Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, Punjab bench comprising Harveen Bhardwaj (President) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held Yes Bank liable for repudiating the valid claim made by the nominee son of the FD depositor who had died. The District Commission cited provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules to hold that as long as the nomination is cancelled or varied, the nominee is entitled to receive the deposit amount, and the nominee's rights prevail over others.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: K.K. Joy vs. J.S Cube Metals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), ruled that the failure to issue a proper bill or cash memo, as mandated by Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020, is considered an unfair trade practice and deprives consumers of crucial transaction details needed for protection in the event of disputes.
Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ramadas K.K. vs. Assistant Engineer, KSEB Thalikkulam & Ors.
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu along with Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members) partly allowed a consumer complaint against Kerala State Electricity Board for issues related to disconnection of power supply to an agricultural connection. The commission found that despite the complainant clearing arrears and following instructions for repairs, the power supply was not reinstated. While allowing the complaint, the Commission held KSEB liable for deficiency in their service, as the board failed to provide clear instructions and proper communication regarding reconnection. Consequently, the Board was directed to compensate the complainant for financial losses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Daljeet Kaur Vs Apollo Munich Health Ins.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President), Ravi Kumar (Member) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for denying a valid insurance claim, citing reasons which were not informed to the Complainant at the time of availing the policy. Further, the District Commission held that the Complainant was not under an obligation to reveal immaterial facts, unconnected to the ailment, at the time of availing the policy.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - I
Case Title: Vikram Singh vs Air India
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - I presided by Shri Pawanjeet Singh along with Mrs. Surjeet Kaur and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sardana has allowed a consumer complaint against Vistara Airlines and IRCTC (India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation) for not refunding the cancellation charges deducted from a booking made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complainant had booked air tickets through IRCTC for a family trip to Port Blair, but due to the pandemic, the journey was canceled. Despite this, Vistara Airlines and IRCTC deducted cancellation charges totaling Rs. 22,500/- from the paid amount of Rs. 72,524/-. Ultimately, the commission found both Vistara Airlines and IRCTC responsible for not refunding the deducted amounts to the complainant. As a result, they ordered IRCTC to refund Rs. 10,500/- and directed Vistara Airlines and IRCTC together to refund Rs. 12,000/- along with interest. Additionally, they were asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Delhi
Case Title: Rajiv Raizada vs Shri Harit Nagpal, Chief Executive, TATA Play Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) dismissed a complaint against TATA Play on account of disputed facts which could not be deciphered in the summary proceedings undertaken under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The District Commission reiterated that cases involving highly disputed questions of facts, criminality and tortuous conduct are not fit to be dealt with by the Consumer Commissions. The Complainant was given the freedom to approach any Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction to seek resolution.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi
Case Title: Anupama Kasana and others vs OYO Rooms Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held OYO Rooms Ltd. and Goibibo Web Pvt Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to ensure allocation of rooms to the Complainant and her family upon reaching the selected hotel, despite confirmation and payment. The District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the Complainant as compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani (Haryana)
Case Title: Deepak Soni vs The Manager, National Highway Authority of India and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani (Haryana) bench comprising Mrs Saroj Bala Bohra (Presiding Member) and Ms Shashi Kiran Panwar (Member) dismissed a complaint filed by the Complainant who claimed that the NHAI cannot charge for toll if the waiting time of the vehicle at the toll plaza exceeds 2.5 minutes. The District Commission held that the basis of the Complainant's claim was an RTI. However, the letter issued by the NHAI in this regard held more significance and thus, it was established that there exists no such exemption rule w.r.t. time.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra
Case Title: Kshitij Korla vs Shopsizo.com and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Shri Narayan Thakur (Member) held an online shopping site, Shopsizo.com and its facilitator, Nimbus Post liable for failure to display mandatory information, as required under the E-Commerce Rules, 2020. Both were directed to file an affidavit indicating compliance with the said rules and compensate the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Pattanaik and others and Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debashish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. liable for non-disclosure of estimate costs to the family members of the patient. The District Commission reiterated the duty of medical institutions to maintain transparency in providing estimated treatment expenses to the patients and their families, in line with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Abdul Jalil vs Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for its failure to reverse the amount in the Complainant's bank account which had been debited in an unauthorised manner. The District Commission held that the Bank violated the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India which mandate the banks to credit the amount involved in the unauthorized transaction to the customer's account within 10 working days from the date of notification by the customer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mittal vs Lloyd and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Jagdeep Singh (President), Mrs Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr Amita Aggarwal (Member) held Lloyd Electric and Eng. Ltd. and its seller, Deendayal Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling an AC with a manufacturing defect and subsequently failing to resolve the same. They were directed to either replace the AC or pay Rs. 30,000 to the Complainant with compensation of Rs. 4,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Himanshu vs Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. for failure to provide service to the Complainant at his location during the Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission remarked that Lenovo should have considered the circumstances of that period and the Complainant could not have been expected to visit the service centre himself during the pandemic.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Aam Aan Kay Gases Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs Audi Gurugram and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Audi, Gurugram and Kanish Motor Private Limited for charging for replaced parts covered under the warranty scheme, while servicing the car. The District Commission ordered them to refund the extra amount, and pay Rs. 7,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Jayan P. Ramachandran vs M/s TCL and Anr.
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 TCL and M/s MyG Paravur (Seller) liable for unfair trade practice for failure to resolve the issues with the 32-inch television within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to either replace the television or refund the purchase amount. They were also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh)
Case Title: GLN Prasad vs Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt T. Suneetha (President), Smt K. Vijaya Lakshmi (Member) and G. Punna Reddy (Member) held Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali (Guntur District) liable for refusing withdrawal of amount from the savings account of the Complainant and refusing to register his complaint in the branch office's register. The District Commission emphasized that it was the duty of postal officials to ensure that manually registered post facilities were available in all post offices, and the failure to provide such a facility amounted to a deficiency of service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Chennai (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: T. Saravanan vs St. Isabel Hospital and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Chennai (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising Thiru G. Vinobha (President), TMT Kavitha Kannan (Member) and Thiru V. Ramamurthy (Member) dismissed a complaint against St. Isabel Hospital and its doctor based on the principle that medical practitioners cannot be held responsible for the consequences arising from the pre-existing condition. The District Commission referred to legal precedents on the subject matter and reiterated that a medical practitioner is only liable when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amroha (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Prashant Kumar vs Reliance Retail Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amroha (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Shri Nisamuddin (President) and Smt. Anju Rani Dixit (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited liable for unfair trade practice for delivering Apple AirPods pro with a different IMEI number than the one written on the receipt. The District Commission noted that despite several attempts made by the Complainant, Reliance Retail failed to resolve his grievances.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Lallan Sharma vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Yashwant Kumar Mishra (President) and Smt. Mamta Gupta (Member) held United India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. liable for wrongfully repudiating the insurance claim for the insured cow which died due to illness. The claim was repudiated only based on a different identification number written in the surveyor report. The District Commission, based on the evidence presented, established that it was a mere typing error which led to the confusion.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
Case Title: Lallian Singh vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member), held State Bank of India liable for being unable to investigate a series of fraudulent and unauthorized ATM transactions. Further, SBI failed to determine the Complainant's liability as per RBI's instructions and thus engaged in a deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Anirudh Rathi vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and B. Rajareddy (Member) held Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its service centre liable for deficiency in service for selling earphones with a manufacturing defect and subsequently refusing to issue a refund and offering replacement of an inferior quality.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaushambi (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Satish Kumar vs Branch Head, Aditya Birla Health Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaushambi (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Lal Chandra (President) and Sanchita Shrivastava (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company liable for repudiating the valid claim of the Complainant who was diagnosed with a non-hearing ulcer and was treated at Medanta Hospital, Lucknow. The District Commission noted that the Insurance Co. failed to communicate all T&Cs to the Complainant when he was availing of the policy. Further, the Complainant did not sign any document which mentioned the T&C based on which the Insurance Co. was repudiating the claim. Thus, at a later stage, it could not bind the Complainant with such conditions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Mehra vs Thomas Cook India Ltd. and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Mr Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Thomas Cook India Ltd. liable for failure to present the T&C regarding cancellation of tour package to the Complainant and subsequently forfeiting the purchase amount on the pretext of those T&C. The District Commission reinforced the importance of serving T&C to the customers, asserting that if not served, an entity cannot claim the benefits of having such T&C on paper.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Narinder Kumar vs Apple India Private Ltd and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) held Amazon and M/s Arhum IT, a listed mobile phone reseller liable for unfair trade practices for delivering a differently coloured iPhone and charging for it at par with a new iPhone, even when it was a refurbished and second-hand iPhone.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: X vs Dr Deepak Kalia and Anr. (Patient name redated)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held a doctor operating a cosmetic clinic in Chandigarh liable for conducting an unsuccessful enhancement surgery on the Complainant, which led to the development of lymph on his chest. The District Commission held that there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor as the surgery didn't show the desired results for which the Complainant spent a substantial amount of money.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Baby C.C. vs M/s Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd.
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 Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. for denying the benefits of a valid Extended Warranty Scheme held by the Complainant whose car broke down due to bearing issues, within the warranty period. The District Commission held that the Seller's conscious failure to file a written version despite having received the appearance notice, amounted to an admission of the allegations levelled against it.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)
Case Title: Monika Rani vs Indian Railways
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Tripti Pannu (Member) and Vijender Singh (Member) held the Station Superintendent of Rohtak Railway Station liable for negligence and inadequate security and safety of passengers' belongings. It directed the railway authority to pay a compensation of Rs 2,50,000 to a Complainant whose language was stolen during the train journey.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
Case Title: Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath vs The Manager, Vishal Mega Mart
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Debasish Nayak (President) and Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Vishal Mega Mart liable for selling expired products in its store. The store was directed to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the Complainant and deposit Rs 5,00,000 to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
Case Title: S.K. Garg vs Emirates Airlines and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Emirates Airlines liable for missing check-in luggage of the Complainant. Further, it directed the Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited to reimburse the Complainant's claim for the missing luggage within 30 days and directed the Complainant to deposit the documents to the Insurance Company within 15 days. The District Commission directed Emirates Airline to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South West Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Nitesh Garwal vs Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South West Delhi bench comprising of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), RC Yadav (Member) and Dr Harshali Kaur (Member) held McDonalds liable of deficiency in service for sending a different meal altogether, priced lower than what the Complainant had paid for. It was directed to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala)
Case Title: Ansamma Varghese vs Karithas Hospital and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala) bench comprising V.S. Manulal (President), S Bindu (Member) and KM Anto (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Karithas Hospital noting that breakage of the chemo port is considered a medically reported and accepted complication in chemotherapy treatment. Further, the District Commission held that since there was conflicting medical literature as to when the drainage tube affixed to the breast should be detached, it rejected the contention made by the Complainant that the doctor detached the tube prematurely causing infection to her breast.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala)
Case Title: Prakashan A.V. vs Reeco Energy India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala) bench comprising of V.S. Manulal (President), S. Bindhu (Member) and K.M. Anto (Member) held Reeco Energy India Pvt Ltd liable for deficiency in service for failing to install a solar power generating system even after seven months of receiving advance payment. The District Commission directed it to install the solar system within a specific timeframe and pay a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)
Case Title: Subha B vs The Proprietor, STV Medical and Surgicals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench comprising P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju VR (Member) held STV Medical and Surgical Medical College (Trivandrum) liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling a medicine different from the medicine prescribed by the doctor. The District Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 1,05,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Lenovo (India) Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala comprising of D.B. Banu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) decided the Opposite Party was deficient and engaged in unfair trade practices. This decision was based on the Opposite Party's failure to provide a response and the conclusions reached by the expert commission.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
Case Title: Vikrant Goyal vs Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for negligently delivering its service to the Complainant. It was directed to pay Rs 11,500 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Pancy Singh Soni vs Barista Coffee Company Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising of BM Sharma (Member) held Barista Coffee Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for charging an extra Rs 5 for a paper cup. The bench directed the café to pay a compensation of Rs 1,000 to the Complainant and deposit Rs 10,000 in Poor Patient Fund/Account of P.G.I., Chandigarh (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research), Chandigarh.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Parul vs Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Ms Surjeet Kaur (Presiding Member) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held Titan Company Limited and Myntra Designs Private Limited liable for unfair trade practices for rejecting the return request of the Complainant, within assigning any reason for the same. The District Commission ordered them to collectively pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and refund the purchase amount of the product bought.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Lenovo (India) Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala comprising of D.B. Banu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) decided the Opposite Party was deficient and engaged in unfair trade practices. This decision was based on the Opposite Party's failure to provide a response and the conclusions reached by the expert commission.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Bismi Appliances, Carrier, Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: V. P. Asokan Vs. Bismi Appliances & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprises D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) held Bismi Appliances liable for deficiency in service, stating that dealers cannot escape liability for defects in the products they sell.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Case Title: Roshna K V Vs. Sayid Bakir
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Kerala headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Aives Immigration, an immigration assistance agency, liable for deficiency in service over allegations of false assurances, misleading guidance, and financial and emotional harm made to the complainants.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Malaysia Airlines Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Cyril K James Vs. Malaysia Airlines and Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Malaysia Airlines liable for unfair trade practices by refusing to provide a refund for the canceled trip due to COVID-19.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Ernakulam District Commission Holds M/S Flipkart Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Sreekumar Vs. M/s Flipkart & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the opposite party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices due to discrepancies between the product advertisement and its actual characteristics, resulting in losses for the complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Royal Enfield Motors Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Thomas N.V Vs. Royal Enfield Motors Ltd.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the party liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with manufacturing defects to the Complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Case Title: Sruthy Narayanan Vs. Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held an insurance company liable for deficiency in service over refusing payment of hospital expenses incurred by the complainant holding insurance benefits.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
Case Title: Shihab Vs. HMD Mobile Pvt Ltd.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the mobile phone's seller and manufacturer responsible for service deficiencies and unfair trade practices. due to their inability to meet obligations and deliver adequate service.
