Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up: 2nd June To 9th June 2024
Smita Singh
11 Jun 2024 7:24 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
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
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
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
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
