Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 22nd to 28th April 2024

Unreasonable Delay In Handing Over Possession Of Property To Buyers: NCDRC Directs Builder To Refund Entire Amount Along With Interest

Case Title: Monika Bansal & Ors. v/s Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has re-emphasized that buyers should not be subjected to indefinite delay for possession of their property. The bench presided over by Mr. Ram Surat Ram Maurya alongside Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as member while partly allowing a consumer complaint, observed that an unreasonable delay by a builder in offering possession of flats amounted to a deficiency of service on their part.

Telangana High Court

No Statutory Basis To Claim Exemption From Packaging Requirements Under Packaged Commodities Rules, PepsiCo Must Comply: Telangana High Court

Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. vs Union of India

The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed a writ petition filed by PepsiCo to claim an exemption under certain packaging requirements mandated by Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.

Competition Commission of India (CCI)

Tie-in Agreements Between Enterprises And End-Consumer Not Covered U/s 3(4) Of Competition Act, CCI Closes Information Against Covai Centre, Ozone Developers

Case Title: Buchi Ramarao Valury vs Covai Property Centre (India) Private Limited and Ors.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Deepak Anurag (Member) closed an information filed against Covai Property Centre, its subsidiary and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers for allegations concerning abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreements under Section 4 and 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 respectively.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand

Exclusion Of Coverage For Injuries Sustained During Initial Days Of Policy Issuance Is Illegal, Uttarakhand State Commission Holds Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Liable

Case Title: Sh. Manoj Kumar Pant vs General Manager/Regional Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held Birla Sun Life Insurance Company liable for repudiating a valid claim based on an unreasonable policy clause excluding coverage for injuries sustained within 90 days from the issuance of the policy. It was directed to reimburse the claim amount of Rs. 6,23,896/- with interest and pay Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs to the Complainant.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka

Karnataka State Commission Remands Matter Back To District Commission Owing To Discrepancies, Suggests Appointment Of Assessor By District Commission For Inspection

Case Title: Chandrakumar and Anr. vs Chandrakanth Kembhavi

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh (President), Mr K.B. Sangannanavar (Judicial Member) and Mrs M. Divyashree (Member) remanded a matter back to the Mysuru District Commission as several discrepancies were noted in the Complainant's statement, engineer's report, and receipt of payment. The State Commission held that the issue could have been clarified if the District Commission had appointed its commissioner to inspect the construction site on the costs payable by the Complainant.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra)

South Mumbai District Commission Holds VLCC Liable For Negligently Conducting Laser Hair Removal Treatment Which Led To Severe Burns

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench comprising Shri. P.G. Kadu (Incharge President), Smt. S.A. Petkar (Member) and Smt. G.M. Kapse (Member) held VLCC Health Care Ltd. liable for negligently carrying out laser hair reduction treatment on the Complainant, which led to a severe burn on her entire chin. It was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Mumbai Suburban District Commission Holds Indian Airlines Liable For Failure To Conduct Mandatory Pre-Flight Checks Resulting In Delay Of 24 Hrs

Case Title: Mohit Nigam vs Air India Ltd. and Others

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President), Shri. Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Shri. Sameer Kamble (Member) held Indian Airlines liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to conduct mandatory pre-flight checks which led to a delay of 24 hours. Indian Airlines merged with Air India in the year 2007.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)

Panipat District Commission Holds Muthoot Finance And Liberty General Insurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Medical Claim

Case Title: Brahma Nand vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. and Anr.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Muthoot Finance Limited and Liberty General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for failure to reimburse the insurance claim even after receiving the requisite documents. Muthoot Finance, being the Complainant's employer, was also held liable for the repudiation because it acted on behalf of the insurance company to facilitate the policy to the Complainant.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Non-disclosure Of Seller Information As Mandated By E-Commerce Rules 2020

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran. V (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held Flipkart liable for failure to disclose seller information, as mandated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. The District Commission observed that such non-disclosure undermines transparency and hinders consumers' ability to make informed decisions or seek redressal.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

Failure To Repair Within Promised Time Coupled With Additional Car Damages Post-Repair, Ernakulam District Commission Holds Maruti Suzuki And Its Dealer Liable

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising D.B Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran. V (Member) and Mrs Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Maruti Suzuki and its dealer liable for failure to fulfil the promised repair within a reasonable timeframe, coupled with additional damages to the car post-service. They were directed to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)

Rewari District Commission Holds TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Liable For Repudiating Medical Claim Based On Unsubstantiated And Unclear Grounds

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a medical claim based on fictitious and unclear grounds. The Insurance Company alleged fraud on the part of the insured, however, failed to verify the authenticity of his medical documents before making a decision.

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

Failure To Initiate Refund Despite Receiving Wrongly Delivered TV Back, Bangalore Urban District Commission Holds Amazon Liable

The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Amazon liable for failure to initiate a refund after the wrongly delivered Samsung T.V. was returned to the Seller. It was directed to initiate the refund, and pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainants.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)

Rohtak District Commission Holds New India Assurance Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Valid Damaged Car Claim

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Dr. Tripti Pannu (Member) and Sh. Vijender Singh (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim for a car involved in an accident. The Insurance Company failed to provide adequate evidence to prove that the repudiation was justified based on the Complainant's irresponsive behaviour, a pre-settlement, and overvaluation of the damages.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Shimla District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Samsung And Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Based On Unsubstantiated Claims Of Service Deficiency

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) dismissed a complaint against Samsung, its store, and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. (the financer). The Complainant who alleged manufacturing defects with the purchased Samsung TV failed to substantiate her claim of deficiencies on the part of Samsung, the store, or the Financer. Further, the main problem with the screen was duly attended by the Financer.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solan (Himachal Pradesh)

Mere Insurance Proposal Does Not Amount To Acceptance Even If Initial Premium Is Paid, Solan District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against PNB Metlife LIC Ltd.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solan (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising D.R. Thakur (President), Vijay Lamba (Member) and Neelam Gupta (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against PNB Metlife LIC Ltd. The bench observed that the insurance company received the premium. However, the acceptance of the insurance policy was not conveyed to the insured. Therefore, the contract for insurance between the company and the deceased wasn't finalized.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi

Train Passengers Responsible For Luggage Safety Unless Railways' Negligence Is Proven, New Delhi District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Northern Railway

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench consisting of Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), dismissed a complaint against Northern Railways regarding stolen belongings. The Commission held that the responsibility for the safety of goods during a train journey lies with the passengers, unless negligence on the part of Railways is proven.

Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka)

Failure To Inform Bus Schedule Preponement, Bengaluru District Commission Holds Redbus Liable For Deficiency In Service

The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Ramachandra M.S. (President) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held Redbus is liable for deficiency in services for failure to notify the Complainant about a bus departing earlier than scheduled from the bus stop. The bench directed Redbus to refund the booking amount of Rs. 1,023.5/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Redus was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi

Inconsistency In Treating Similar Medical Insurance Claims, New Delhi District Commission Holds Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Liable

Case Title: Hari Mohan vs Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), found Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. accountable for wrongfully rejecting a valid medical claim. The Commission noted that while the Insurance Company approved one claim, it rejected another similar claim, raising doubts about consistent adherence to the policy terms.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi

South-West Delhi District Commission Holds DCB Bank Liable For Wrongfully Charging Foreclosure Fee For Individual Loan

Case Title: Vijay Kumar Gupta vs DCB Bank Limited

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr Harshali Kaur (Member) held DCB Bank liable for charging foreclosure fee from an individual borrower, as against the terms of the loan and RBI guidelines. The District Commission observed that the Bank wrongfully classified an individual loan as a business loan to levy foreclosure charges.

Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Badriya Exclusive Furniture Liable For Deficiency In Service Over The Non-Delivery Of A Product Bought During An Exhibition

Case Title: Jolly PF Vs. Badriya Exclusive Furniture

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Badriya Exclusive Furniture liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Commission elucidated on the lack of an effective customer grievance redressal system in such exhibitions.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)

Rewari District Commission Holds Toll Plaza Liable For Double Charging Within 24 Hours

Case Title: Ram Kishan Saini vs Kathuwas Toll Plaza and Anr.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held Kathuwas Toll Plaza liable for charging twice for a return journey within 24 hours. The double charging comprised a violation of the toll rules which provide that the toll plaza is entitled to only half of the toll amount for a return journey within 24 hours.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh)

Chamba District Commission Holds Future Generally Insurance India Co. Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Accidental Claim Based On Invalid Blood Report

Case Title: Asha Devi and Others vs Future Generally India Insurance Company Ltd.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President) and Ms Mamta Kaura (Member) held Future Generally Insurance India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for repudiating a valid accidental claim by relying on an apprehensive blood sample report which had discrepancies regarding handling and testing.

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

Bengaluru District Commission Holds Croma And LG Liable For Failure To Replace Or Refund Defective Refrigerator

Case Title: Srinivs. P. Alias vs Croma Kalyan Nagar

The Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chadrashekar S. Noola and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Croma and LG liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair and replace the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant which had regular issues such as food spoilage, foul odour, and black fungus formation.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)

Panipat District Commission Holds RBL Bank Liable For Failure To Return Seized Tractor Despite Receiving Outstanding Payment

Case Title: Sonu vs RBL Bank Ltd and anr.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R. K. Dogra (President) and Dr Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held RBL Bank Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for failure to honour the agreement made with the Complainant to return the tractor upon the payment of outstanding instalments by him. The bench directed the bank to release the tractor and directed the Complainant to pay any outstanding amount to the bank. The bank was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.