Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up: 12th To 18th February 2024
Apoorva Pandita
20 Feb 2024 4:30 PM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC Holds Vatika Limited Liable For Delay In Construction Of Residential Project Case Title: Madhu Gupta & Anr. Vs. Vatika Ltd. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Ram Surat Ram Maurya (member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held Vatika Limited liable for deficiency in service over delay in...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Vatika Limited Liable For Delay In Construction Of Residential Project
Case Title: Madhu Gupta & Anr. Vs. Vatika Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Ram Surat Ram Maurya (member) and Bharatkumar Pandya(member), held Vatika Limited liable for deficiency in service over delay in the construction of the residential space on the plot booked by the complainant.
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
The Central Information Commission, New Delhi bench comprising Shri Heeralal Samariya (Chief Information Commissioner) dismissed a complaint filed by an aggrieved consumer whose requested information was not appropriately furnished by the Department of Consumer Affairs, allegedly. The Central Information Commission noted that the scope of a complaint under Section 18 was limited to the question of whether the denial of information was 'intentional' and did not extend to ordering the public authority to furnish information.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Gita Ram Negi vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for rejecting a claim solely only based on delayed intimation of the damage to the insurance company. The bench set aside the decision of the Shimla District Commission and directed the insurance company to the insurance claim of Rs. 7,90,000 along with Rs. 50,000 for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Pinki (Member) and J.P. Agrawal (Member) has found Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and its medical practitioners guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of a patient, ultimately leading to her demise. The commission ordered hospital and doctors to pay Rs. 5,10,000 as compensation. This amount includes Rs. 1,97,900, representing the charges for the surgical procedure performed. And 15000 for litigation charges.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (Siliguri Circuit Bench)
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (Siliguri Circuit Bench) comprising Mr Kundan Kumar Kumai (President) and Mr Swapan Kumar Das (Member) remanded a matter back to the District Commission related to a discrepancy in billing amount issued by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. The State Commission held that the District Commission erroneously dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was not empowered to adjudicate on the issue. Rather, consumers can adjudicate on all types of complaints and the Consumer Protection Act complements other remedies and is not in derogation of other laws.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Shri A.K. Tiwari (President) and Dr. Shrikant Pandey (Member) allowed an appeal filed by Western Central Railway against the order of the District Commission, Katni, Madhya Pradesh. The matter pertained to an alleged snatching of the Complainant's gold chain from outside of the train window while sleeping in the middle birth of a reserved compartment. The State Commission observed that it was untenable to hold that such theft could happen from the middle birth as it is not exposed to the train window. The Complainant also failed to substantiate the claimed value of the gold chain with sufficient proof and the claim regarding the absence of security.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Rajesh K. Arya (Member) held Drinkery 51, Chandigarh liable for unfair trade practice for charging more than the MRP mentioned on two Kinley Water Bottles. The bench held that the right to clean and safe water is a basic human right and the act of Drinkery 51 violated the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana bench comprising Shri V.V. Seshubabu (Member) and Smt. R.S. Rajeshree (Member) held HDFC Bank Ltd. and HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for issuing insurance policies and deducting premiums without the Complainant's consent. The bench observed that there were several discrepancies in the policy forms such as overwriting of dates, which raised serious doubts regarding the credibility of these entities.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Chandigarh Railways and IRCTC liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for unilaterally downgrading the train tickets from 2 AC berths to that of 3 AC. The bench noted that they were obligated to provide refund to the Complainant under the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. It directed them to refund the ticket difference of ₹1,005/- and pay a compensation of ₹5,000/- along with ₹4,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwini Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Big Bazar liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund money for the items missing in the order delivered to the Complainant. The bench directed Big Bazar to refund Rs. 546/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs. 10,000.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Neena Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Big Bazar liable for deficiency in services for charging Rs. 7/- for a carry bag without adequately informing the Complainant for the additional charge. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 7/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak (Telangana) bench comprising Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (President) and Sri Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) held Benling India Energy and its dealer, M/s SAN Motors liable under the product liability laws pursuant to the explosion of an e-scooter in the Complainants' premises. Referring to sections 84 to 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Commission outlined the avenues for consumers to claim remedies against product manufacturers for unreasonably dangerous and defective goods likely to jeopardize user safety. A total compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs was ordered to be paid to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000 legal costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising of Dr. Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held liable Amazon for failing to provide services of its wallet, Amazon Pay, to the Complainant in which he deposited Rs. 10,000. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Canara HSBC Insurance Company Ltd. liable for repudiation of the claim based on previous ailments without conducting medical examination of the insured before issuance of the policy. The bench directed it to pay the claim money of ₹ 10,18,726/- and compensation of ₹ 50,000/- along with ₹ 10,000/- for the litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Kushwinder Kaur (Member) held Oyo liable for deficiency in services for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and his guest when he was denied accommodation in an Oyo hotel even after making payment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
Failure To Update CIBIL Score, Ludhiana District Commission Holds Standard Chartered Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank liable for deficiency in services for indicating an outstanding amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the Complainant's CIBIL Score even though he settled all the claims with the bank.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Punjab) bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Prakash Yadav (Member) held Flipkart and its seller liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the product and refunding money four months after filing the complaint. The bench directed it to pay the interest rate of four months on the refund amount and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000 to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and B Rajareddy (Member) held Volkswagen and its showroom liable for deficiency in services for increasing the price of the vehicle without informing the Complainant and selling a vehicle with defective screen and scratches all over the dashboard and horn pad. It directed them to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and to replace the defective parts of the vehicle along with paying Rs. 20,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (Kerala) recently held that the insurance claim of a Corona Rakshak Policyholder cannot be declined merely citing mildness of his symptoms. Bench comprising Smt. S.K. Sreela (President) and Sri. Stanly Harold (Member) thus held Future Generali India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating the claim of the Complainant for COVID-19 hospitalization.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mohali (Punjab) bench comprising S.K. Aggarwal (President) and Paramjeet Kaur (Member) held Air India liable for deficiency in services for failure to refund the ticket price after the cancellation of the flight from Delhi to Chandigarh due to weather conditions. The bench directed Air India to refund Rs. 6,464/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the mental distress, harassment, and litigation expenses endured by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban, (Karnataka)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban, (Karnataka) bench comprising M Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Anil Kumar (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to safeguard the credit points in Complainant's account which led to multiple unauthorized transactions. The bench directed it to refund Rs. 45,489/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by her. It was also directed to deposit Rs. 25,000/- in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Diva Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) held DTDC liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the complete order by the promised delivery date. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (Punjab) bench comprising Justice RL Mittal (President) and Sharda Attari (Member) held Vishal Mega Mart and its parent company, Air Plaza Retail Holdings Pvt. Ltd., liable for deficiency of services for charging the price for an item which was advertised as “buy one get one free”. The bench directed them to pay the excess amount of Rs. 194.18/- and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rohtak (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Tripti Pannu (Member) and Vijender Singh (Member) held Reliance Trends and its parent company, Reliance Retail liable for unfair trade practices for charging Rs. 7/- for carry big without the consent of the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Mr. Mayur Mullaguri and Anr. vs M/s Etihad Airways and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Ram Gopal Reddy (President), J Shyamala (Member) and R Narayan Reddy (Member) held Etihad Airways liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund the air ticket price following the cancellation of flight due to COVID-19 restrictions. The bench directed it to refund the amount of Rs. 2,76,709/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide a breakdown of the bonus payment after the maturity of the insurance and for arbitrarily increasing the premium. The bench directed it to refund the increased premium collected from the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit – II (West Bengal)
Documents Destroyed Due To Fire In Storage Area, Kolkata District Commission Holds IDBI Bank Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata Unit – II (West Bengal) bench comprising Sukla Sengupta (President) and Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held IDBI Bank liable of deficiency in services for its failure to take utmost care of security and safety of the original documents stored in its storage facility which resulted in destruction of the original documents in a fire incident.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for collecting money without the final sanction of the layout by the authorities and arbitrary delay in construction and the unilateral change in terms and conditions. It was directed to refund Rs. 9,00,500/- to the Complainant and pay Rs. 30,000/- compensation and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Mr Shyam Sundar (President) and Mr Balvir (Member) held AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. Liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to sanction the loan for the requested amount despite issuing a letter of acceptance to the Complainant, leading to a great financial loss to him. The District Commission directed it to refund half of the processing fee submitted by the Complainant along with Rs. 5000 for compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula bench comprising Satpal (President), Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held GoIbibo and Aeroflot Airlines for negligence and deficiency in services for failure to inform the Complainant about the rescheduling of the flight and failure to provide vegetarian food to the Complainant. The bench directed them to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to settle the claim of Rs. 18 lakh after the demise of a valid policyholder. The bench directed PNB to pay the claim amount of Rs. 18 lakh to the nominee and pay Rs. 5,000 compensation along with Rs. 5,500 for the litigation costs incurred by her.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar (President) and Afsana Khan (Member) held Future General Total Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully charging the insured based on 'no-payment received' despite faulting at its end. The District Commission concluded that the insurance company committed an error or negligence by not presenting the cheque in the bank, thereby resulting in the lapse of the insured's insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula bench comprising Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in services for its failure to provide safety and security of electronic banking transactions which resulted in unauthorized transactions of Rs. 64,999/- from the Complainant's bank account. The bench directed SBI to pay Rs. 64,999/- to the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,500/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held United India Insurance Company Limited liable for repudiating an accidental claim based on certain terms which were never supplied to the insured. The Insurance Company was directed to disburse the full claim payment, as originally communicated by the agent.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Rekha Sayannavar (Member) and Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Justdial liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to render its services to provide consumer leads to a coaching institute despite receiving payments for advertisements. The bench directed Justdial to refund Rs. 6 lakh to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs.
