Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 25th to 31st March, 2024
Apoorva Pandita
3 April 2024 1:30 PM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Damages Involving Motor Vehicles Must Be Adjudicated By Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Consumer Forums Do Not Have Jurisdiction: NCDRC The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) reiterated that Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) reiterated that Consumer Fora do not have the jurisdiction to entertain claims/damages involving motor vehicles. Such claims could only be adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) by virtue of Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms Pinki (Member) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company Limited liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim for damaged marine cargo of gingers. The Insurance Company was directed to reimburse the amount along with interest. The transit companies involved in the transaction were also held negligent for damaging the cargo in transit and were directed to pay Rs. 2 Lakh compensation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner, Rajasthan
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Bikaner, Rajasthan comprising Shri Kedar Lal Gupta (Presiding Member) and Shri Sanjay Tak (Member) dismissed an appeal against LIC, filed by a policyholder who failed to disclose his pre-existing heart ailments. The State Commission held that the policyholder was not entitled to the claim as such non-disclosure resulted in the violation of the policy's terms and conditions.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Preetinder Singh (Member) held Reliance General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services. The Insurance Company failed to honour the valid claims of the Indian travellers who received 4 bags from their luggage after a delay of more than 12 hours in Bhutan.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench comprising Shri A.K. Tiwari (Presiding Member) and Dr Shrikant Pandey (Member) dismissed an appeal filed against National Insurance Company Limited by the owner of 20 insured buffaloes. The Owner failed to arrange for the post-mortem of the deceased buffaloes and instead got a 'Panchnama' (record of evidence by 5 people) signed by the co-villagers. The Panchnama was held to be insufficient to prove the claim.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala bench comprising Mr Ajith Kumar (Presiding Member) and Sri Radhakrishnan K.R. (Member) held the Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry (KCCI) liable for deficiency in service for unilaterally cancelling the buyer agreement of the Complainant and for ignoring his legitimate requests. It was held liable to refund the balance amount and pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that If a homebuyer has given an express written undertaking stating that all their concerns have been addressed and resolved, they are not allowed to later change their mind and raise the same issues again while seeking the same type of relief through an appeal.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson), Neelmani N Raju (Member), and GR Reddy (Member), rejected the homebuyers complaint of restraining the builder from constructing on the area reserved for common amenities. Accordingly, RERA held that a change in amenities location as shown in the conceptual plan (Brochure) will not make the builder liable for deviating from the sanctioned plan.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
Maharashtra RERA Grants Fourth Extension To Adhiraj Constructions To Complete Project
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), granted a one-and-a-half-year extension to Adhiraj Constructions Private Limited to complete its three towers, namely Tower 1A, 1B, and 3B, which are part of the Adhiraj Samyama project, for the fourth time. Previous three extensions were granted by MahaRERA on the grounds of COVID-19.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Orders Builders To Name Projects, Towers, And Blocks As Per Sanctioned Map
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has issued office order directing builders to name their housing projects, Towers, and blocks as per the sanctioned map. This directive from UPRERA came after authority observed that various builders were naming their projects differently from what was originally registered with RERA.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA)
Karnataka RERA Grants Second Extension To Varin Infra Projects To Complete Project
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) bench, comprising HC Kishore Chandra (Chairperson) and Neelmani N Raju (Member), granted a 2-year extension to Varin Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd for its project Adarsh Tranqville for the second time, under Section 7(3) of the RERA 2016. In total, this is the fourth extension of the project, the other two extensions were granted by Karnataka RERA on the grounds of Covid-19 under Section 6 of RERA 2016.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority) bench, comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has directed the builder to refund the advance money paid by the homebuyer after homebuyer decided not to purchase the flat due to financial reasons.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority ) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has ordered the homebuyer to pay the remaining amount with interest to the builder for failing to adhere to the payment schedule.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer) has held that the delay in handing over the possession would be counted from the date mentioned in the agreement for sale entered into by the builder and the homebuyer prior to its registration under RERA.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer) has held that homebuyers can approach RERA for the adjudication of matter, even though the Agreement for Sale stipulates an Arbitration Clause. Accordingly, Punjab RERA directed the builder to compensate for the delayed possession.
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) with Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), found the National Insurance Company responsible for unfair practices under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint filed by residents of Usman Colony in Baramulla claimed that the insurance company did not provide an insurance claim for their insured house after it was damaged by an earthquake. Consequently, the commission allowed the complaint directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 6 lakhs, along with 10% interest for the house damage, as well as Rs. 50,000 for the distress caused.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to ensure the validity of the number, despite accepting payment and confirming the booking, constitutes a deficiency.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that manufacturers, retailers, and service providers must deliver quality products and services to safeguard consumer rights.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, Southwest Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to failure to adequately investigate the unauthorized transactions from the Complainant's account and preserve crucial evidence. The bench directed the bank to refund the disputed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) directed Samsung to resolve the contentions raised by the Complainant regarding the malfunctioning of the AC within 30 days. The bench held that failure to do so will make Samsung liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Northeast Delhi bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar (Member) held Country Holidays Inn & Suites Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for pressuring the Complainant to pay for its 5-year membership and failure to provide promised services or process the refund. The bench directed Country Inn to refund Rs. 40,440/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Myntra liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for delivering a completely different product to the Complainant. The Complainant ordered a pair of shoes but Myntra delivered ladies' sandals to him. The bench directed Myntra to refund ₹7611/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of ₹2000/- along with ₹2000/- for litigation costs.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held ICICI bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to return original documents to the Complainant within 1 month of loan disbursement.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Van Heusen and Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Limited liable of deficiency in services for charging Rs.50/- for taxes over Maximum Retail Price for the product. The bench directed them to refund Rs. 50/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 1500/- along with Rs. 2,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Max Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to refund the premium amount expeditiously when the Complainant requested cancellation of the subject policy within the free lock (the initial period in which one can cancel their insurance policy without paying for the surrender charges). The bench directed the insurance company to refund the premium amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with Rs.7,000/- for the litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Uber India liable for deficiency in services for charging ₹ 1334/- for a distance of 8.83 km. The bench directed Uber to pay an amount of ₹ 7000/- to the Complainant as compensation along with ₹ 3,000/- as litigation costs. It was also directed to deposit ₹ 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company Limited liable of deficiency in services for repudiating the genuine claim of the Complainant who had undergone treatment for Dengue Fever. The bench directed the insurance company to reimburse the medical treatment of Rs. 31,627 /- and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 11,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by him.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
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 that imposing conditions like, “Goods once sold will not be taken back or exchanged” on consumers, constitutes unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Department of Legal Metrology and other relevant departments were requested to conduct periodic inspections of Seller to ensure compliance.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and D. Madhavi Latha (Member) held Thomas Cook liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for refusal to refund the tour package amount, despite the Complainant's medical emergency.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad (Telangana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President) and V. Janardhan Reddy (Member) held IRCTC liable for deficiency in services for cancelling the tickets without providing adequate reasons and informing the Complainant about one hour before the train departure.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held that failure to furnish vital information regarding the policy during signing is deemed an unfair trade practice.
