Consumer Cases Weekly Round-up :30th October 2023 - 5th November 2023
Smita Singh
8 Nov 2023 11:35 AM IST
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) NCDRC Allows Appeal In Part By Jaypee Greens: Reduces The Interest, Allows Forfeiture Of Rs.7,00.000/- From Home Buyer Case Title: Jaypee Greens vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as...
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Jaypee Greens vs. Yogesh Kumar Garg
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as member recently allowed a consumer appeal. The dispute was between a homebuyer (Respondent) and a real estate company called "Jaypee Greens" (Appellant). The respondent had booked a flat in a housing project and alleged that the company delayed the possession of the flat, demanded additional charges, and canceled the allotment. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled in favor of the homebuyer, directing Jaypee Greens to refund the amount paid by the consumer with 18% interest, along with compensation for mental agony and harassment.
2. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Yeshwant Phatak vs LG Electronics Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III Hyderabad bench comprising Ram Gopal Reddy (President), J Shyamala (Member) and R Narayan Reddy (Member) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling a refrigerator which malfunctioned shortly after the Complainant bought it. The problem persisted even after technicians supposedly repaired it on three separate occasions.
3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)
Case Title: Shivam Grover vs Cell Café and Anr.
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, Punjab bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held liable a phone seller in Ludhiana of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for overcharging in excess of MRP for an iPhone purchased by the complainant.
4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
Case Title: Dinesh Kumar vs Vishal Mega Mart and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Vishal Mega Mart liable for deficiency of service for failure to return a couple of trousers after providing an assurance and a credit note to their customer. Vishal Mega Mart and its officials neither returned the trousers nor refunded the price of both the trousers.
5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam (Kerala)
Case Title: K. Vasudevan Pillai vs. Manager, Punnakkalayil Rubber Nursery
The Kollam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Smt. S.K. Sreela with Smt. S. Sandhya Rani and Mr. Stanley Harold as members, allowed a consumer complaint filed by a senior citizen farmer against a Rubber Nursery. The farmer initially requested 225 rubber saplings of a specific variety but received defective ones. It was later discovered that some of the delivered saplings were of a "low-yielding variety." Not only this, the seller also imposed a 5% GST charge, despite the farmer's assertion that agricultural saplings are exempted from GST.
6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Captain K.K. Nair & Anr. v. M/S Holyfaith Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam on Monday ordered the construction company, M/S Holyfaith Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., to pay compensation to a Naval Captain who lost his housing following the demolition of Holyfaith H2O apartments in Maradu, in pursuance of the Apex Court decision. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. has directed the company to pay an amount of Rs. 23,12,000/- to the complainant, apart from the compensation ordered by the Supreme Court at the time of demolition.
7. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: Sunandha v. Proprietor, Inner Shoppe
In a significant decision, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thrissur invoked Section 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct an inner wear garment shop to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Legal Benefit Fund (LBF) maintained at Registry of the Commission, towards reparation for the loss and injury inflicted on a large number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable.
8. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Shajin P.V. vs Vodafone Idea Ltd
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mrs. Ravi Susha with Mrs. Moly Kutty Mathew and Mr. Sajeesh K.P as members, has allowed a consumer complaint against Vodafone Idea Ltd. The dispute was regarding a prepaid recharge made by a consumer. The consumer had purchased a recharge plan for Rs. 479/-, with the expectation of receiving 2GB of data daily for 56 days, based on a promotional offer. However, the actual data provided was only 1.5GB per day, falling short of the promised amount. Despite the consumer's efforts to resolve the issue, Vodafone did not take any action.
9. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Panipat Commission Holds Axis Bank Liable For Delaying Release Of Fixed Deposit After Maturity Date
Case Title: M/s Siddharth Wollen Mills vs Axis Bank
The Panipat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Dr. RK Dogra (President) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member) held Axis Bank liable of deficiency of service for not releasing the Fixed Deposit of Rs 1.4 Lacs to the complainant, even after the maturity date.
10. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla
Case Title: Nek Ram Pal vs. Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. and 2 others
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), dismissed a consumer complaint on account of it involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating. The District Commission held that a consumer commission is unsuited for such matters as they cannot be resolved summarily. The complainant was advised to pursue the matter in a competent civil court instead.
11. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Saurabh Sinha vs Chairman, Railway Board and other
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 Railway Board and Northern Railway liable for deficiency in service due to which the complainant could not seek a refund for an un-confirmed train ticket.
12. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Anil Kumar vs The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
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 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company liable for repudiating a genuine insurance claim made by the owner of the missing truck. While holding that a claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of delay, the District Commission ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company to disburse the insurance amount of Rs. 11,000,00, pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation costs.
13. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Bharat Kalta vs Amazon India
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 India liable for failure to deliver a 6-seater dining set worth Rs. 17,108/-. Amazon not only failed to deliver the dining set but also failed to process the refund. Along with ordering Amazon to refund the sale amount, the District Commission ordered it to give Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs to the complainant.
14. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Surender Hohan Khanna vs Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital and Ayurveda Research Institute and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi comprising Ms. Monika A Srivastava (President), Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member) and Sh. U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute liable for failure to disclose the amount approved by the third-party health insurance administrator. The District Commission also ordered New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs. 24,329 to the complainant, which represented the difference between the initial approval and the actual claim amount.
15. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: K.R. Prasad v. M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation to a policy holder whose claim under the 'Corona Rakshak Policy' was rejected by M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance on the ground that the policy holder had not provided treatment records for bronchial asthma.
16. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
Case Title: Shekhar Detha vs Zomato Ltd. Co. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member) held Zomato liable for the incorrect delivery of non-vegetarian food items to the complainant while he ordered vegetarian food items, causing him and his family mental and physical distress and hurting their religious sentiments. The bench noted that Zomato, as a commercial entity and facilitator, cannot escape its responsibilities and ordered it to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant as compensation.
17. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Sri C. Achuth vs The Secretary Chief Executive Office State Government and others
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held the Secretary of State Government SC/ST/Backward & Minority Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the residential site even after 9 years of the payment to the complainant.
18. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Adwait Haldar vs. M/S Magma HDI Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.
The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar allowed a consumer complaint against an insurance company. The consumer’s claim was based on the allegation that his E-Rickshaw was stolen, and his insurance claim was wrongly rejected by the insurance company (Opposite Party). According to the complainant, he had a valid insurance policy and the theft occurred under distressing circumstances, where he was left unconscious by thieves after being intoxicated. He faced delays in reporting the incident to the insurance company and in filing a police report due to circumstances beyond his control.
