Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up ;18th December 2023-24th December 2023

Arbitration Clauses Do Not Bar Consumer Commissions' Jurisdiction, NCDRC Allows Complaint Against Jai Prakash Associates Ltd.

Case Title: Dharamvir Singh and Anr. vs Jai Prakash Associates Limited and Anr.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Mr Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Bhartkumar Pandya (Member) held Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. and its subsidiary, Jaypee Sports Int. Ltd. liable for failure to deliver the possession of the housing unit to the Complainant within the stipulated time. Further, the Builder's defence that the agreement had an arbitration clause was rejected as it was held that Consumer Forum's remedies stand in addition to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (New Delhi)

NCDRC's Revisional Jurisdiction Limited To Orders Involving Material Irregularity, Illegality Or Jurisdictional Error, Dismisses Revision Petition By Kalinga Eye Hospital

Case Title: Kalinga Eye Hospital vs Bhabagrahi Sahu and Anr.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench comprising Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by Kalinga Eye Hospital and Research Centre while acknowledging its limited revisional jurisdiction which can only be exercised in the case of illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission. The NCDRC considered the submissions made by the parties and found no reason to interfere with the orders of the District Commission, Deogarh and State Commission, Odisha.

3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Car Seller Liable For Denying Benefits Of Extended Warranty Benefits For Car Repairs

Case Title: Baby C.C. vs M/s Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd.

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 Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. for denying the benefits of a valid Extended Warranty Scheme held by the Complainant whose car broke down due to bearing issues, within the warranty period. The District Commission held that the Seller's conscious failure to file a written version despite having received the appearance notice, amounted to an admission of the allegations levelled against it.

4. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)

Missing Luggage From Reserved Train Compartment, Rohtak District Commission Directs Indian Railways To Pay Rs. 2.5 Lakhs For Negligence

Case Title: Monika Rani vs Indian Railways

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Tripti Pannu (Member) and Vijender Singh (Member) held the Station Superintendent of Rohtak Railway Station liable for negligence and inadequate security and safety of passengers' belongings. It directed the railway authority to pay a compensation of Rs 2,50,000 to a Complainant whose language was stolen during the train journey.

5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)

Cuttack District Commission Holds Vishal Mega Mart Liable of Selling Expired Products, Orders To Compensate Buyer, Pay Rs. 5 Lakhs To State Welfare Fund

Case Title: Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath vs The Manager, Vishal Mega Mart

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Debasish Nayak (President) and Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Vishal Mega Mart liable for selling expired products in its store. The store was directed to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the Complainant and deposit Rs 5,00,000 to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.

6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab)

Missing Check-In Luggage, Ludhiana District Commission Directs Emirates Airline To Pay Rs. 25k Compensation And Bharti Axa Insurance Co. To Reimburse Claim

Case Title: S.K. Garg vs Emirates Airlines and Ors.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Emirates Airlines liable for missing check-in luggage of the Complainant. Further, it directed the Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited to reimburse the Complainant's claim for the missing luggage within 30 days and directed the Complainant to deposit the documents to the Insurance Company within 15 days. The District Commission directed Emirates Airline to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to the Complainant.

7. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South West Delhi (Delhi)

South West Delhi District Commission Holds McDonald's Liable For Sending Different Meal Of Lower Value And Failure To Refund

Case Title: Nitesh Garwal vs Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited and Ors.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South West Delhi bench comprising of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), RC Yadav (Member) and Dr Harshali Kaur (Member) held McDonalds liable of deficiency in service for sending a different meal altogether, priced lower than what the Complainant had paid for. It was directed to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the Complainant.

8. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala)

Kottayam District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Karithas Hospital Based On Conflicting Medical Literature For Certain Chemotherapy Processes

Case Title: Ansamma Varghese vs Karithas Hospital and Anr.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala) bench comprising V.S. Manulal (President), S Bindu (Member) and KM Anto (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Karithas Hospital noting that breakage of the chemo port is considered a medically reported and accepted complication in chemotherapy treatment. Further, the District Commission held that since there was conflicting medical literature as to when the drainage tube affixed to the breast should be detached, it rejected the contention made by the Complainant that the doctor detached the tube prematurely causing infection to her breast.

9. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala)

Failure To Install Solar System, Kottayam District Commission Holds Reeco Energy Liable of Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Prakashan A.V. vs Reeco Energy India

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala) bench comprising of V.S. Manulal (President), S. Bindhu (Member) and K.M. Anto (Member) held Reeco Energy India Pvt Ltd liable for deficiency in service for failing to install a solar power generating system even after seven months of receiving advance payment. The District Commission directed it to install the solar system within a specific timeframe and pay a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the Complainant.

10. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala)

Sale of Medicine Different from Prescription, Thiruvananthapuram District Commission Holds STV Medicals & Surgicals Liable

Case Title: Subha B vs The Proprietor, STV Medical and Surgicals

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench comprising P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju VR (Member) held STV Medical and Surgical Medical College (Trivandrum) liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling a medicine different from the medicine prescribed by the doctor. The District Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 1,05,000 to the Complainant.

11. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)

Ernakulam District Commission Holds Lenovo (India) Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala comprising of D.B. Banu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) decided the Opposite Party was deficient and engaged in unfair trade practices. This decision was based on the Opposite Party's failure to provide a response and the conclusions reached by the expert commission.

12. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh

Negligent AC Servicing By Deputed Engineer, Chandigarh District Commission Directs Holds Urban Clap Liable For Deficiency In Service

Case Title: Vikrant Goyal vs Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for negligently delivering its service to the Complainant. It was directed to pay Rs 11,500 to the Complainant.