Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 1st October 2023 to 8th October 2023
Apoorva Pandita
9 Oct 2023 1:00 PM IST
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC Grants Limited Relief To Indian Professional Golfer For Loss Of Luggage, Subject To Proving Actual Loss Case Title: Gaganjeet Bhullar vs. M/S Emirates Airlines A consumer complaint filed by Indian professional Golfer Gaganjeet Bhullar against Emirates Airlines for the loss of his baggage was partially allowed by the...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Gaganjeet Bhullar vs. M/S Emirates Airlines
A consumer complaint filed by Indian professional Golfer Gaganjeet Bhullar against Emirates Airlines for the loss of his baggage was partially allowed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Bhullar alleged that Emirates Airlines had mishandled his baggage, causing him inconvenience and financial losses. The NCDRC bench presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as a member, found that Emirates Airlines (Opposite Party) had met the required standards by delivering Bhullar's missing baggage within 24 hours in the first incident. However, in the second incident, where one bag was lost, the airline was directed to compensate Bhullar within the limit of SDRs 1000, provided he could prove the value of the lost items. However, the commission did not approve Bhullar's claims for compensation related to his missed tournaments and mental stress.
Case Title: Sushila Singh vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) dismissed an appeal against Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. filed by the complainant who was the nominee of her deceased husband. The NCDRC highlighted the importance of good faith in insurance contracts and held that the complainant was not entitled to any refund because the deceased husband failed to convey material facts regarding his health condition to Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.
NCDRC Dismisses LIC’s Appeal And Orders It To Disburse Rs. 47.90 Lakh To Nominees
Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Dr. Nilam Hetalkumar Patel & 4 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed an appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against an order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC ordered LIC to pay Rs 47.90 lakh to the nominees of the complainant for rejecting the claims on the basis that the complainant had not disclosed material facts at the time of policy issuance.
Case Title: Niraj Kumar Sindhu & Anr. vs. Fortis Hospital & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudip Ahlwalia allowed a revision petition with regard to a consumer complaint filed by the family members of a deceased patient, alleging negligence on the part of attending doctor and Fortis Hospital.The Commission held that the hospital's failure to promptly test the patient for H1N1 constituted a case of medical negligence. As a result, the Commission restored the district commission's order, which had directed Fortis Hospital (Opposite Party no. 1) and the attending doctor (Opposite Party no. 2) to pay Rs. 3,64,075/- to the complainants, along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
Ganjam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sri Gandhi Behera vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ganjam, Berhampur bench comprising Satish Kumar Panigrahi (President) held Flipkart liable for unfair trade practices for cancelling the order without the consent of the complainant. The bench noted that Flipkart listed the product at a discounted rate, accepted the complainant's order, and later cancelled it without a valid explanation. This behaviour was misleading and unfair to the consumer.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-
“Royal Dhaba”, Chandigarh, Held Liable For Not Refunding Excess Amount Collected
Case Title: Prashant Sethi vs GAZB 26 Royal Dhaba
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, headed by Mr. Pawanjit Singh and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur, allowed a consumer complaint. They held a local eatery in Chandigarh, known as the "Royal Dhaba," accountable for charging an astonishing ten times more than the actual bill. The complainant had a billing dispute with the Dhaba. Instead of a reasonable Rs. 465/-, he was charged Rs. 4,650/-. Despite repeated requests for a refund of the excess amount, the Dhaba refused to refund the excess amount. As a result, the Commission held that the restaurant's actions amounted to both a service deficiency and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the "Royal Dhaba" (Opposite Party) was directed to refund ₹4,185/-, along with interest.
Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Smt. Vasantha P vs Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd
The Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising P.C. Paulachen (President), V. Balakrishnan (Member) and Priya (Member) held Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd liable for deficiency of service for disconnection of the complainant’s digital TV connection even after she paid the annual subscription fee of Rs 2,600 to the company. The District Commission rejected Asianet’s objection on jurisdiction contending that the matter fell within the purview of the Telegraph Act. It noted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies available to consumers and not in derogation of any other laws.
Sambalpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Prafulla Kumar Dash vs Propriter, Goyal Printing Zone
The Sambalpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Dr Ramakanta Satapathy (President) and Sadananda Tripathy (Member) held a Xerox shop owner liable for unfair trade practice for not refunding Rs 3 after the complainant handed him Rs 5, expecting a return of three rupees since the standard rate for a photocopy was Rs 2 per copy. The bench ordered the shop owner to refund Rs 3 in addition to Rs 25,000 as compensation to the complainant.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III
Hyderabad District Commission: India Post Directed To Pay Rs. 20,000 For Tampering With Parcel
Case Title: V.K. Singh IPS vs. India Post
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III, Hyderabad bench led by Mr. M. Ram Gopal Reddy along with Mrs. J. Shyamala and Mr. R. Narayan Reddy as members, partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by an IPS officer against India Post. The complaint alleged that the postal department had tampered with the parcels and valuable contents sent by the complainant from Hyderabad to Haridwar. Specifically, the complainant said that 10 sarees worth Rs. 20,000/- had gone missing from his parcels upon reaching their destination. The District Commission found that there was indeed a deficiency in service on the part of India Post (Opposite Party), leading to these missing items. As a result, the Postal Department was directed to compensate the complainant with Rs. 20,000/- along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of the complaint.
Hooghly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Subhrajit Das vs. BYJUS & Ors.
The Hooghly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Mr. Debasish Bhandyopadhyay and Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya as a member, ruled in favor of a consumer complaint against BYJU’S, the well-known learning app provider. The complaint accused BYJU’S of engaging in dishonest and unfair trade practices. Specifically, the complaint alleged that BYJU’S (Opposite Party) did not fulfil its promise to provide a full refund if the customer was unhappy with the learning app within 15 days. Apart from not keeping this promise, BYJU'S even charged an excessive fee of Rs. 9498/- for cancellation of the registration. As a result, the Commission ordered BYJU’S to reimburse the entire payment made for the learning app along with the cancellation fee. Furthermore, BYJU’S was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing distress and mental agony to the complainant.
Bangalore Urban II Additional District Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Sri. Satish T.N vs HDFC Bank
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Devaraju (President) and V. Anuradha (Member) held HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank liable for inaction following the formal complaint over a hacking incident of the complainant’s bank account that resulted in the loss of Rs 50,000 from his savings account.
Delhi (North-East), District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench
Students Not To Be Considered As Consumers: Delhi District Commission Dismisses Consumer Complaint
Case Title: Sh. Ramveer Goswami vs. Delhi Paramedical & Management Institute
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench in Delhi (North-East), presided over by President Surinder Kumar Sharma and member Anil Kumar Bamba dismissed a consumer complaint filed against the Delhi Paramedical & Management Institute ("Opposite Party") alleging deficiency on their part. While relying on a past decision of the NCDRC, the District Commission re-emphasized that educational institutions, particularly vocational institutes, were not service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, and as a result, students could not be considered consumers. The complaint, filed under the Consumer Protection Act, was regarding the admission process and the subsequent cancellation of enrolment for the complainant's son in a Diploma course
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Krishnaraj S Vs Dwani Hearing Aid Centre
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising D.B Binu (President), Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held a hearing aid centre liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective hearing aid piece to the complainant and for not refunding the price of a defective hearing aid even after accepting the equipment returned by the customer for replacement.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Smt. Gayathri B G vs Anand Nallapete
The Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held a photographer liable for not delivering the wedding video even after 15 days following the complainant’s wedding. The bench while noting that the photographer repeatedly assured the complainant that the delay in delivering the wedding CD was due to editing issues, held him liable of deficiency of service.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. G S Arora vs Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Yatra Online Private Limited and British Airways for their failure to inform the complainant of flight cancellation on time. It noted that on the abrupt cancellation of the scheduled flight, British Airways failed to make alternative arrangements for the complainant and his family members. Additionally, Yatra Online withheld the refund amount with themselves.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East)
Case Title: Sh. Sandeep Bhatia vs. Apple Store & Ors.
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra and members Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar, allowed a consumer complaint against “Apple”. The complaint was regarding a defective iPhone X and deficient services provided by Apple and one of its service providers. This led to financial losses and distress for the complainant. As a result, the Commission held both Apple (Opposite Party no.1) and its service provider (Opposite Party no. 2) responsible for the deficiency in services. They were directed to refund the phone's cost with interest and further compensate the complainant with Rs. 15,000/-.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East)
Case Title: Prashant Sagar Rustogi vs The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Bansal as members, allowed a consumer complaint against "The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson." The complaint was related to a venue booking made for the complainant's daughter's marriage in 2020. The customer contended that, due to COVID-19-related issues, the wedding had to be postponed. However, Radisson did not refund the advance payment made for the reserved venue. Additionally, when the customer sought an alternative venue for the rescheduled date, Radisson failed to provide one. Consequently, the Commission found that Radisson was at fault and ordered it to reimburse the customer with Rs. 2,24,000/-, along with 7% annual interest, starting from December 2021.
