Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-II
Smita Singh
11 Jan 2024 11:24 AM IST
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023 In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the...
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023
In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This notification reveals that the National Consumer Commission and Department of Consumer Affiars have resolved a staggering 854 consumer cases in the month of August 2023 alone, whereas only 455 cases were filed during this period.
SUPREME COURT
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Mukul Aggarwal, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1544 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000
The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) reiterated that an insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The Court also said the terms of an insurance policy, which determine the liability of the insurance company, must be read strictly. Referring to the recent ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, the Apex Court said that the rule of contra proferentem would not be applicable to a commercial contract like a contract of insurance. This rule says that if any clause in the contract is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party that introduced it. However, for a contract of insurance, this would not apply since an insurance contract is bilateral and mutually agreed upon, like any other commercial contract, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed.
Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & ors. V. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., Diary No(s). 45299/2023
The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. The quashed Rule prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora. The High Court was of the view that the Rule diluted the involvement of the judiciary in the selection process. The High Court also set aside the appointments to the Consumer Fora made by the Maharashtra Government, however stayed the operation of the judgment for four weeks from October 20.
Party Not Entitled To Seek Relief That Has Not Been Prayed For: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court, while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for. A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which it was held that there was a delay in delivering the consignment of the complainant and that they were entitled to compensation.
Airlines Bound by Time Schedule Promised By Its Travel Agent: Supreme Court
Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975
The Supreme Court held that an authority is bound by the promise held by its agent under the Indian Contract Act. The Apex Court held so in the context of a consumer dispute, where Kuwait Airways, through its agent, Dagga Air Agents, had fixed a schedule of 7 days for delivery of certain goods. The Court held that the Airline was liable to pay the complainant damages for delay in delivering the consignment.
Case Title: Prakash Bang vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service or defect was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to the administration of vaccine Engerix-B. It was the case of the complainant that he along with his family members had got the vaccine administered by their family doctor and that the complainant had allegedly developed 'myositis' as an adverse reaction due to the administration of the vaccine.
Case Title: Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs M/s Vipul Ltd.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a 'consumer' entitled to protection of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, if the commercial use is by the purchasers themselves for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchasers of goods would continue to be 'consumers'.
Case Title: ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. Hara Prasad Ghosh
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC), while upholding the principles of natural justice. The Court opined that although the opposite party had not filed its written version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, it nevertheless had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC. While remanding the matter, the Court found that refusing to hear the opposite party while considering the complainant's case on its merits amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Bench comprised of Justices B.V. Nagarathna And Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.
In a significant judgment that reaffirms the principles of upholding the dignity, rights, and well-being of armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a retired Air Veteran, holding the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Army jointly and vicariously liable for medical negligence. The appellant, who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital while falling sick on duty during Operation Parakram, has been awarded compensation amounting to 1 crore 54 lakhs 73,000.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.
In a pathbreaking judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court issued a series of vital directions to the Central and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (HIV Act). The Court further directed all Courts, Tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies in the country to prioritize the cases relating to HIV-infected persons for early disposal as per the mandate of Section 34(2) of the HIV Act. The Court also directed that steps should be taken to keep the identity of HIV-infected persons anonymous. The Court passed these directions while awarding Rs 1.5 Crore compensation to an ex-Indian Air Force official who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital. The Court held both the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force jointly and severally liable for medical negligence.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the applicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in the context of medical negligence cases, emphasizing its applicability in cases where negligence is evident and shifts the burden of proof onto the hospital or medical practitioners. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself”.
Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court
Case Title: M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos.6500-6501 of 2023, Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902
The Supreme Court recently held that consumer disputes are non-arbitrable disputes and that a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer.
Case Title: M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors.
The Supreme Court, while hearing a set of appeals pertaining to the medical negligence matter, observed that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi HC Quashes Summons Issued To H&M Over Alleged Violation Of 2011 Legal Metrology Rules
Case Title: H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The High Court of Delhi quashed a summoning order against H&M Pvt. Ltd., situated at Select City Walk Mall, Saket for violating Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Upon being inspected, the Legal Metrology Department wrongfully concluded that H&M Pvt. Ltd. had not followed the mandatory labeling requirements. The High Court held that the 2011 Rules are not applicable to 'loose garments'.
Case Title: NBCC India Limited vs. Randhir Singh Redhu and Ors.
The High Court of Delhi has issued a notice regarding a Writ petition addressing the issue of jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the constitution of its Benches. The High Court granted a stay on the NCDRC order until the next hearing and issued a notice since the Petitioner was able to present a prima facie case before the Court.
The Petitioner, NBCC India Ltd, a management consulting company challenged the NCDRC's order dated 23.02.2023 contending that the Presiding Member of the Commission lacks the jurisdiction to issue such orders.
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has directed the members of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India to only use the term “Staff Contribution” for the amount being charged as “service charge” currently. Justice Prathiba M Singh added that the amount being charged as “staff contribution” shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount excluding the GST component. “…. the menu cards shall specify in bold that after the payment of 'Staff Contribution', no further tip is necessary to be paid to the establishment/servers/restaurant staff,” the court said.
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Smt. Nirmala Somkuwar, Food Safety Officer
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings lodged against Coca Cola for an allegedly fungal infected 'Maaza Mango Drink' displayed for sale by a retailer. While dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC by the Company and its nominee, the court observed that the former was responsible for ensuring that none of the food products deemed as unsafe post expiry period remain in the store of the retailers, even if the product is not directly sold to the end consumer by the Company.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye vs UOI
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has quashed Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State and District Consumer Commissions. The division bench comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi observed the rule was “diluting the involvement of the judiciary” and the “lack of judicial dominance” was in “contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain.”
NATIONAL COMMISSION DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC)
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.
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.
Dancing Swing Ride Accident, NCDRC Directs Rizvana Amusement Co. To Pay Rs. 35 Lakhs to Complainant
Case Title: Abhimanyu Singh vs Rizvana Amusement and 2 others
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench led by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) held Rizvana Amusement, an amusement swing operator liable for deficiency in service due to an accident on a 'Dancing Chairs' swing which caused serious injury to the Complainant. The NCDRC awarded Rs. 25,00,000/- as pecuniary compensation and Rs.10,00,000/- as non-pecuniary compensation to the Complainant.
Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S M.R. Filling Station
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC) bench led by Dr. Inderjit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., based on its limited revisional jurisdiction which only allows for cases involving material irregularity, illegality and jurisdictional error in the order of the lower fora. The NCDRC upheld the Punjab State Commission's order and directed New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to disburse Rs. 5,74,170/- to the Complainant.
Delay In Construction And Delivery Of Flat, NCDRC Directs DK Reality To Refund Amount With Interest
Case Title: Amresh Pednekar vs. D.K. Realty (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya along with Dr. Inder Jit Singh as a member, partly allowed a consumer complaint against D.K. Realty India Pvt. Ltd. (Opposite Party) for the delay in construction of a housing project named "Livsmart." The main contention was based on the delay in delivering the flat as per the agreed timeline and subsequent failure to respond to the complainant's requests for cancellation and refund. As a result, the Commission held D.K. Reality liable, directing them to refund the entire amount deposited along with 9% interest per annum.
Case Title: Clinic Nallam and Anr. vs A. Helen Victoria and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudipahluwalia (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) upheld the order of the Puducherry State Commission which held Clinic Nallam (Puducherry) and its doctor liable for negligence and deficiency in service. They were held liable for leaving a 'nut and bolt' inside the patient's abdomen while performing surgery. As a result, the NCDRC ordered them to pay Rs. 13,77,000/- in total to cover the patient's expenses, hardships, and legal costs.
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.
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Bhupender Gahlawat
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench, comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sadhna Shaker (Member), dismissed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company challenging the order of the Goa State Commission. The NCDRC dismissed the Insurance Company's objections concerning the classification of the property, which the company referred to as a 'temporary shack' rather than a 'restaurant.' The bench ruled that such objections cannot be brought up at a later stage, when the entire structure was burned down in a fire.
Contributory Deficiency, NCDRC Reduces Compensation
Case Title: M/S. Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. vs North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench led by Mr Justice A.P. Sahi (President) modified the order passed by the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh in favour of the North Eastern Region Institute of Science and Technology (NERIST) which alleged deficiency in service on part of M/s Intec Infonet Pvt. Ltd. for causing a delay in their developmental project. The NCDRC observed that the deficiency and negligence could not be entirely attributed to Intec Infonet and the State Commission erred in assessing the delay period and wrongfully imposed a higher compensation amount.
Case Title: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shilpa Mehtani
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited on preliminary grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and period of limitation. The NCDRC noted that 7 years had passed after the State Commission's order and remanding the matter back due to a technical error would not serve the ends of justice. Further, the NCDRC held that in case of a “continuing breach”, the period of limitation runs at every moment. Hence, the complaint was held to be filed within the period of limitation as even though the last payment was made 5 years ago by the Complainant, the allotment was not done till the date of the complaint.
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.
Case Title: Director, General State Transport Haryana & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Prajapat
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) directed the Haryana State Transport Department to take appropriate measures to stop the menace of smoking inside the public buses by the drivers, conductors and passengers. The NCDRC emphasized that the State Transport Department would be separately liable to compensate each of the complainants who availed its services, however, these complaints will be treated as consumer disputes rather than public interest litigations.
NCDRC Sets Aside State Commission' Order Directing Mercedes To Replace The Car
Case Title: Mercedes Benz India Private Limited vs. Smt Revathi Giri & Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajindra as a member, recently allowed Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against a State Commission's order. The State Commission had directed Mercedes to replace a defective car with a similar model or refund the purchase price, and pay interest to the consumer who complained about car defects. The State Commission's decision was based on the consumer's expectation of comfort and peace when buying a vehicle. However, Mercedes argued that they could only be held liable if an expert proved an inherent manufacturing defect or when the warranty covered these defects. The National Commission allowed the appeal by Mercedes (Appellant), stating that there was no conclusive evidence of “inherent manufacturing defects” because no expert opinion was presented, thereby setting aside the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Baby Palak Khan and 2 others vs Dr. Amit Upadhyay and 2 others
The NCDRC bench comprising A.P. Sahi (President) and Dr. Sadhna Shaker (Member) cleared all allegations against Dr. Amit Upadhyay of Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College for the alleged failure of Retinopathy or premature screening of a 3-week-old baby. The NCDRC relied on various inquiry and departmental reports and other circumstantial evidence to hold that the doctor and the medical institute followed proper procedures and acted as per medical ethics.
Services Rendered For Commercial Purposes Cannot Be Entertained, NCDRC Allows LG Electronics' Appeal
Case Title: L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Jaganath Life Care Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), consisting of Sudip Ahluwalia and AVM J. Rajendra, ruled in favor of LG Electronics in their appeal against Shree Jagannath Hospital and Research Centre. The hospital had contracted LG Electronics to install a Multi Power System in their theater, but the installation did not occur as planned. The hospital filed a consumer complaint, which was initially allowed by the Jharkhand State Commission. However, NCDRC decided that the hospital did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act since the installation was for commercial purposes. As a result, they allowed LG Electronics' appeal and set aside the State Commission's order.
Case Title: Arti vs. Dr. Gagandeep Goyal & 3 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) held a doctor at Delhi Nursing Home, Bathinda liable for negligence when a patient's gall bladder was wrongly removed during laparoscopic surgery without her consent. The National Commission concluded the doctor had acted negligently by failing to diagnose the patient's perforated appendix and neglecting to refer her to a specialist. Consequently, the doctor was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation to the patient, who was incorrectly diagnosed and operated on, resulting in her becoming bedridden.
NCDRC Orders Reliance Life Insurance Company To Pay Rs 1 Crore And 50k Litigation Costs
Case Title: Nirmala Devi vs Reliance Life Insurance Com
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) directed Reliance Life Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs1 crore with an interest of 9% and Rs 50,000 litigation cost to the nominee of the deceased life assured (DLA). The NCDRC rejected the insurance company's contention that the deceased policyholder had concealed material evidence in the proposal form. The NCDRC highlighted that hospitalization due to a motor vehicle accident, not reported in the proposal form, and should not be considered a concealment of pre-existing illness or disease.
Case Title: Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr vs Banwari Lal Gupta
Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising of Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to compensate Rs. 10 Lakhs to a nominee of the deceased. The heart of the dispute revolved around whether the death was accidental or a suicide. The NCDRC concluded that the death was accidental, taking into account medical reports, police investigations, and other evidence. It observed that there was a positive presence of aluminium phosphide and ethyl alcohol in the deceased's viscera, suggesting the possibility of poisoning by unknown persons.
NCDRC Holds ICICI Bank Liable For Loss Of Original Documents, Awards 25 Lakh Compensation
Case Title: Manoj Madhusudhanan vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) presided by Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Chandra as the presiding member, partly allowed a consumer complaint and directed the ICICI Bank (Opposite Party no. 1) to pay compensation worth Rs. 25 Lakh for losing the original property documents of a complainant. The case revolves around one Manoj Madhusudhanan (complainant), who had taken a housing loan of Rs. 1.86 Crore from ICICI Bank, to buy a property in Bangalore. To secure the loan, the he had submitted his original property documents, which eventually got lost while being sent to a storage facility by a courier company Bluedart (Opposite Party no. 2).
Case Title: Anshul Aggarwal vs. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Mr Subhash Chandra allowed a consumer complaint and held that real estate developer (Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.) is liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in services. It was found that the developer failed to hand over the possession of the flat as per the agreed terms. The residential building project “World One” was promoted without obtaining the necessary statutory approval from the Airport Authority of India (AAI). Despite the considerable passage of time, the developer failed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, directing the developer to refund the complainant's payment of Rs 13,06,59,748/-, along with compensation in the form of simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum and litigation cost of Rs 50,000/-.
Wrongful Rejection Of Claim: NCDRC Directs United India Insurance To Pay Compensation To DCW Ltd.
Case Title: DCW Ltd. vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC allowed the complaint filed by DCW Ltd. against United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and held it liable for deficiency in service. The Commission set aside the Maharashtra State Commission's order. It held that the assertion of willful negligence due to mishandling of the DG Set when the lube oil pressure was below the manual's specifications was a mere presumption. The Commission highlighted that there was no ground or reasonable basis for the rejection of the Insurance claim since no commission appears on the part of the Complainant.
Case Title: Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd & Anr. vs. Sanjay Ghosh
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by IndusInd Bank Ltd. against Sanjay Ghosh and upheld the State Commission order holding that the Bank had acted in total violation of the instructions contained in the Code of Bank's Commitment to Customers formulated by Reserve Bank of India. It observed that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to those under Special Statutes and an Arbitration clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions.
Case: Sunil Kumar vs Shimlaauto Zone & Anr
The NCDRC clarified that any payment based on the Insured Declared Value (IDV) should be prioritized to repay any outstanding auto loan, with the remaining balance going to the customer. Moreover, the NCDRC also ruled against the authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland Ltd, ordering them to pay the IDV along with Rs. 50,000 in compensation for the wrongful transfer of the vehicle to the financer without the customer's consent, and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs to the customer.
NCDRC Holds HDFC Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd & 3 Ors. vs. Ravi Kumar
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by HDFC Bank against Tamil Nadu's State Commission order and held it liable for deficiency in service. It was observed that the pre-sale notice was sent to an incorrect address, not matching the address as documented in the Loan Agreement. Moreover, the notice contained an incorrect loan account number. This was seen as a deliberate, arbitrary, and unlawful action on the part of HDFC Bank.
NCDRC Rejects Vehicle Insurance Claim Due To Invalid Driver's License During Accident
Case Title: Girish vs Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 Ors
The NCDRC rejected a vehicle insurance claim on the grounds of an invalid driving license held by the driver who was operating the car at the time of the accident. This case reached the NCDRC after the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra overturned the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Latur, which had previously dismissed the insurance claim.
Case Title: Indian Railway & 2 Ors. vs Uma Agarwal
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Indian Railways holding it liable for deficiency in service. It held that as per the provisions of the Railways Act, it was established that if it is proven that the loss, destruction, or damage occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees, then the Railways would be held responsible. Moreover, it has violated several of its duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not having adequate personnel, not closing the gates at night, allowing intruders in the coach, and not aiding the Complainant in filing the FIR.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. against Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. and Athena Insurance and Reinsurance Brokers 'P' Ltd. It upheld the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission's order and pointed that there is no proven concealment of the material fact in the proposal form since the term 'accident' refers to an unexpected unfortunate event causing damage or injury.
Case Title: Life Insurance of India Ltd. vs Geeta Madhavrao Damahes & 2 Ors.
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by LIC and upheld the State Commission's decision. It held that LIC must fulfill its responsibility as a public sector insurance company and pay the entire amount under the policy, regardless of the initial claim made by the complainant for a lesser sum. It directed LIC to pay Rs. 6 lakhs with a bonus amount.
Unregistered Vehicles Ineligible For Insurance Claims: NCDRC
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rajiv Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
The NCDRC issued a clarification stating that vehicle owners who have insurance but have not registered their vehicles in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act and rules are not eligible to file insurance claims. It was held that non-registration of a vehicle is not only a violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the Motor Insurance Policy.
Case Title: Medical Superintendent Safdarjung Hospital & Anr. vs Sudhir Kumar Verma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Safdarjung Hospital guilty of medical negligence and directed the hospital to pay Rs. 11.05 lakh to a man whose wife died due to deficiency in service. It emphasized that overcrowded wards and doctors' overtime duties were not acceptable excuses for medical negligence. It reasserted the importance of maintaining medical standards and ensuring accountability within healthcare institutions.
Breach Of Mandatory BIS Regulations: NCDRC Dismisses Appeal Against CCPA Order By Cloudtail India
The NCDRC dismissed an appeal filed by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. against the order issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The CCPA's order pertained to Cloudtail's infringement of consumer rights by selling domestic pressure cookers to consumers in breach of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) regulations. CCPA had observed that despite the suspension of imports, Cloudtail had continued to sell these pressure cookers to consumers, indicating a deliberate disregard for the quality standards.
NCDRC President Issues Directives To Enhance Consumer Commission Procedures
The NCDRC's President Justice A.P. Sahi issued a notification dated 11th August, 2023 with practice directions for Consumer Commissions. The said directions have been issued by the President in terms of Regulation 24 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020.
Case Title: Global Hospital vs. P. Manjula & 3 Ors.
The NCDRC disposed of the appeals and upheld the Telangana State Consumer Commission's order. The Commission held that the Global Hospital (Hospital) is liable for negligence and deficiency in service due to improper oxygen supply to the patient during the surgery. It awarded a compensation of Rs. 18 Lakhs with a simple interest rate at 9% p.a with an increased cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants.
Engine Malfunction: NCDRC Directs Tata Motors And 2 Dealers To Pay Rs 5 Lakh As Compensation
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Gupta vs. M.D Tata Motors & 2 Ors.
The NCDRC allowed the Revision Petition filed against Tata Motors and its 2 dealers namely Pirana Motors and Guinea Motors and directed them to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation. The Commission determined that the dealers failed to provide evidence to support their claim that the malfunction in the vehicle's engine was due to any action or negligence on the part of the Complainant. Moreover, they could not demonstrate that the issue fell outside the terms of the warranty that were applicable at the relevant time.
NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition by LIC And Imposes Cost In Insurance Claim Dispute
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Jagjit & Anr.
The NCDRC consisting of Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed a Revision Petition by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 15,000 to the Complainants. The Commission upheld the Lower Commissions decision orders that LIC is liable as it already had knowledge of the previous policy and the complainants were not informed and had no prior knowledge that such information is required to be provided. Therefore, there was no intentional concealment of material facts by the deceased.
Deficiency In Service: NCDRC Orders Royal Sundaram Insurance To Pay Claim, Compensation, And Cost
Case Title: Royal Sundaram General Insurance vs Latha
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition and ordered the Insurance Company to pay the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs, along with Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as Litigation cost. Additionally, the NCDRC directed the Insurance Company to pay interest at a rate of 9% on the delayed payment, calculated from the date of filing the complaint.
Case Title: Dr. Hemant & Anr. vs Zenal Construction Private Limited & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) consisting of Presiding Member Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya dismissed a complaint filed by the complainants against Zenal Construction Pvt. The Commission determined that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainants had booked the shops for “commercial purposes” and not solely for the purpose of earning a livelihood through self-employment.
Case Title: Ashish Vohra vs. Raheja Developers Limited.
The NCDRC, comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Member), partly allowed the complaint and directed Raheja Developers Limited. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The Commission reasoned that the Developer is liable for gross negligence as it failed to finish the project, obtain the occupation certificate, or provide essential amenities for habitation despite collecting over 95% of the payment from the Homebuyers.
Case Title: Hotel Leela Avenue Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
The NCDRC, consisting of Presiding Member Subhash Chandra, dismissed a consumer complaint filed by the complainant against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Apex Commission was of the view that the initial assessment of loss by the surveyor included the loss incurred in the Galleria, which as per the final report was not to be covered by the insurance policies and therefore, dismissed the complaint filed by the Hotel.
Case Title: Jagruk Nagrik & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC presided over by Presiding Member Dinesh Singh and Member Binoy Kumar dismissed the Revision Petition and held that there was a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Northern Railways.
The Commission modified the decision made by the Lower Consumer Commissions and instructed the Railways to refund the amount of Rs. 5150 with an interest rate of 9% per annum with Rs. 5000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 25000 as litigation costs before the three consumer commissions.
Case Title: Jagruk Nagrik & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr.
The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) consisting of Presiding Member Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Member) allowed the complaint and directed Shreeniwas Cotton Mill and The Lodha Group to refund the entire deposited amount, with an interest rate of 9%. The complaint was filed for deficiency of service and misrepresentation regarding the height of the building as being the “World's Tallest”.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, M.P.
Case Title: Western Central Railway Division Vs Rajendra Kumar Agrawal & Another
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh allowed an appeal filed by the Western Central Railway Division, Jabalpur against a passenger who alleged theft of his belongings while travelling on the train. The State Commission held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for the stolen luggage when the Complainant himself wasn't vigilant.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, WEST BENGAL
Case Title: The Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah and Anr. vs Arindam Goswami
The Siliguri Circuit bench of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Mr Kundan Kumar Kumai (Presiding Member) and Mr Swapan Kumar Das (Member) allowed an appeal filed by the Railway Managers of Eastern Railway. Originally, their written version was not accepted by the District Commission because they failed to file it within 45 days. While extending the period of limitation, the State Commission noted that even though the Railway Managers had quoted the wrong section of appeal under the old Consumer Protection Act, the same cannot invalidate the substance of the matter.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Case Title: Dr. Monica Gogia vs. Mr. Goldy Sahni
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of 'healthcare' services being included in the ambit of 'services' under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case Title: Mr. Arvinder Singh Aneja & Anr. Vs M/S Agrante Reality Ltd.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) stated that when dealing with builder services lacking a defined timeframe, a reasonable duration for fulfilling the contract under the Indian Contract Act 1872 falls within 24 to 48 months. The bench further argues that the complainants cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to get the benefits of the hard-earned money they have spent to purchase the property in question.
Case Title: Daya Ram Vs. Karol Bagh Post Office
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) rejected the arguments of respondent based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in light of allegations of negligence. The bench further highlighted that if an addressee of the letter can reasonably demonstrate the likelihood of intentional negligence by a Postal Department employee, the responsibility shifts to the department to substantiate its denial.
Delhi State Commission Holds BPTP Builders Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Mr. Aurangzeb Khan Vs. M/S Bptp Ltd.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) held the Opposite Party as deficient in providing its services to the Complainant for failing to hand over the possession of the flat within a reasonable time period.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BIHAR
Case Title: The Chairman, Railway Board and others vs Premshila Devi and others.
The Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) and Md Shamim Akhtar (Member) held the Railways Board, East-Central Railways and the Divisional Rail Manager of the Samastipur Division liable for failure to protect the lives of the passengers. The passengers were robbed, hit and stabbed when the train was going to Motihari station. The State Commission upheld its jurisdiction and held that consumer commissions can grant additional remedies even when certain remedies have already been granted under the Railways Act.
Denial Of Insurance Claim, Bihar State Commission Dismisses Appeal By Reliance Nippon Life Insurance
Case Title: Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gharohari Devi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) and Shamim Akhtar (Member) dismissed an appeal filed by Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Company which contended misrepresentation of age on the policy holder's part while availing the policy. The State Commission held that the Insurance Company failed to discharge its burden of proof in light of the fact that the company's advisor himself filled out the proposal form after verifying the policyholder's age.
Case Title: Superintendent of Post Offices, Rohtas Dn and Anr. vs Premnath Singh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) held the Postal Office, Rohtas liable for delaying the admission application by 19 days due to which the Complainant's son could not get admission in JNU, Delhi. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies and the liability exemption clause under the Indian Post Office Act does not have an overriding effect to restrict Consumer Commissions from awarding compensation.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TAMIL NADU
Case Title: Shanthi KalaiArasan vs. M/s. Miot Hospitals
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed a significant complaint filed against MIOT Hospital, alleging negligence and service deficiency on their part. According to the complaint the hospital failed to anticipate and manage flooding during the rainy season despite warnings from government agencies. This negligence resulted in a power outage where critical life support systems, including ventilators in the Medical ICU located in the basement, failed during the flood. This led to the deaths of 18 patients, including the complainant's husband. While allowing the complaint, Justice R. Subbiah held the hospital liable for administrative negligence which contributed to the deaths of the patients. Consequently, the Commission directed the hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the complainant along with an additional cost of Rs.2,00,000/-.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ANDHRA PRADESH
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Smt. Buragadda Sridevi
The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. C.V.S. Bhaskaram (Woman Member) and Sri B. Srinivasa Rao (Member), allowed an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited. This appeal contested the ruling of the District Commission, Machilipatnam (A.P.), which held the Insurance Company liable for payment and compensation despite the policy not being in the complainant's name at the time of the accident. The State Commission restated the principle that an individual is not entitled to claim damages for a vehicle when the insurance policy has not been transferred into their name.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MIZORAM
Mizoram State Commission Orders LPG Gas Distributors To Follow Guidelines
Case Title: Shri Thanglura vs All Gas Distributors of Mizoram and others
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mizoram bench comprising Dr. Lalthansangi (Interim President), Lalhmingmawia (Member), Sanny Tochhong (Member) and C. Lalrinkima (Member) directed the LPG gas distributors in Mizoram to carry fair trade practice by implementing the LPG Marketing Discipline Guidelines fully and by establishing an online 'booking and delivery' system for consumers. The concerns were raised by Mizoram Consumers' Union, a non-profit voluntary organization which approached the State Commission regarding the poor implementation of the Direct Benefit Transfer-LPG Scheme (“DBTL”) by gas distributors and RGGLV distributors in Mizoram.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION COMPRISING, U.T. CHANDIGARH
Case: Dr. Ajay Sood vs Bank of India
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Rajesh Arya (Member) directed Bank of India to pay Rs. 6 Lakhs to an NRI who had an account in the bank which resulted in a fraud of Rs 1.33 Crore rupees. Although the State Commission didn't hold the bank liable of the fraud but it noted that the bank failed to follow the RBI circulars regarding preventive measures against cheque-related fraud cases.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
Case Title: Kuldip Kumar vs Food Corporation of India through the Divisional Manager and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab bench comprising Mr H.P.S. Mahal (Presiding Judicial Member) and Mrs Kiran Sibal (Member) held the Food Corporation of India's Jalandhar divisional office and Punjab regional office liable for deficiency in service for delaying the disbursement of the medical health scheme claim. The State Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant, who was a retired government employee of the Food Corporation of India.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Case Title: Naresh Verma vs Singh Brothers (Shoe Palace)
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr R.K. Verma (Member), dismissed an appeal filed for the enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Shimla District Commission. The appellant cited inflation rates and number of hearings as a reason for such enhancement. The State Commission observed that the delay caused due to COVID-19 restrictions and the vacancy of the position of President cannot be attributed to the respondent. The State Commission found the District Commission's award as fair and just.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TELANGANA
Case: Anand Kankipati vs. Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre
Recently, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench, Hyderabad) bench comprising V. V. Seshubabu (Member), and R.S. Rajeshree (Member) noted that one cannot be forcibly confined in the rehabilitation centre against one's wishes and subjected to unlawful treatment. It held that Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre's admission of the complainant without his informed consent was against the Mental Health Act, 1987 and, therefore, amounted to unlawful detention and mistreatment.
Case Title: The Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Nagender
The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad consisting of Meena Ramanatha (President) and Sri. K. Ranga Rao (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and set aside the District Commission's decision. It held that the complainant was aware that the bus was overcrowded and could have waited for the next bus. The appeal was filed by The Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad (TSRTC) against the Complainant to set aside the District Commission, Ranga Reddy order which had allowed the complaint.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ASSAM
Case Title: Coco Cola India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ms. Deepali Sharma & Ors.
The Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka, with Mrs. Soneka Bora and Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh as members, ruled in favour of a consumer who found a dead fly in a bottle of sprite and directed Coca Cola India Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KERALA
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Ford India To Compensate Lawyer For Failed Car Booking Taken 3 Weeks Before Closing Operations In India
Case title: Adv. Manu Nair G V Ford India Pvt. Ltd
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kottayam recently ordered Ford India Pvt. Ltd to pay compensation to a lawyer for failure to deliver an EcoSport Titanium car to him, after taking advance booking just 3 weeks prior to cessation of its operations in India. The booking was taken by Ford's authorized dealer at Kottayam, Kairali Ford, unaware of then forthcoming closure of Ford India.
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Ford India To Compensate Lawyer For Failed Car Booking Taken 3 Weeks Before Closing Operations In India
Case title: Adv. Manu Nair G V Ford India Pvt. Ltd
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kottayam recently ordered Ford India Pvt. Ltd to pay compensation to a lawyer for failure to deliver an EcoSport Titanium car to him, after taking advance booking just 3 weeks prior to cessation of its operations in India. The booking was taken by Ford's authorized dealer at Kottayam, Kairali Ford, unaware of then forthcoming closure of Ford India.
Case Title: Kumari Ivana William and ors. vs M/s Velankanni Matha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and others
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Justice Sri. K. Surendra Mohan, along with Judicial Member Sri. Ajith Kumar D. and Member Smt. Beena Kumary, recently dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who had undergone a delivery procedure at Velankanni Matha Hospitals. The State Commission rejected her allegations of negligence against the attending doctor, which had resulted in a condition known as brachial plexus in her newborn baby. The bench ruled that such events were unpredictable, and the doctors could not be held responsible for them. Additionally, the woman failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims.
Case Title: Kumari Ivana William and ors. vs M/s Velankanni Matha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and others
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Justice Sri. K. Surendra Mohan, along with Judicial Member Sri. Ajith Kumar D. and Member Smt. Beena Kumary, recently dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who had undergone a delivery procedure at Velankanni Matha Hospitals. The State Commission rejected her allegations of negligence against the attending doctor, which had resulted in a condition known as brachial plexus in her newborn baby. The bench ruled that such events were unpredictable, and the doctors could not be held responsible for them. Additionally, the woman failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims.
Case Title: G.M. Anna Aluminium vs Sunil Kumar
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Thiruvananthapuram) held a manufacturer of chili powder liable for selling chili powder packets with substantial weight deficits. Further, the bench noted that the customers generally rely on the packet labelled weight and are unlikely to suspect the genuineness of the weight displayed.
Case Title: Jayagopal K Vs Pradeep Cholayil
The State Consumer Commission in Thiruvananthapuram bench refused to condone a delay of 2,279 days in filing of an appeal and held that condonation of delay could not be claimed as a matter of right. Further, the Commission held that once the District Commission delivered the notice and order on the assigned address of the party, it would be considered deemed service. If there is a change in the address or if the party has left the country, it is the party's responsibility to give instructions to the postal authorities to deal with the communications received at his address.
Case Title: Shaji David vs Shafa Diagnostic Centre
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a complaint regarding wrong diagnosis by a diagnostic centre. The Complainant failed to prove that the TPHA (ELISA) test reports granted by the diagnostic centre were faulty. The Commission further rejected the Complainant's contention that due to wrong reports, his visa for Kuwait was rejected and that the diagnostic centre must compensate him. Moreover, the Commission noted that the complainant had filed the complaint without sufficient bonafides, causing undue hardship to the Diagnostic Centre.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ORISSA
Recurring Defects In Air Conditioner, Orissa State Commission Holds Godrej, Authorized Service Centre And Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Customer Care, M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Arjun Kumar and others
Recently, the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra (Presiding Member) upheld the Bargarh District Commission's order holding Godrej, its authorized service centre and its dealer jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service for their failure to remedy the defects in the air conditioner which arose just within 1 month of purchase.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND
Dispute Requires Police Investigation, Can't Entertain, Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside District Commission's Order
Case Title: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Dev Caterers
Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (Judicial Member-II) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) set aside a District Commission's order against Oriental Bank of Commerce. The State Commission held that the impugned order was illegal and irregular as the District Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain a criminal matter which required thorough investigation by the police officials. Moreover, the transaction between the complainant and Oriental Bank of Commerce was commercial, keeping it outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986.
Case Title: Dr. Santosh Gaydhankar vs. Sandeep Kumar
The Uttrakhand State Consumer Commission allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Santosh Gaydhankar against Sandeep Kumar and Jaya Maxwell Hospital. It pointed out that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant wasn't valid since the issue stemmed from an ultrasound report prepared by the Appellant for the complainant's wife. However, the complaint should have been filed by the wife herself, as she was the one affected by the report's alleged inaccuracy. The complainant lacked the authority of his wife to file the complaint on her behalf.
Case Title: M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs Sh. Sushil Kumar
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench overturned an ex parte decision made by the District Commission (Dehradun) against KLM Airlines. It emphasized the significance of ensuring equitable treatment and upholding due process in legal proceedings and highlighted the principle of natural justice, which mandates that the commission hears arguments from both sides before reaching a verdict.
Case Title: Indian Maritime University vs Smt. Nimmi Kundlia and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand allowed an appeal filed by the Indian Maritime University contending that Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to deal with admission and fee-refund matters against educational institutes. Relying on certain landmark judgments, the State Commission reiterated that educational institutes do not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they are not rendering any services.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GUJARAT
Case Title: National Labour and Consumer Association and Anr. vs R. S. Corporation and Ors.
The bench of the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ruled that a consumer dispute should not be considered trivial solely because of the small amount involved. The commission emphasized that it is imperative for consumer courts to evaluate and decide on the underlying issues in such cases. Additionally, the commission disagreed with the notion that a complaint should be rejected merely on the grounds that it took up valuable time or was perceived as an attempt to prolong the proceedings.
