Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-IV
Smita Singh
14 Jan 2024 12:57 PM IST
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONS Manufacturers Intentionally Withholding Necessary Spare Parts Of Products Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Forum Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for...
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONS
Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. termed such tactics, which pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them, as 'restricted trade practice',
Case: Ms. Sangeetha Bohra vs IKEA India Private Limited
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held IKEA India liable for deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice for charging extra Rs. 20 for a carry bag and directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,020/- to the complainant.
Case: Dr Thirumeny M.J. vs Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) presided over by DB Binu (President), Ramachandran V. (Member), and Sreevidhia TN (Member), found Samsung India responsible for deficiency in service. The District Commission pointed out a common practice with manufacturing companies. These companies often attract customers with ads, but then neglect their responsibility to provide necessary spare parts and consumables. This neglect affects the proper functioning of the product over its expected lifespan, causing a significant impact on consumer rights.
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.
Case: Mahesh Singh Rana vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI (Delhi) bench comprising Poonam Chaudhary (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in service for not ensuring security measures in their ATM which subsequently led to a loss of Rs 40,000/- to the Complainant.
Case: Karun Kumar vs Sony India Pvt. Ltd.
The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) dismissed a complaint against Sony India noting that although the mobile phone was under the warranty, the water damage caused by rain was not covered by the company's terms and conditions of the warranty. Further, the bench noted that the complainant himself admitted that the mobile handset was damaged due to water exposure during a rain accident.
Gurgaon District Commission Orders Bridgestone India To Replace Tyres, Pay Compensation
Case Title: Kailash Kumar Sawalka vs Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd is liable for manufacturing sub-par quality tyres which wore out prematurely, thereby, leading to significant damage and posing a safety risk to the car owner. The tyre manufacturer was directed to replace the types and compensate the car owner for mental harassment and litigation costs.
Case: K. Balakesari vs Holiday4U
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Chennai (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising of B. Jijaa (President), TR Shivakumar (Member) and S. Nandagopalan (Member) held Holiday4U liable for unfair trade practices for not refunding the full money to a senior citizen after his 8-night package tour to South Africa was cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic. The bench noted that Holiday4U only refunded only Rs 25,000/- of the total money of Rs 3,00,000/- paid by the complainant, thereby making it liable for unfair trade practice.
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.
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.
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.
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/-.
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.
Case Title: Jayesh & Ors. vs. St. Luke Hospital & Ors.
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Ajith Kumar D. along with Mr. Radhakrishnan K.R. allowed a consumer complaint against St. Luke Hospital alleging medical negligence on their part. The complainants claimed that they were not given proper medical care during pregnancy, which resulted in their child being born without lower limbs and a hip. They argued that the medical professionals failed to detect the foetal abnormality through proper ultrasound scans and that timely information could have led to a different outcome.
Case Title: Lokesh Rustogi vs C.E.O. Goibibo
The Rajarhat, Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh and Mrs. Sagarika Sarkar, allowed a consumer complaint against the CEO of Goibibo. The complaint accused Goibibo of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The complainant had booked a hotel (Opposite Party no. 2) through Goibibo (Opposite Party no. 1) for the Kumbha Mela festival in Allahabad, only to discover upon arrival that the hotel did not meet the advertised standards. This led the complainant to seek alternative accommodation in Varanasi. Initially, Goibibo offered a 50% refund, but they later withdrew the offer, citing limited responsibility for the hotel's service quality.
Case Title: Mr. Devanik Saha vs. M/s Ethiopian Airlines
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, led by Ms. Poonam Chaudhary along with Mr. Bariq Ahmad and Mr. Shekhar Chandra, allowed a consumer complaint against Ethiopian Airlines alleging deficiency in their services. The complaint was regarding a 2011 incident where the complainant (an NGO delegate to a UN conference in Durban), purchased an air ticket from Ethiopian Airlines. He had "on-arrival Visa support" from UN authorities, exempting him from standard visa requirements. However, at the airport, his "on-arrival visa support" was deemed invalid without explanation which caused him to miss his flight, face delays, and incur extra expenses. The Consumer Commission, as a result, found this to be a clear service deficiency and directed the airline to compensate him with Rs. 50,000/- for the losses along with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs.
Case: Bhim Singh vs One Plus Exclusive Service Centre
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Rewari bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held a One Plus Exclusive Service Centre liable for deficiency in service for not returning the mobile phone of the complainant after it was repaired.
Case: Satinder Singh vs HUDA and 2 others
The Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) liable of unfair trade practices for charging additional sum from the complainant for an occupation certificate even though the allotment letter for the plot was issued back in 1999.
Case Title: Anju Ahlawat vs. Nik Bakers
The Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. Satpal Singh along with Dr. Sushma Garg and Dr. Barhm Prakash Yadav as members partly allowed a consumer complaint against Nik Bakers. The consumer alleged that the cake she ordered from the bakery for her son's birthday was of “sub-standard”. She claimed that the cake had unhealthy dye (colours) that left red marks on their hands and made her son sick. Despite her multiple emails informing the bakery of the issue, they did not respond adequately.
Case: Nisha vs The Postman
The Kollam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of S.K. Sreela (President), Sandhya Rani (Member) and Stanly Harold (Member) held a Postman, Post Master and Senior Superintendent of Post Office liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the interview call letter for a Co-operative Bank due to Post Man's ongoing family dispute with the complainant.
Case: Jasbir Singh vs Oppo Mobiles
The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Oppo Mobiles and its authorized service center responsible for deficiency in service. This deficiency was linked to an explosion of an Oppo mobile phone purchased by the complainant, resulting in an injury and a burning sensation on his right leg.
Case: Sukhjinder Singh vs Lenskart Solutions Ltd.
The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Lenskart liable for unfair trade practices for selling eyeglasses of inferior quality to the complainant which subsequently led to significant discomfort, eye pain, and severe headaches to him.
Case: Narendra Rathi vs Regalo Kitchens and 2 others
The Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for not installing the Modular Kitchen at the complainant's property as promised and the delay in providing electrical and plumbing drawings and repeatedly changing the delivery date without consultation with the complainant.
Case: Ankit Singla vs Regional Passport Office
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Singh (Member) held Chandigarh Regional Passport Office and Passport Seva Kendra liable of deficiency in service for delay delivery of the complainant's renewed passport which led to significant personal inconveniences to him and his wife, including missing out on planned travel.
Case Title: Shaik Miftauddin vs Reliance Retail Ltd. and 2 others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bidar (Karnataka) bench comprising Mabu Saheb (President) and Kum. Kavita (Member) held Reliance Retail liable for deficiencies in service, negligence, and unfair trade practices for selling a defective LG refrigerator to the complainant. The bench ordered LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Retail Ltd. to compensate the complainant of Rs. 84,000 for supplying the defective product.
Case: Raju BH vs Hyundai Motor India Ltd.
The Hassan District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Chanchala CM (President), HV Mahadev (Member) and Anupama R (Member) held Hyundai India and its authorised dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for selling a car with manufacturing defect which subsequently led to car catching fire while the complainant was travelling. The bench ordered the manufacturer and dealer to provide the complainant with a new car and Rs 1.4 Lacs to the complainant as compensation.
Case Title: Dr. Belinda Viegas Mueller and others vs MakeMyTrip India and others
The South Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay M. Chodankar (President) and Nelly H. Pereira e D'Silva (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable of unfair trade practices for increasing the price of the holiday package by Rs 72k after the complainant had paid one installment of the same. The bench noted that this led to complainant ultimately cancelling the holiday package which subsequently caused mental agony to him.
Case: Niraj Kumar vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hazaribag bench comprising of Kumar Shukla (President), Anita Bala (Member) and Prem Kumar Singh (Member) held Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for selling and delivering a defective and non-functional cooler to the complainant who ordered the cooler online.
Case Title: Rajitha Kalprdha vs VIBES Healthcare Ltd.
The Bengaluru-IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Rarnachandra (President), H.N. Shrinidi (Member) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held VIBES Healthcare Ltd. liable for not refunding the security deposit of Rs 40,000 after the complainant experienced severe pain due to health issues post Bariatric Sleeve Surgery sessions. The bench ordered Vibes to refund the security deposit and an additional compensation of Rs 1.1 Lacs for the pain and suffering she had experienced due to the services offered by Vibes.
Case Title: M. Rajasekaran vs Sub-Postmaster, Department of Post, P. Velur
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Namakkal bench comprising of Dr Thiru v. Ramaraj (President) and Thiru A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) imposed Rs. 20,000/- fine on the complainant for filing a vexatious complaint against the Sub-Post Master, Namakkal. The bench emphasized that such misuse could hinder the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, which is to safeguard the interests of consumers and protect them from exploitation.
Case: Kapil Mittal vs M/s. Havells India Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar bench comprising of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr. Amita Agarwal (Member) held Havells India liable of deficiency in service for not adequately responding to the complainant's numerous attempts to seeking resolution to the defective Air Oven even though the product was under warranty period. The bench ordered Havells to replace the Air Oven and give compensation of Rs 4,000 to the complainant.
Bangalore District Commission Holds Axis Bank Liable For Releasing Funds Without Proper Verification
Case: Tarun Agarwal vs Axis Bank
The Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri B. Devaraju (President) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) held Axis Bank liable for transferring the complainant's loan amount without his explicit instruction to do so. The loan, totaling Rs. 38 Lakhs, pertained to two residential flats for which Axis Bank transferred Rs. 3.82 lakhs to the property developer from the complainant's advance without proper verification.
Case: GM Gupta vs OnePlus India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi-II bench comprising of Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held OnePlus India culpable for selling a defective mobile phone which exploded and caught fire while it was charging and even after multiple over heating complainants by the complainant the OnePlus did not respond promptly. Further, the bench noted the OnePlus India should be held culpable for selling a defective product that had the potential to cause significant harm to the user.
Case: V Vasanthkumar vs M/s Apple India Ltd & others
The South Chennai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench is comprised of TMT. B. Jijaa (President), T.R. Sivakumhar (Member) and S Nandagopalan (Member) held Apple India Private Limited, B2X Service Solution India Pvt Ltd, and iCare Apple Authorized Service Centre jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service for refusing to repair an iPhone which was under warranty period. The bench noted that the complainant had valid grounds to expect the rectification of the iPhone's defects within the warranty period, as provided by the terms of the purchase.
Case: A. Rajagopalan vs IDFC First Bank
The South Chennai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising TMT B. Jijaa (President) and TR Shivakumar (Member) held IDFC FIRST Bank liable for deficiency in service for deducting the EMI instalments during the COVID-19 pandemic when the government through a notification announced moratorium for six months. The bench noted that service was deficient on the part of the IDFC FIRST Bank due to their actions in deducting EMIs during the moratorium period, causing financial hardship and mental agony to the complainant.
Chandigarh-I District Commission Holds Jakara International For Unfair Trade Practices
Case Title: Rohan Rana vs Jakra International Pvt. Ltd.
The Chandigarh-I District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held one visa consultant firm, Jakara International Pvt. Ltd, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by presenting a rosy picture of a bright future for the complainant studying abroad. The bench noted that the firm had failed to deliver on their commitments and they did not secure the visa as promised.
Case title: Johny Milton v Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.
A Consumer Commission in Kerala has ordered an insurance company to reimburse the medical expenses borne by a policyholder for treatment of his mother (included in the policy) even though she was not hospitalized for 24 hours, upon noting that as per IRDAI guidelines, the treatment given to her should not be excluded in health insurance policies. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N also observed that the procedure should be viewed as "day care treatment" which includes a medical procedure that would require hospitalization of more than 24 hours but was undertaken in less than 24 hours due to technological advancement.
Case title: Jijo John K v M/S Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam has recently ordered travel booking company MakeMyTrip to refund the money paid by a couple for a travel package and to compensate them for trip cancellation due to rejection of VISA application. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N observed that VISA application was rejected due to the deficiency in service of MakeMyTrip.
Case: Bhupender Singh vs Indigo Airways Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa bench comprising Padam Singh Thakur (President) and O.P. Tuteja (Member) held Indio Airlines liable for the luggage of the complainant's son which went missing when they were asked to take the next available flight. The bench noted that airlines must exercise reasonable care in handling passengers and their baggage. This includes ensuring that passengers are not unfairly denied boarding and that their baggage is properly handled and accounted for. Any failure to exercise this duty of care can result in liability.
Case Title: Sangeetha Bohra v Ikea India Private Limited
A consumer court in Bengaluru has directed Ikea India Private Limited to refund a sum of Rs 20 charged for providing a carry bag to its customer along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs 1000 for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant. The bench headed by President B Narayanappa expressed shock at the level of service provided by the large malls and showrooms by not allowing customers to use their own bags to carry their purchases from the store.
Case Title: Karthik Mohan v. Ministry of Indian Railways & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ordered the Southern Railway to compensate a passenger for the inconvenience caused to him by the 13-hour delay of the Chennai-Alleppey Express. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N observed that despite being a significant Public Sector Undertaking, the Indian Railways often fails to provide efficient services, and issues such as late trains and unavailability of reserved seats still persist.
Case: 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Case Title: Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni vs BMS Hospital
Recently, the Bangalore Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held BMS Hospital liable for collecting registration charges from the patients and rejected the contentions by the hospital that the registration fee served the purpose of uniquely identifying each patient, maintaining comprehensive patient records, and providing personalized healthcare.
Case Title: Pankaj vs Apple India Private Limited
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala bench comprising Mr. Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms. Arti Sood (Member) and Sh. Narayan Thakur (Member) found Apple India Private Limited deficient in service for failing to provide service to the customer who faced network connectivity and camera issues in his newly bought iPhone. The District Commission refuted Apple's contention that the iPhone could not be fixed as it had some internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. It was noted that Apple failed to prove that there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device.
Case Title: Pankaj vs Apple India Private Limited
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala bench comprising Mr. Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms. Arti Sood (Member) and Sh. Narayan Thakur (Member) found Apple India Private Limited deficient in service for failing to provide service to the customer who faced network connectivity and camera issues in his newly bought iPhone. The District Commission refuted Apple's contention that the iPhone could not be fixed as it had some internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. It was noted that Apple failed to prove that there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device.
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar M.R. v. M/S Classic Motors
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has criticised the practice of manufacturers deliberately including conditions of a product's warranty in 'fine print' which ordinary citizens are unable to comprehend. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. said the National Consumer Commission has already held such practice as 'unfair trade practice' and urged the regulatory bodies to take action against manufacturers who engage in such practices to harm consumers.
Case Title: Dr Yatish Kumar Bansal vs Lifestyle Wedding Planner
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) ordered Lifestyle Wedding Planner based in Chandigarh to refund the advance amount paid to it for decoration services by the Complainant. The bench noted that despite the cancellation of the marriage following COVID-19 pandemic the wedding planner didn't refund the advance amount paid by the complainant, thereby, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Case Title: P V Ramesh Kumar And The Officer Concerned & Anr.
A Consumer Court in Bengaluru has held that ICICI Bank indulged in unfair trade practices by excessively charging a senior citizen who had closed his credit card issued by the bank, thus causing mental distress and inconvenienc. The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer District Redressal Commission headed by President Shivrama K, partly allowed the complaint petition filed by P V Ramesh Kumar.
Case Title: P V Ramesh Kumar And The Officer Concerned & Anr.
A Consumer Court in Bengaluru has held that ICICI Bank indulged in unfair trade practices by excessively charging a senior citizen who had closed his credit card issued by the bank, thus causing mental distress and inconvenienc. The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer District Redressal Commission headed by President Shivrama K, partly allowed the complaint petition filed by P V Ramesh Kumar.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Tripathi vs. M/S Reliance Retail Ltd.
Recently, a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi presided by Mr. S. S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar as members allowed a consumer complaint which brings light to the contentious issue of charging customers for carry bags in retail stores. While noting that charging for carry bags is against the interest of consumers, the District Commission held Reliance Trends liable for deficiency in service.
Case Title: Anil Dhamey vs The New India Assurance Company and anr.
Recently, the Chandigarh bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, presided over by Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), ruled against a vehicle owner who had filed a consumer complaint following a road accident involving the insured vehicle. According to the District Commission, the insurance policy had not been officially transferred into the name of the vehicle owner at the time of the accident. As a result, the vehicle owner was deemed ineligible to receive the insurance amount. The insurance policy had been initially taken out by the previous vehicle owner, and in the absence of a direct contractual relationship with the insurance company, the new owner was regarded as a third party.
Case Title: Miss Priyal Jain vs. Principal National Academy of Media and Events & Ors.
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kolkata (Unit – II Central) presided by Mrs. Sukla Sengupta along with Mrs. Sahana Ahmed Basu and Mr. Reyazuddin Khan as members allowed a consumer complaint against Principal National Academy of Media and Events. The key issue was that a six-month photography diploma course, scheduled to start in November, did not commence as promised. As a result, the District Commission held that the Academy was highly negligent and failed to provide the expected services. Further observing that the Academy had adopted unfair means of trade, the forum directed the complainant to compensate with Rs. 50,000/-.
Case: Meenu Vaid vs. Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II in New Delhi bench comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital liable for negligence in treatment and removal of complainant's right ovary which subsequently led to permanent disability, hormonal imbalances, and psychological distress. The bench noted that medical professionals are liable if they fail to perform their duty with reasonable skill and competence or if they deviate from the accepted medical standard.
Case: Vipin Bharti vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd
Recently, the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) noted that intermediaries like Flipkart and Amazon held a certain responsibility in ensuring product quality within their platform. The bench further held that agents or intermediaries had an obligation to uphold the standard of goods sold through their platforms and could be held liable for defects or losses incurred by purchasers.
Case: Mohd. Abdul Yousuf vs Orange Tours & Travels
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II bench comprising Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), Jawahar Babu (Member) and Madhavi Sasanakota (Member) held Orange Tours & Travels liable for cancelling a bus service just before the boarding time, causing significant mental anguish to the complainant. The District Commission has ordered Orange Tours & Travels to refund the ticket amount and pay Rs. 10,000 in compensation to the complainant.
Case Title: George V.T. v. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Ayappankavu
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam has ordered the Canara Bank to compensate a customer for its failure to provide insurance coverage and certificate to him, despite deducting the premium for the same.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. observed,
"The actions of the opposite party, i.e., their assurance of providing insurance coverage and a certificate, coupled with their subsequent failure to fulfil this promise despite deducting the premium, signify a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This deficiency in service has led to the complainant's inability to claim cashless benefits for medical expenses incurred, resulting in substantial hardship and emotional distress."
Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Harassment Of Customer
Case Title: Shanti Sawroop vs Canara Bank
Recently, the North East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency of service for failing to update the deposit made by the 76-year-old complainant in his account following the merger of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank.
Case Title: Ravinder Pal Singh and Anr. vs The Club Resorto Hospitality Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench, led by Shri Pawanjit Singh as President and Surjeet Kaur as Member, found Club Resorto Hospitality Limited ("the Club") responsible for inadequate service due to the cancellation of the complainants' anniversary trip, which the Club attributed to adverse weather and road conditions. Furthermore, the Club was held accountable for not reimbursing the service fee paid by the complainants. The Commission ordered the Club to reimburse Rs. 75,000 and compensate the complainants with a total of Rs. 14,000, covering both compensation and legal expenses.
Case Title: Prabha Pandey vs. Sahara Group
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Sahara Group liable for deficiency in service for not offering possession of the home units within the Sahara City to the complainant. The bench noted that collecting money from prospective buyers without obtaining required approvals and clearances is an unfair trade practice.
Case Title: Sarfraz Ali vs. Punjab National Bank
Recently, the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in service and ordered it to pay Rs refund the deposited amount and pay 30,000 as compensation to the complainant. The matter revolved around the complainant who deposited Rs. 40,000 in a cash deposit machine and received no receipt confirming the deposit. The District Commission reiterated that any security lapse within a bank's premises amounts to a deficiency in service, particularly when it leads to the loss of a customer's money within the bank premises.
Case Title: Shyam Sunder Garg vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) has directed the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO) to pay Rs 30,000 to the complainant for charging extra amount after the booking of the flat property. Further, the bench also noted that arbitration clauses in agreements between consumers and builders did not limit the jurisdiction of consumer forums.
Case Title: Pragati Bhatt vs. OLA Cabs
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held OLA Cabs liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices for overcharging excess fare of Rs 3,101 from the complainant who booked a ride from Jindal University to Chandigarh.
Delivery Of Damaged TV, Bangalore District Commission Holds Cloudtail India For Gross Negligence
Case Title: Sri Shiv Nair vs. Amazon Development Centre and others
Recently, the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., the seller, liable for delivering a damaged Panasonic HD Smart LED TV to the Complainant. The District Commission cleared the manufacturer's liability after assessing that the damage was caused during the delivery of the TV, which was the responsibility of the seller.
Delivery Of Damaged TV, Bangalore District Commission Holds Cloudtail India For Gross Negligence
Case Title: Sri Shiv Nair vs. Amazon Development Centre and others
Recently, the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., the seller, liable for delivering a damaged Panasonic HD Smart LED TV to the Complainant. The District Commission cleared the manufacturer's liability after assessing that the damage was caused during the delivery of the TV, which was the responsibility of the seller.
Case Title: Tarun Chaurasia vs Sunil Wine Shop
Recently, the Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a liquor shop owner in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh for charging prices exceeding the Maximum Retail Price on the purchase of beer and whiskey bottles. Further, the bench also recommended to the state government that liquor prices should be prominently displayed in shops to prevent overcharging.
Case Title: Diliprao D Mohite vs. M/s Star Health and Allied Insurance co Ltd
The Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising V.C. Premchandani (President) and Poonam V. Maharshi (Member) held Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for rejecting the insurance claim filed by the complainant for expenses he incurred during his treatment at Jupiter Lifeline Hospital Ltd. (Thane).
Case Title: Ranjot Kaur vs. Chili's Restaurant, Elante Mall
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) ordered Chili's Restaurant to pay Rs 25,852 to a woman who found a live worm in a dish served at one of their outlets in Elante Mall, Chandigarh.
Case: Pooja Shankar vs Vinayaka Cake Shop
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held a cake shop liable for selling a black forest cake in a rotten state and unsuitable for consumption to the complainant. The bench noted that the poor quality of the cake caused vomiting and diarrhoea among the guests invited by the Complainant on her son's birthday.
Case: Pooja Shankar vs Vinayaka Cake Shop
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held a cake shop liable for selling a black forest cake in a rotten state and unsuitable for consumption to the complainant. The bench noted that the poor quality of the cake caused vomiting and diarrhoea among the guests invited by the Complainant on her son's birthday.
Case Title: Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur vs FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) ordered Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) India Automobiles and KAS Cars to refund Rs 61.61 Lakhs and compensation of Rs 65k to the complainant for manufacturing effect in the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Case Title: Raj Kumar vs M/s Cholamangalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd
The Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, a finance company based in Chennai, liable of using forceful recovery agents for repossession of complainant's Maruti Swift Desire Car without giving any prior notice. The bench deprecated the practice of using forceful recovery agents for repossession of vehicles and emphasized the need for proper notice.
Case Title: Mr. Sriharsha Ks vs M/s MakeMyTrip Private Limited & Another
Lately, the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum-I bench, led by President Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, determined that MakeMyTrip was responsible for insufficiently assisting the complainant and his wife after they encountered an accident while traveling to Manali. The bench observed that MakeMyTrip had a duty to support its customer and ensure the provision of top-notch facilities during the entire trip, which it did not fulfil.
Case Title: P.V. Ramesh Kumar Son of Late P.V. Jayaram vs The Officer Concerned, ICICI Credit Card Care Officer
Recently, the Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama. K (President) and Chandrashekar. S. Noola (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for causing undue harassment to a 68-year-old senior customer over a meagre 35 paise credit card debt on his closed account. The bank failed to close the customer's account despite several requests, causing significant distress to the customer.
Case Title: Sri Vaseemuddin. A vs M/s Motherhood Hospital and others
The III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (“Member”) held Motherhood Hospital, Bengaluru liable for providing a twin room service despite the assurance of a single room to the complainant as part of their birthing package. The District Commission opined that there is more privacy in a single room and hence, on failing to provide it, the hospital must compensate the complainants.
Case Title: Ancy K. Alexander v. Parvathy Maya Shaji & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered an immigration consulting agency to compensate a student for cheating the latter in the name of obtaining permanent residency (PR) visa to Canada.The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held the Managing Director and General Manager of Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. liable to refund the 75,000 deposit made by the complainant as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
Case Title: Ancy K. Alexander v. Parvathy Maya Shaji & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered an immigration consulting agency to compensate a student for cheating the latter in the name of obtaining permanent residency (PR) visa to Canada.The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held the Managing Director and General Manager of Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. liable to refund the 75,000 deposit made by the complainant as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
Case Title: Sh. Sachin Gupta vs M/s Philips India Ltd. and Anr.
The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Ms Adarsh Nain (Member), recently dismissed a complaint against Philips India Limited. In the complaint, the buyer had contended that the Philips juicer mixer had multiple defects that were not resolved by Philips, despite numerous follow-ups with their customer care. However, the commission ruled that the responsibility of proving deficiency in service rests with the complainant, and in this instance, the buyer could not provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations against Philips.
Case Title: Harshvardhan Pande vs Western Union Financial Services
The Indore District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Balraj Kumar Paloda (President), Srimati Sadhna Sharma (Member) and Susri Nidhi Barange (Member) held Western Union liable of deficiency in service for an online money transfer service availed by the complainant for paying his college fees. The complainant contended that the transfer was not completed, and the money was not refunded, despite multiple attempts and communications with the company.
Case Title: Barjinder Singh vs. M/S Advance Technology and Anr.
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera's Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to the buyer.
Case Title: Barjinder Singh vs. M/S Advance Technology and Anr.
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera's Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to the buyer.
Case Title: Barjinder Singh vs. M/S Advance Technology and Anr.
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera's Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to the buyer.
Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas
The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas
Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas
The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas
Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas
The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas
Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas
The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas
Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas
The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas.
Case Title: Naveen James vs Ace Town Planners
Recently, the Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Ace Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. responsible for deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. Further, the bench noted that despite the fact that the Complainant made the regular payments for the plot, there was no progress on the site, and he had not received possession as promised.
Case Title: Allwyn Cyrus R vs Dell Technologies
Recently, the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) dismissed a complaint against Dell Technologies filed for alleged deficiency in service noting that the complainant didn't accept the discounted prices for service parts given by the company and further the bench noted that Dell Technologies was unable to provide the service because the complainant didn't register the laptop within seven days of the purchase date on the Dell's website.
Case Title: N.D. Vinaya Kumar and anr. vs PhonePe Private Limited
Recently, the Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama. K (President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held PhonePe liable of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices. The bench noted that PhonePe being an intermediary platform for transaction between the two customer's bank holds an important responsibility to exercise due diligence in every transaction. The case pertain to a complainant transferring money to another individual through the PhonePe app and the complainant got a confirmation of the successful transaction but the amount wasn't debited into the bank account of the receiver.
Case Title: Arvind Kumar vs M/S Eureka Forbes
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) directed the Eureka Forbes Ltd. to refund the full refund of the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) cost for the complainant's Classic Eureka Forbes Water Purifier after water purifier broke down multiple times. The District Commission held that Eureka Forbes' failure to deliver the assured services of complete repair to the water purifier, as specified in the AMC, constituted a deficiency in service.
Case Title: R.G. Rammohan vs Hero Lectro
Recently, the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama K (President) and Chandrashekhar S Noola (Member) held Hero Lectro (Division of Hero Cycles Ltd.) liable of deficiency in service for manufacturing defect in an e-cycle purchased by the complainant. The bench noted that despite raising complaints and efforts at repair by the complainant, the defect still persisted, therefore, the recurring nature of the defect indicated a manufacturing defect.
Case: Harish Goyal vs Rajhans Cinemas & Ors.
Recently, the Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Satpal (President), Sushma Garg (Member) and Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) has directed Rajhans Cinema and Libra Entertainments to reimburse a customer for a parking fee of Rs 20 that was charged despite an advertisement promising free parking. Further, the District Commission held that Goyal had indeed suffered financial loss due to the erroneous parking fee charge and had experienced mental distress and harassment during his interaction with the parking attendants.
Case: Sri. D.V. Manohar vs M/s. Go Airlines (India) Limited
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench comprising of M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member) and J. Shyamala (Member) noted that an airline cannot exempt itself from refund of tickets in cases of force majeure events that led to cancellation of flight. The bench directed Go Airlines to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and reimburse additional flight charges totalling Rs. 13,956 to a passenger whose flight to the Maldives was abruptly cancelled just a week before the scheduled departure.
Case: A. Sanjeeva Reddy vs M/s. Hindustan Healthmart
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Narayan Reddy (Member) found Hindustan Health Mart (“HHM”) liable for selling a defective pulse oximeter, which failed to function properly, causing trouble for the complainant during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bench acknowledged HHM's position as a retailer but emphasized that, by selling the product, HHM assumed a responsibility for the quality and functionality of the product sold.
Case: A. Sanjeeva Reddy vs M/s. Hindustan Healthmart
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Narayan Reddy (Member) found Hindustan Health Mart (“HHM”) liable for selling a defective pulse oximeter, which failed to function properly, causing trouble for the complainant during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bench acknowledged HHM's position as a retailer but emphasized that, by selling the product, HHM assumed a responsibility for the quality and functionality of the product sold.
Case: Rajinder Singh vs Jatin Sood
Recently, the Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Nova Bakery liable for deficiency in service following discovery of an ant a piece of cake, leading to subsequent illness after consumption. The District Commission also found bakery liable of unfair trade practice for failure to issue a bill, cash memo, or receipt for the cake.
Case Title: Jindal Sales vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission – I allowed the complaint against United India Insurance relating to its failure to settle a claim for a fire accident, despite the presence of a valid fire insurance policy. It directed the Insurance Company to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 8,79,855/- along with an interest of 9% per annum. Additionally, the Insurance Company is required to provide Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant, and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Shri Gandhi Behera vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Berhampur District Consumer Commission held Flipkart liable for cancelling a customer's order citing unforeseen error by the seller. Upon being inquired, Flipkart failed to provide the seller's information as well as displaying the information on the website, as mandated under Regulation 5(a)(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The District Commission held that even as an intermediary, Flipkart cannot evade liability and cannot backtrack once the contract is confirmed.
Case Title: B. Pavan Sai vs Ponnaiyah Ramanujam Institute of Medical Sciences
The District Consumer Commission, Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) ordered Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Science to pay refund Rs. 19 Lakhs for collecting fee more than the government-mandated amount along with a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs for wasting a full year of a student, despite the student's legitimate expectation of receiving quality education and medical facilities. It recognized that the inadequate provision of educational and medical services amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Case Title: Ds Chowdary vs Concu Cakes & Anr
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – I found Concu Cakes, a popular cake boutique, guilty of deficiency of service for mistakenly delivering an egg cake instead of the eggless cake that was ordered. The Commission, sympathizing with the complainant's ordeal, directed Concu Cakes' management to compensate her with Rs. 40,000 for the mental suffering and anguish caused.
Case Title: Shri Sudhir vs Registrar, Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench dismissed the complaint and held that educational institutions are not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. It provided that institutions rendering education, even those providing vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of admission, pre-admission or post-admission, except coaching institutions, will not be covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case Title: Salim P.M. v. State Bank of India
The Ernakulam Consumer Commission directed the State Bank of India to return an amount of Rs. 85,000/- to a customer from whose account certain money was fraudulently withdrawn. It observed that banks owe a duty of care to protect the interests of its customers.
Case Title: Sri Swapnashish Panna vs Head of the Department, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd
The Bolangir District Consumer Commission ordered the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained due to the accidental fire that occurred to his insured vehicle, when his vehicle was parked in a mall. Not only the Insurance Company failed to prove that the complainant had tampered with the electrical system of the vehicle, it also delayed the settlement of the claim, causing mental agony to the complainant.
Case Title: Yogesh Saigal vs Thomas Cook (India) Pvt. Ltd
In a case involving the tragic car accident that occurred in Sri Lanka in 2019, the Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, New Delhi has awarded Rs 50 lakh in damages to a man who tragically lost his wife, son, and father-in-law in the accident. The Commission ruled that two private travel and tour companies, Thomas Cook and Red Apple Travel Pvt. Ltd., were negligent and deficient in their services, leading to the fatal accident.
Case Title: Snehpal Singh vs Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], Delhi held Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences liable for unfair trade practices for not refunding the fee submitted by a student who was dissatisfied by the classes and service provided by the coaching institute. The Commission observed that charging lumpsum payment of fee in advance unjustly benefits these institutions, while also obligating the student to avail the entire course even if the quality is subpar and deficient.
Case Title: K.P. Abbas vs Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad absolved Indane, the subsidiary of Indian Oil Corporation and its distributer, Matha Indane, of liability arising from a consumer complaint against faulty refilling of an LPG cylinder which led to the explosion of the residential premises of the complainant. The bench perused the evidence and found that the complainant failed to establish the cause of explosion.
Case Title: S. Murugan vs Flipkart India Pvt Ltd and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu bench held Flipkart India and the TV manufacturer liable for firstly, delivery a defective TV and subsequently, failing to repair it or refund the amount. The District Commission held that Flipkart cannot escape liability as even the agent, who sells the product, has a responsibility to ensure the quality of the products sold. If the product turns out to be defective, even the agent would be held vicariously liable.
Case Title: Himanshu Sharma vs. Xiaomi India
The Chandigarh District Commission – I allowed the complaint filed against Xiaomi India as despite payment for repairs to Xiaomi, the TV remained inoperable. It held Xiaomi liable for unfair trade practices and ordered it to repair the TV within 45 days, without any additional charges. It also directed it to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 5000 as litigation cost.
Case Title: Mohinder Singh vs National Insurance Company Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur held National Insurance Company Limited liable for paying the insurance amount of a motorcycle insured by the complainant along with litigation costs. It held that the insurance company failed to show that the motorcycle was sold and even the registration certificate remained to be registered under the name of the complainant.
Case Title: S.V. Narayana Reddy vs Vaidi Chitfunds Pvt Ltd.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – II allowed the complaint against Vaidi Chitfunds Pvt Ltd, Prodduttor Shilpa, and Prodduttor Janardhan. It emphasized that the Chit Fund Company's failure to pay the total chit amount to the Complainant, even after the chit duration period had ended, constituted a deficiency of service and an unfair trade practice. It ordered the Chit Fund Company must pay the Complainant Rs. 2,75,017 along with 15% per annum interest and compensation for the mental agony and litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Lakshay Kundu vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission-I had issued a directive to Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd to refund of Rs 4,999/-, accompanied by an interest rate of 9 per cent per annum, to a city resident. This action was taken due to the sale of a defective telescope. Additionally, Amazon was instructed to provide a compensation of Rs 2,500 for causing mental distress and harassment to the customer, coupled with Rs 2,500 to cover litigation costs. The Commission attributed its decision to Amazon's accountability for the subpar product quality, its inability to furnish a satisfactory solution, and its involvement in unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Raghuveer vs Manager, State Bank of India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayapur (Karnataka) held that in cases of fraudulent uses of bank and ATM information of the customer, banks bear a responsibility to investigate and verify transactions. The District Commission while directing the State Bank of India to pay Rs 8 Lakhs to the complaint held that it failed to adequately investigate the fraudulent loan application and transactions, indicating a deficiency in their service.
Case Title: Amit U. Gosar vs. Union Bank of India
The Mumbai District Commission allowed the complaint against Union Bank of India and held it guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as the Bank should have waived the processing charges as per their festive offer rather than intentionally debiting Rs. 17,700/- from his account. However, the Bank intentionally debited Rs. 17,700/- from the complainant's account, contrary to the festive offer. Moreover, letters and notices were sent to the Bank requesting a refund with interest, but the Bank failed to comply with it.
Case Title: Col. Bhalinder Singh Brar (Retd.) vs. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited & Anr.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission – I partly allowed the complaint against Krishna Auto Salesm which was filed against Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. (Skoda Auto) and the dealer. It held the dealer liable for deficiency in service and held that the dealer was at fault for disregarding its own manual's recommendation for uniform tire wear during vehicle servicing. Further, it pointed out the uneven tire wear as the dealer's negligence in adhering to the guidelines outlined in the owner's manual.
Case: Darshan Kumar vs New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors
The Ferozepur District Consumer Commission held New India Assurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully rejecting the complainant's medical claim on the basis that the hospitalization was for less than 24 hours. It noted that progress in medical technology has created scenarios where patients are occasionally treated rapidly or without prolonged hospitalization. Thus, insurance companies should not use non-admission as a reason to reject genuine claims.
Case Title: Sri Vishwanath Tiwari vs DRS Dilip Road lines Ltd.
The Hyderabad District Commission-II held DRS Dilip Road lines Ltd., a brand of Agarwal Packers and Movers, liable for damaging the Complainant's household articles in transit. A compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was granted to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Jeko Antony v Galaxy Homes Private Limited
The Ernakulam District Consumer Commission ordered a compensation of rupees fifty thousand along with a refund of rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand at an interest rate of 9.5 per cent to a flat buyer aggrieved by lack of a valid building permit. The Commission held that the flat construction company were liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Rajeev Sharma vs. Go Airlines (India) Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Commission allowed the complaint against Go Airlines (India) Ltd. holding it responsible for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. The Commission took into account the relevant compensation terms and conditions set forth by Go Airlines for situations involving baggage loss and ordered a maximum compensation amount of Rs. 4000. It dismissed the complaint against Make My Trip, as there was no evidence of deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on its part.
Case Title: George Joseph vs Glossy Tiles and Anr.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Commission ordered a compensation of Rs 60,000 to the complainant for discolouration and fading of the tiles within a short period after installation. The District Commission found deficiency in service on the dealer's and the manufacturer's part for firstly, selling subpar tiles and secondly, for not replacing the tiles despite several requests.
Case: Jeevan Road Line vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
The Bangalore District Consumer Commission affirmed that an insurer cannot evade the liability of compensating, even if the fitness certificate and vehicle permit are not renewed at the time of the accident, provided the insurance policy is still in force. Moreover, it noted that when a permit is applied for after the expiration of an existing one, a temporary permit is issued to cover the intervening period. This, the District Commission clarified, is distinct from permit renewal and ruled that the permit should be considered valid on the day of an accident in such cases.
Case Title: Tarun Gupta vs. Google India Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh allowed the complaint and held them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It pointed out that Google cannot evade its responsibility since Google promotes its products in India through social platforms, it attracts the general public's attention and trust, encouraging them to purchase based on the brand's reputation. Also, the complainant used Flipkart's platform with faith in its reputation, investing his hard-earned money in a product endorsed by Flipkart.
Case Title: Umesh Chand Sharma vs Dr. Manika Khanna
The New Delhi District Consumer Commission-III highlighted an important contention that in the context of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures, a well-established legal consensus exists through a series of judgments which holds that the lack of positive outcomes or success in the procedure itself does not inherently imply or establish medical negligence on the part of the doctor. The procedure's success rate is not 100% and the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence solely for its failure.
Case Title: Mercy Veena D'Souza vs Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd. and Spice Jet Airlines
The Mangalore District Consumer Commission bench held SpiceJet and Cleartrip liable for not refunding the entire amount of the cancelled flight to the Complainants. The District Commission also granted Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainants. Here, both Cleartrip and SpiceJet erred in refunding the entire amount and also in making alternative arrangement for the Complainants who missed an event in Jabalpur due to such cancellation.
Case Title: Sri Ajay Velpula vs. Ola Cabs
The District Consumer Commission, Hyderabad – III allowed the complaint against Ola Cabs and held it liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It highlighted that Ola Cabs needlessly prolonged the case by asserting that the complainant was uncooperative and didn't furnish the necessary information for the refund. However, the Commission emphasized that all the required details were present in the bills issued by Ola Cabs.
Case Title: Thanthonri Dhandhayuthapani vs Y-Axis Solutions Pvt. Ltd
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission-III held a visa consultancy agency accountable for its mishandling of a visa appointment and ordered to not only refund the fees initially charged from the client but also to offer compensation totalling Rs. 17,000 to him. The District Commission found the visa consultancy firm guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Vidya Shankar Pandey vs. Delhi Development Authority
The Chandigarh District Commission allowed the complaint against Delhi Development Authority and held it liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for not refunding the interest rate as due. It highlighted that once the allocation was annulled, and the refund was made, the accrued interest on that amount should have also been returned. The Commission pointed out that the actions of the DDA, a government institution, cannot be permitted to profit at the expense of an ordinary consumer.
Case Title: EM PEE Motors Ltd vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Commission in Chandigarh has ordered Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer, EM PEE Motors, Pioneer Toyota, to pay compensation of Rs 60,000/- to the Complainant due to airbag deployment failures. The District Commission recognized the importance of airbags as a critical safety feature in vehicles, designed to protect occupants during collisions.
Case Title: Rajender Khanna vs Zoom Cars India Private Limited
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I bench fined Zoom Car India Private Limited of Rs. 15,228 for failing to deliver a self-drive rental car on time to a customer. The order came in response to a complaitnat filed against the car rental service provider for deficient service and unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Mr. Navin Jagdish Kankre vs. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional held that the action of the Insurance Company in causing unreasonable delay and rejecting the claim constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He was also unable to use the vehicle due to it being an evidence in a drug trafficking case. The vehicle's color variation made it ineligible for further insurance coverage, thereby remaining in the Complainant's garage, unusable and uninsurable.
Case Title: Mrs. Apoorva S Kademan vs Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
The Bengaluru Urban Additional District Consumer Commission – III ruled in favour of the flat owner and directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund a total of Rs. 2.1 lakhs. The Commission found that the BDA had failed to provide complete information about car parking charges during the allotment process, which constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Case Title: Sri D.V. Manohar vs Go Airlines (India) Limited.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III, Hyderabad allowed the complaint filed against Go Airlines (India) Limited. for the sudden cancellation of flights without any reasonable compensation to the Complainant constituting a deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. It was also recognized that due to the sudden flight cancellations by Go Airlines, the Complainant was forced to book Indigo Airlines tickets at a higher cost.
Medak Commission Orders Taxila Business School To Refund Rs 50k And Pay Rs 15k In Compensation
Case Title: D.N. Srikanth Verma vs Taxila Business School
The Medak District Consumer Commission directed Taxila Business School to refund Rs 50,000 and pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and litigation cost to a student who wasn't unable to join the college within the stipulated time frame due to unforeseen major knee surgery. The college management was held liable for gross negligence and irresponsible conduct for deliberately delaying the refund process thereby causing hardship to the concerned student.
Case Title: G. Thimma Reddy vs Sai Veda Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission-III imposed punitive damages on Sai Veda Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. for operating unregistered chits and for violating provision of Chit Fund Act, 1982. The bench noted that company's actions amounted to unfair trade practices by operating unregistered chits, which not only constituted a deficiency in services but also violated regulations.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar vs Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi held Trackon Courier Private Limited liable for deficiency in service owing to misplacing the courier of the complainant which contained medicines, clothes and books. The Commission held that Trackon Courier not only failed to deliver the consignment, but also failed to maintain effective communication at the time of grievances raised by the complainant. Further, it failed to substantiate that the T&C for compensation were communicated to the complainant at the time of entering into the agreement.
Case Title: Lakkireddy Lokesh Reddy vs Operations Manager, Chichas Asli Hyderabad
The Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission – I bench ruled against Chicha's Asli Hyderabad, a well-known restaurant, for overcharging customers on pre-packaged goods. The bench found that the charging the products above the MRP, not only constitutes an unfair trade practice but also violates the amended Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, that prohibited dual MRP.
Case Title: Shanavas K.V. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Palakkad District Commission held that the mere presence of the smell of alcohol is insufficient to definitively conclude that the driver was operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Thus, the insurance company cannot reject a claim on this basis. The Commission also underscored the pivotal requirement for the insurance company to establish that the driver was genuinely "under the influence" of alcohol.
Case Title: Divya Bhola vs. Religare Health Insurance Company Limited. & Anr.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint against Religare Health Insurance Company Limited and dismissed the complaint against Alchemist Hospital. It held the Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service by observing that unilateral policy terms should not be imposed on gullible trusting consumers who pay substantial premiums but at the time of compensation, the Insurance Company evades responsibility by using such one-sided clauses.
Case Title: Dr. Amarbir Singh vs Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd
The Ludhiana District Commission held that if there is any deficiency in service by the dealer/service provider or authorized centre regarding vehicle repairs, the manufacturer cannot be held accountable for such deficiencies. Further, it is the dealer's and the authorized service provider's responsibility to uphold the warranty agreements and provide service without undue charges during the warranty period.
Case Title: Manreet Gill vs Agro Tech Foods Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Commission-I highlighted the importance of substantiating complaints with credible evidence, particularly expert opinions. This emphasis came in the context of addressing a complaint raised by the petitioner concerning the alleged discovery of unwanted substance, including a dead spider, a human hair stand, and a dead flour beetle, within purchased products.
Case Title: Kishore Chandra Dhanraj Shah vs. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Surat District Consumer Commission, led by Justice P.P. Mekhia (President) and Dr. Tirtheshbhai Mehta (Member) allowed the complaint against Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and held it liable for serious negligence, unfair trade practices, and deficiency of service.
The Commission ruled that the Insurance Company's decision to deny the claim was unjustified. Consequently, the Insurance Company has been ordered to pay Rs. 1,32,862/- along with an interest rate of 9% per annum. Additionally, the Commission awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the mental harassment and inconvenience caused and another Rs. 2,000 to cover the litigation cost.
Case Title: Sri Vempadampu Suryanarayana vs. Toyata
The District Consumer Commission, Vizianagaram allowed the complaint in favor of the Complainant against Toyota (Dealer) and Leela Krishna Toyota (Sub-dealer).
As per the Commission's decision, the Dealer and Sub-dealer are required to reimburse the Complainant with an amount of Rs. 25,13,569/-, along with an interest of 12% per annum. Additionally, they must also pay Rs. 2,84,552/- and Rs. 1,31,313.91/- for the EMIs and bank closure charges, respectively with Rs. 1 Lakh compensation for the inconvenience caused and Rs. 30,000/- for the legal expenses incurred, including the Advocate Fee of Rs. 5,000/-.
Case Title: Smt. Reddy Siva Swarupa vs. Kolors Health Care India Pvt Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad – I presided by B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) allowed the complaint and directed Kolors Health Care Pvt. Ltd. to refund Rs. 2,15,000/- along with interest rate of 9%. It imposed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and a cost of Rs.15,000/- on Kolors Health Care.
Case Title: Lt. Col. Manpreet Singh vs Indigo Airlines
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, consisting of Suresh Kumar Sardana (Presiding Member) and BM Sharma (Member), has ordered Indigo and its ticket agent to compensate an Indian Army Officer. The commission held that by refusing to let the family board the flight or demanding an additional payment of Rs.4500/-, both Indigo and the ticket agent engaged in unfair trade practices and failed to provide satisfactory service to the Army officer and his family.
Case Title: Mavarpu Parmesh vs Paytm
The Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission consisting M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member), and J. Shyamala (Member), directed Paytm to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for the mental distress caused to a consumer. The case involved a situation where the consumer's account was debited while doing a Paytm transaction, but the amount was not transferred to the intended recipient, indicating a deficiency in service.
Case Title: Abha Dobriyal vs Bank of Baroda
The District Consumer Commission at Chandigarh consisting of Surjeet Sharma (Presiding Member) and B.M. Sharma (Member) allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Bank of Baroda to pay a compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for rendering deficient services along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. The Commission observed that the Bank failed to upload the revised claim form, which was their responsibility, not the complainants' constituting a deficiency in service and causing mental agony, harassment, and loss to the complainants.
