Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-III
Smita Singh
13 Jan 2024 1:05 PM IST
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA Handover Possession Of Flats Or Refund 22.6 Lakhs With Interest: Maharashtra State Commission Holds Someshwar Builders Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Mr. Ravindra Bajirao Galande vs. Shri Someshwar Construction Companys and Developers The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint filed...
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA
Case Title: Mr. Ravindra Bajirao Galande vs. Shri Someshwar Construction Companys and Developers
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint filed against Shri Someshwar Builders and Developers and held it liable for deficiency in service as in spite of receiving the entire amount of consideration, the Construction Company failed to complete the project as assured and hand over possession of the flats. Further, the Construction Company started the construction but the quality of the construction is very low as it used substandard materials.
Case Title: Mr.Naresh Ambratlal Sahita vs. Shanklesha Constructions
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint against Shanklesha Constructions and Mutha Constructions and found them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Despite having received the complete payment, the Construction companies did not provide possession of the flat until 2018. It held that the complainants have the right to obtain possession of the reserved flat, along with interest for the delayed delivery of possession, compensation for the mental and physical distress endured, and the costs incurred due to legal action.
Deficiency Of Service: State Consumer Commission Directs DHL To Pay Compensation For Lost iPhone
Case Title: DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinod Rao
The State Consumer Commission in Maharashtra dismissed an appeal filed by filed by DHL Express I Pvt. Ltd. and held it guilty of deficiency in service. The State Commission upheld the District Commission's order and awarded to pay Rs. 25,000 towards the loss of the iPhone and mental agony with an interest rate of 9% per annum, costs of Rs. 8,000 with an additional cost of Rs. 3,000 to the Complainant.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TELANGANA
Case Title: M. Sainath vs Kamineni Hospitals Ltd
The Telangana State Consumer Commission ordered Kamineni Hospitals in Hyderabad to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to Sai Nath, the complainant. The Commission found the hospital liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Commission took into account the complainant's physical and mental condition and noted that the delay in performing the operation amounted to a deficiency in service. Consequently, the hospital was directed to pay the awarded compensation as a redressal measure for the harm caused to the complainant.
Barred By Limitation, Telangana State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Real Estate Firm
Case Title: Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd. vs B.Ramchander Reddy
The Telangana State Consumer Commission presided by Meena Ramanathan (President) and K. Ranga Rao (Member) allowed an appeal and set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission in Hyderabad. The Complaint was filed by an Agriculturalist against Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd., a real estate business, for deficiency of service. The State Commission ruled that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Limitation Act.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNATAKA
Case Title: Chemmanur Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The Karnataka State Consumer Commission directed the New India Assurance Company to provide compensation of over Rs. 80.2 lakh to a jewelry company. The order comes as restitution for losses suffered by the jewelry company during a robbery incident that occurred back in 2011. The Commission held it liable for deficiency of service for the actual loss suffered due to the burglary at their showroom as well as for the inordinate delay in settling the claim.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND
Case Title: Regional Branch Manager, National Insurane Company Ltd. vs Kunwar Singh Dev
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench ruled that vehicle owner will not be entitled to compensation for the vehicle damaged in a road accident in the mountains in absence of hill endorsement in the driver's driving licence. Further, the bench noted that this endorsement was crucial in regions characterized by varied and challenging terrain, such as the hilly landscapes of Uttarakhand.
Case Title: United Insurance Company Ltd. vs Negi Digital & Anr.
The Uttrakhand State Consumer Commission dismissed the appeal and held that the boundary wall was included in the risk coverage of the policy and the insurer was obliged to compensate for the damage incurred to it. The case involved a dispute over a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, where excessive rainfall caused a flood and subsequent collapse of the complainant's property boundary wall. The Insurance Company was ordered to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the Complainant.
Case Title: Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University vs Sh. Sudhanshu Sain and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench, comprising Mr Justice D.S. Tripathi (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member), allowed an appeal against the impugned order of the District Commission, Haridwar, on the grounds of procedural irregularity. The State Commission held that the Consumer Protection Act requires the President of the District Commission to be present in each proceeding along with at least one member. Since the impugned order was decided by a bench solely comprising members of the District Commission, it was nullified, and the matter was remanded back to the District Commission for a fresh hearing.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BIHAR
Case Title: Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs Dhanpat Kumar Jain
The Bihar State Consumer Commission allowed an appeal by Jet Airways and set aside the order of District Consumer Commission, Khagaria. The Commission held that the complainant failed to provide any evidence of checking in his bag at the counter. Additionally, there was no baggage identification tag, which indicated that the complainant either did not carry any baggage or was not attentive during the check-in process.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KERALA
Case Title: S. Venugopal vs. Aquatic Club
The Kerala State Commission consisting allowed a complaint against Aquatic Club in Kerala. The complaint revolves around the tragic death of the complainant's 22-year-old son, Abhijith, who drowned in the club's swimming pool. While observing that the swimming pool facility was dangerous and no actual lifeguard was present, the commission found the Aquatic Club liable for deficiency in services and ruled that the drowning of the deceased in the swimming pool was a direct consequence of the negligence on their part.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HIMACHAL PRADESH
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited vs Atma Ram
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission ruled on an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company rejected the consumer's claim for his stolen car based on the grounds that he had negligently left the car keys inside the vehicle. The State Commission found that the consumer had not intentionally or wilfully left the keys in the car's ignition; rather, it was an inadvertent act. The consumer had no control over the fact that the car was stolen. Consequently, the Commission held that the Insurance Company was not legally justified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Case Title: Mr. Shameem Uddin vs. The Country Head of Kuwait Airways & Ors.
The Delhi State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and held the Country Head of Kuwait Airways and Kuwait Airways liable for deficiency of service as it failed to provide quality services to the Complainant.
The State Commission directed the Airways to pay an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation for the financial loss with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONS
Case Title: M.S. Sajeev Kumar v. Hewlet-Packard Global Soft PVT Ltd. & Ors.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that the issuance of poorly printed bills on low-quality paper or with inferior ink amounts to 'deficiency of service' or 'unfair trade practice'. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. relied upon the decision in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd. (2001), which laid down that the inclusion of terms and conditions and other particulars in bills is crucial for ensuring consumers' rights to be informed about the prices of products or services they purchase or hire.
Case Title: Parminder Oberoi vs Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Yatra Online and British Airways liable for unilateral cancellation of the Complainant's ticket and subsequent denial for adequate refund or resolution for over 2 years. The District Commission asked them to refund the Complainant's ticket amount, and pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation for mental agony, Rs. 50,000/- deterrent compensation and Rs. 33,000/- legal costs.
Case Title: Beenabi Haris and Anr. vs Skoda Auto India P Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr D.B. Binu (President), Mr Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) dismissed a complaint against Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. and its seller Marikar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Skoda Division, Chakkal Bypass. The reason for the dismissal was that the Complainant could not prove the manufacturing defects in the car and failed to raise the issues within the warranty period. The District Commission emphasized the necessity of expert evidence to substantiate such claims and held that the burden of proof lies on the Complainant to prove the manufacturing defects if contended.
Case Title: Virender Singh Yadav vs State Bank of India and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for its failure to ensure the safety of the Complainant's debit card and bank account. SBI issued 2 unsolicited ATM cards within a short time, which violated the RBI guidelines. Further, it failed to avoid fraudulent transactions from the Complainant's account.
Case Title: Vishal Yadav vs Cloud Nine Hospital
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Cloud Nine Hospital liable for conducting a mock-drill for child abduction soon after the baby was born, without informing the family. The hospital staff further failed to inform the gender of the child for 30 minutes while the family stayed in a perplexed situation due to the sudden mock drill.
Case Title: Santhosh M.S. v. Manager, Sports Terrain
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that repeated installation of inferior quality football turf despite payment of the full amount for installing a superior quality turf, would constitute unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. held that the failure of the supplier to provide FIFA standard 'LIMONTA' brand artificial turf despite accepting full payment for the same, amounted to a clear deficiency in service, and consequently awarded Rs. 1,14,700/- as compensation to the complainant.
Case Title: Aliyar T.M. v. M/S SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently held that unauthorized transactions exceeding the credit limit of an account holder, particularly when such a person did not opt for over-the-limit transaction, would constitute a deficiency of service. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. relied upon the decision in State Bank of India v. P.V.George (2019) which laid down the duty of care banks have in protecting the interests of the customer, including safeguarding them from unauthorized transactions.
Case Title: Zeba Salim v. M/S VLCC Health Care Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered a refund of fees to a student who had enrolled in courses offered by VLCC Institute, Kochi, but subsequently got cancelled due to failure on the part of the institute to offer timely classes, even through online mode. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N., underscored the importance of protecting consumers in the education sector, by ensuring refund of fees to students who choose to leave a course midway.
Case Title: Vineet Marwaha vs. Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, presided by Mr. Pawanjit Singh along with Ms. Surjeet Kaur and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sardana as members, recently allowed a consumer complaint against MakeMyTrip (Opposite Party No. 1). The complainant had booked a hotel through Goibibo (Opposite Party No. 2), for a family vacation. However, just before the journey, they were informed of the hotel's unavailability, leading to cancellation and a refund. The commission found that despite the cancellation claim due to the hotel being non-operational, the same rooms were available online at significantly higher rates. Thereby the commission concluded that the cancellation was arbitrary and caused immense mental harassment to the complainant. As a result, MakeMyTrip was held responsible for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and directed to pay compensation of Rs.35,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.7000/-.
Case Title: Krishnappa N. vs. Owner, Hotel Prashanth
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (Urban) has held a hotel liable for deficiency in service for serving only biriyani without any pieces of chicken to a customer who had ordered Chicken Biryani. The commission presided over by President M. Shobha P, partly allowed the complaint and directed the owner of the hotel to refund Rs 150 paid towards the amount paid for the Chicken Biryani and Rs.1,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the order.
Case Title: Aravind G. John v. M/S Arya Bhangy Motors
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently held M/S Arya Bhangy Motors liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for providing a 2017 model Honda Unicorn motorcycle with bent chassis and instability to a customer who had specifically requested the 2018 model. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. ordered the dealer to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,05,660/- to the complainant for the 'significant service deficiency' as a result of which the latter endured considerable inconvenience and hardship.
Case Title: Jeevan Kumar vs Reliance Retail Limited
The Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Sri B. Devaraju (Member) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited liable for deficiency in service for cancelling the return request of the wrong product after it voluntarily acknowledged its fault and agreed to schedule a return as soon as possible.
Case Title: Deepika Bhardwaj vs Ajio and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited and its lifestyle brand, AJIO liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for selling and delivering a laptop briefcase over its original MRP.
Case Title: Vatsal Agarwal vs Make My Trip India and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President) and Ms Yogita Dutta (Mmeber) held MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. and its Relationship Manager liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for their failure to refund the entire amount of a booked trip which was cancelled due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission noted that a resolution was reached and a refund was initiated only after the filing of the complaint. Therefore, MakeMyTrip was directed to pay compensation and litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Krishan Rohilla vs Snapdeal
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Mrs Tripti Pannu (Member) and Sh. Vijender Singh (Mmeber) held Snapdeal liable for deficiency in service for their failure to refund the purchase amount of a returned product in the designated account. The District Commission noted that Snapdeal negligently processed the refund to a 3rd-party's account, due to which the original Complainant had to suffer.
Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens vs The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri. V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Samsung India Electronics Private Limited liable for unfair trade practices for its failure to provide spare parts of its products in the market, thereby carrying a restrictive trade practice and indirectly coercing the customers to buy new products instead of repairing the existing products.
Case Title: Dr. Ponna Srinivas vs Amazon Hyderabad and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member) held Amazon and Appario Retail Private Limited, a listed 3rd-party seller liable for delivery and subsequent failure to return a smartwatch. The District Commission held that Amazon's role as an intermediary does not absolve it of liability. Further, even the seller was held liable as it sent a pink coloured watch, instead of a sandy cream colour, as advertised.
Case Title: Kalpanashantilal Shah Vs Grofers India Pvt. Ltd. (Blinkit).
The South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Maharashtra) bench comprising Shri Pradeep G. Kadu (President), Smt. S.A. Petkar (Member) and Smt. G.M. Kapse (Member) held Blinkit liable for failure to refund the cost price of an undelivered grocery item. The District Commission directed Blinkit to refund the amount, and pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Karthik Mohan v. Ministry of Indian Railways
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) stated that the passengers have the right to timely and quality services and shouldn't be subject to the whims of the administration. It was further asserted that the Railways must provide valid reasons for any significant delays due to unforeseeable circumstances. The Judgment reaffirmed that passengers' time is invaluable, and they deserve compensation for undue delays unless the Railways can prove a justifiable cause.
Case Title: Srikala Yenigalla vs OLA Electric Technologies Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakhsmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member) held Ola Electric Technologies Private Limited liable for delivering a wrong-coloured scooter twice to the Complainant. Despite several attempts at communication and resolution, Ola failed to deliver the colour originally requested by the Complainant.
Case Title: Captain [Indian Navy] K.K Nair & Anr. V. M/s Holy Faith Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd & Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) provided relief to the complainants in an ex-parte case asserting that the absence of the first opposite party, along with their failure to challenge the complainants' claims, indicated an implicit acknowledgment of the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices against them.
Case Title: Anita Kachroo vs MakeMyTrip
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Sri Ramachandra M.S. (President), Sri H.N. Shrinidhi (Member) and Smt. Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for its failure to refund the unfinished transaction amount of Rs. 44,086/-, despite multiple attempts at resolution made by the Complainant. The District Commission also ordered MakeMyTrip to pay Rs. 10,000/- compensation amount and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: E. Venkataramana vs LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd and others.
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S. Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized seller, Girias Investment (P) Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for their failure to replace or refund the purchase amount of a defective LG Dishwasher despite assurance.
Case Title: V. Mythili vs Joseph Hospital and Anr.
The Circuit bench of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai led by Thiru S. Karuppiah (Presiding Judicial Member) held Joseph Hospital, Tirunelveli (Tamil Nadu) and its doctor liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The patient was coerced into buying expensive and extra medicines from the Hospital's pharmacy only. Further, she was also forced to buy blood from the blood bank, despite the communication that her sister had the same blood group.
Case Title: Mahesh Chand Jain Vs Bank of Baroda And Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President), Ravi Kumar (Member) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for failure to disburse full insurance amount claimed after presenting all the important documents such as hospital bills and receipts. The District Commission noted that denial of benefits as per the T&C and cancellation of the policy at a later stage constituted a deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.
Case Title: Ponnapalli Rama Krishna vs Eluru Municipal Corporation and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Godavari, Eluru (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Sri D. Kodanda Rama Murthy (President), Sri S. Suresh Kumar (Member) and Smt. K.S.N. Lakshmi (Member) held Eluru Municipal Corporation and its Revenue Officer liable for deficiency in service and failure to verify its records. The authorities continued to send demand notices to the Complainant even after his tap supply was disconnected. The District Commission concluded that the Municipal Corporation was not entitled to collect water tax after the supply had been cut off.
Case Title: Bhanu Kaushal vs Yes Bank Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, Punjab bench comprising Harveen Bhardwaj (President) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held Yes Bank liable for repudiating the valid claim made by the nominee son of the FD depositor who had died. The District Commission cited provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules to hold that as long as the nomination is cancelled or varied, the nominee is entitled to receive the deposit amount, and the nominee's rights prevail over others.
Case Title: K.K. Joy vs. J.S Cube Metals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), ruled that the failure to issue a proper bill or cash memo, as mandated by Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020, is considered an unfair trade practice and deprives consumers of crucial transaction details needed for protection in the event of disputes.
Case Title: Ramadas K.K. vs. Assistant Engineer, KSEB Thalikkulam & Ors.
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu along with Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members) partly allowed a consumer complaint against Kerala State Electricity Board for issues related to disconnection of power supply to an agricultural connection. The commission found that despite the complainant clearing arrears and following instructions for repairs, the power supply was not reinstated. While allowing the complaint, the Commission held KSEB liable for deficiency in their service, as the board failed to provide clear instructions and proper communication regarding reconnection. Consequently, the Board was directed to compensate the complainant for financial losses.
Case Title: Daljeet Kaur Vs Apollo Munich Health Ins.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President), Ravi Kumar (Member) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for denying a valid insurance claim, citing reasons which were not informed to the Complainant at the time of availing the policy. Further, the District Commission held that the Complainant was not under an obligation to reveal immaterial facts, unconnected to the ailment, at the time of availing the policy.
Case Title: Vikram Singh vs Air India
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - I presided by Shri Pawanjeet Singh along with Mrs. Surjeet Kaur and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sardana has allowed a consumer complaint against Vistara Airlines and IRCTC (India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation) for not refunding the cancellation charges deducted from a booking made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complainant had booked air tickets through IRCTC for a family trip to Port Blair, but due to the pandemic, the journey was canceled. Despite this, Vistara Airlines and IRCTC deducted cancellation charges totaling Rs. 22,500/- from the paid amount of Rs. 72,524/-. Ultimately, the commission found both Vistara Airlines and IRCTC responsible for not refunding the deducted amounts to the complainant. As a result, they ordered IRCTC to refund Rs. 10,500/- and directed Vistara Airlines and IRCTC together to refund Rs. 12,000/- along with interest. Additionally, they were asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Rajiv Raizada vs Shri Harit Nagpal, Chief Executive, TATA Play Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) dismissed a complaint against TATA Play on account of disputed facts which could not be deciphered in the summary proceedings undertaken under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The District Commission reiterated that cases involving highly disputed questions of facts, criminality and tortuous conduct are not fit to be dealt with by the Consumer Commissions. The Complainant was given the freedom to approach any Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction to seek resolution.
Case Title: Anupama Kasana and others vs OYO Rooms Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held OYO Rooms Ltd. and Goibibo Web Pvt Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to ensure allocation of rooms to the Complainant and her family upon reaching the selected hotel, despite confirmation and payment. The District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the Complainant as compensation.
Case Title: Deepak Soni vs The Manager, National Highway Authority of India and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani (Haryana) bench comprising Mrs Saroj Bala Bohra (Presiding Member) and Ms Shashi Kiran Panwar (Member) dismissed a complaint filed by the Complainant who claimed that the NHAI cannot charge for toll if the waiting time of the vehicle at the toll plaza exceeds 2.5 minutes. The District Commission held that the basis of the Complainant's claim was an RTI. However, the letter issued by the NHAI in this regard held more significance and thus, it was established that there exists no such exemption rule w.r.t. time.
Case Title: Kshitij Korla vs Shopsizo.com and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Shri Narayan Thakur (Member) held an online shopping site, Shopsizo.com and its facilitator, Nimbus Post liable for failure to display mandatory information, as required under the E-Commerce Rules, 2020. Both were directed to file an affidavit indicating compliance with the said rules and compensate the Complainant.
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Pattanaik and others and Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debashish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. liable for non-disclosure of estimate costs to the family members of the patient. The District Commission reiterated the duty of medical institutions to maintain transparency in providing estimated treatment expenses to the patients and their families, in line with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Case Title: Abdul Jalil vs Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for its failure to reverse the amount in the Complainant's bank account which had been debited in an unauthorised manner. The District Commission held that the Bank violated the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India which mandate the banks to credit the amount involved in the unauthorized transaction to the customer's account within 10 working days from the date of notification by the customer.
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mittal vs Lloyd and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Jagdeep Singh (President), Mrs Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr Amita Aggarwal (Member) held Lloyd Electric and Eng. Ltd. and its seller, Deendayal Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling an AC with a manufacturing defect and subsequently failing to resolve the same. They were directed to either replace the AC or pay Rs. 30,000 to the Complainant with compensation of Rs. 4,000/-.
Case Title: Himanshu vs Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. for failure to provide service to the Complainant at his location during the Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission remarked that Lenovo should have considered the circumstances of that period and the Complainant could not have been expected to visit the service centre himself during the pandemic.
Case Title: Aam Aan Kay Gases Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs Audi Gurugram and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Audi, Gurugram and Kanish Motor Private Limited for charging for replaced parts covered under the warranty scheme, while servicing the car. The District Commission ordered them to refund the extra amount, and pay Rs. 7,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 litigation costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: Jayan P. Ramachandran vs M/s TCL and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held TCL and M/s MyG Paravur (Seller) liable for unfair trade practice for failure to resolve the issues with the 32-inch television within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to either replace the television or refund the purchase amount. They were also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: GLN Prasad vs Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt T. Suneetha (President), Smt K. Vijaya Lakshmi (Member) and G. Punna Reddy (Member) held Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali (Guntur District) liable for refusing withdrawal of amount from the savings account of the Complainant and refusing to register his complaint in the branch office's register. The District Commission emphasized that it was the duty of postal officials to ensure that manually registered post facilities were available in all post offices, and the failure to provide such a facility amounted to a deficiency of service.
Case Title: T. Saravanan vs St. Isabel Hospital and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Chennai (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising Thiru G. Vinobha (President), TMT Kavitha Kannan (Member) and Thiru V. Ramamurthy (Member) dismissed a complaint against St. Isabel Hospital and its doctor based on the principle that medical practitioners cannot be held responsible for the consequences arising from the pre-existing condition. The District Commission referred to legal precedents on the subject matter and reiterated that a medical practitioner is only liable when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field.
Case Title: Prashant Kumar vs Reliance Retail Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amroha (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Shri Nisamuddin (President) and Smt. Anju Rani Dixit (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited liable for unfair trade practice for delivering Apple AirPods pro with a different IMEI number than the one written on the receipt. The District Commission noted that despite several attempts made by the Complainant, Reliance Retail failed to resolve his grievances.
Case Title: Prashant Kumar vs Reliance Retail Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amroha (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Shri Nisamuddin (President) and Smt. Anju Rani Dixit (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited liable for unfair trade practice for delivering Apple AirPods pro with a different IMEI number than the one written on the receipt. The District Commission noted that despite several attempts made by the Complainant, Reliance Retail failed to resolve his grievances.
Case Title: Lallian Singh vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member), held State Bank of India liable for being unable to investigate a series of fraudulent and unauthorized ATM transactions. Further, SBI failed to determine the Complainant's liability as per RBI's instructions and thus engaged in a deficiency in service.
Case Title: Anirudh Rathi vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and B. Rajareddy (Member) held Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its service centre liable for deficiency in service for selling earphones with a manufacturing defect and subsequently refusing to issue a refund and offering replacement of an inferior quality.
Case Title: Satish Kumar vs Branch Head, Aditya Birla Health Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaushambi (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Lal Chandra (President) and Sanchita Shrivastava (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company liable for repudiating the valid claim of the Complainant who was diagnosed with a non-hearing ulcer and was treated at Medanta Hospital, Lucknow. The District Commission noted that the Insurance Co. failed to communicate all T&Cs to the Complainant when he was availing of the policy. Further, the Complainant did not sign any document which mentioned the T&C based on which the Insurance Co. was repudiating the claim. Thus, at a later stage, it could not bind the Complainant with such conditions.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Mehra vs Thomas Cook India Ltd. and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Mr Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Thomas Cook India Ltd. liable for failure to present the T&C regarding cancellation of tour package to the Complainant and subsequently forfeiting the purchase amount on the pretext of those T&C. The District Commission reinforced the importance of serving T&C to the customers, asserting that if not served, an entity cannot claim the benefits of having such T&C on paper.
Case Title: Narinder Kumar vs Apple India Private Ltd and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) held Amazon and M/s Arhum IT, a listed mobile phone reseller liable for unfair trade practices for delivering a differently coloured iPhone and charging for it at par with a new iPhone, even when it was a refurbished and second-hand iPhone.
Case Title: X vs Dr Deepak Kalia and Anr. (Patient name redated)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held a doctor operating a cosmetic clinic in Chandigarh liable for conducting an unsuccessful enhancement surgery on the Complainant, which led to the development of lymph on his chest. The District Commission held that there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor as the surgery didn't show the desired results for which the Complainant spent a substantial amount of money.
Case Title: Baby C.C. vs M/s Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Vision Motors Pvt. Ltd. for denying the benefits of a valid Extended Warranty Scheme held by the Complainant whose car broke down due to bearing issues, within the warranty period. The District Commission held that the Seller's conscious failure to file a written version despite having received the appearance notice, amounted to an admission of the allegations levelled against it.
Case Title: Monika Rani vs Indian Railways
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Tripti Pannu (Member) and Vijender Singh (Member) held the Station Superintendent of Rohtak Railway Station liable for negligence and inadequate security and safety of passengers' belongings. It directed the railway authority to pay a compensation of Rs 2,50,000 to a Complainant whose language was stolen during the train journey.
Case Title: Dr. Sunil Kumar Rath vs The Manager, Vishal Mega Mart
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Debasish Nayak (President) and Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Vishal Mega Mart liable for selling expired products in its store. The store was directed to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to the Complainant and deposit Rs 5,00,000 to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Case Title: S.K. Garg vs Emirates Airlines and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana (Punjab) bench comprising Sanjeev Batra (President) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Emirates Airlines liable for missing check-in luggage of the Complainant. Further, it directed the Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited to reimburse the Complainant's claim for the missing luggage within 30 days and directed the Complainant to deposit the documents to the Insurance Company within 15 days. The District Commission directed Emirates Airline to pay a compensation of Rs 25,000 to the Complainant.
Case Title: Nitesh Garwal vs Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South West Delhi bench comprising of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), RC Yadav (Member) and Dr Harshali Kaur (Member) held McDonalds liable of deficiency in service for sending a different meal altogether, priced lower than what the Complainant had paid for. It was directed to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000 to the Complainant.
Case Title: Ansamma Varghese vs Karithas Hospital and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala) bench comprising V.S. Manulal (President), S Bindu (Member) and KM Anto (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against Karithas Hospital noting that breakage of the chemo port is considered a medically reported and accepted complication in chemotherapy treatment. Further, the District Commission held that since there was conflicting medical literature as to when the drainage tube affixed to the breast should be detached, it rejected the contention made by the Complainant that the doctor detached the tube prematurely causing infection to her breast.
Case Title: Prakashan A.V. vs Reeco Energy India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (Kerala) bench comprising of V.S. Manulal (President), S. Bindhu (Member) and K.M. Anto (Member) held Reeco Energy India Pvt Ltd liable for deficiency in service for failing to install a solar power generating system even after seven months of receiving advance payment. The District Commission directed it to install the solar system within a specific timeframe and pay a compensation of Rs. 21,000/- to the Complainant.
Case Title: Subha B vs The Proprietor, STV Medical and Surgicals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala) bench comprising P.V. Jayarajan (President), Preetha G Nair (Member) and Viju VR (Member) held STV Medical and Surgical Medical College (Trivandrum) liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for selling a medicine different from the medicine prescribed by the doctor. The District Commission directed it to pay a compensation of Rs 1,05,000 to the Complainant.
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Lenovo (India) Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala comprising of D.B. Banu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) decided the Opposite Party was deficient and engaged in unfair trade practices. This decision was based on the Opposite Party's failure to provide a response and the conclusions reached by the expert commission.
Case Title: Vikrant Goyal vs Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Urban Clap Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for negligently delivering its service to the Complainant. It was directed to pay Rs 11,500 to the Complainant.
Case Title: Pancy Singh Soni vs Barista Coffee Company Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising of BM Sharma (Member) held Barista Coffee Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for charging an extra Rs 5 for a paper cup. The bench directed the café to pay a compensation of Rs 1,000 to the Complainant and deposit Rs 10,000 in Poor Patient Fund/Account of P.G.I., Chandigarh (Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research), Chandigarh.
Case Title: Parul vs Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Ms Surjeet Kaur (Presiding Member) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held Titan Company Limited and Myntra Designs Private Limited liable for unfair trade practices for rejecting the return request of the Complainant, within assigning any reason for the same. The District Commission ordered them to collectively pay Rs. 7,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and refund the purchase amount of the product bought.
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Lenovo (India) Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Selvan T.K. Vs. Lenovo (India) Pvt Ltd. & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala comprising of D.B. Banu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) decided the Opposite Party was deficient and engaged in unfair trade practices. This decision was based on the Opposite Party's failure to provide a response and the conclusions reached by the expert commission.
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Bismi Appliances, Carrier, Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: V. P. Asokan Vs. Bismi Appliances & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprises D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia. T.N. (Member) held Bismi Appliances liable for deficiency in service, stating that dealers cannot escape liability for defects in the products they sell.
Case Title: Roshna K V Vs. Sayid Bakir
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Kerala headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Aives Immigration, an immigration assistance agency, liable for deficiency in service over allegations of false assurances, misleading guidance, and financial and emotional harm made to the complainants.
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Malaysia Airlines Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Cyril K James Vs. Malaysia Airlines and Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Malaysia Airlines liable for unfair trade practices by refusing to provide a refund for the canceled trip due to COVID-19.
Ernakulam District Commission Holds M/S Flipkart Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Sreekumar Vs. M/s Flipkart & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the opposite party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices due to discrepancies between the product advertisement and its actual characteristics, resulting in losses for the complainant.
Ernakulam District Commission Holds Royal Enfield Motors Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Thomas N.V Vs. Royal Enfield Motors Ltd.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the party liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with manufacturing defects to the Complainant.
Case Title: Sruthy Narayanan Vs. Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held an insurance company liable for deficiency in service over refusing payment of hospital expenses incurred by the complainant holding insurance benefits.
Case Title: Shihab Vs. HMD Mobile Pvt Ltd.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala, headed by D.B. Binu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held the mobile phone's seller and manufacturer responsible for service deficiencies and unfair trade practices. due to their inability to meet obligations and deliver adequate service.
Case Title: Captain K.K. Nair & Anr. v. M/S Holyfaith Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam on Monday ordered the construction company, M/S Holyfaith Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., to pay compensation to a Naval Captain who lost his housing following the demolition of Holyfaith H2O apartments in Maradu, in pursuance of the Apex Court decision. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. has directed the company to pay an amount of Rs. 23,12,000/- to the complainant, apart from the compensation ordered by the Supreme Court at the time of demolition.
Case Title: Sunandha v. Proprietor, Inner Shoppe
In a significant decision, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Thrissur invoked Section 14(1) (hb) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 to direct an inner wear garment shop to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the Legal Benefit Fund (LBF) maintained at Registry of the Commission, towards reparation for the loss and injury inflicted on a large number of consumers who are not conveniently identifiable.
Case Title: Shajin P.V. vs Vodafone Idea Ltd
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mrs. Ravi Susha with Mrs. Moly Kutty Mathew and Mr. Sajeesh K.P as members, has allowed a consumer complaint against Vodafone Idea Ltd. The dispute was regarding a prepaid recharge made by a consumer. The consumer had purchased a recharge plan for Rs. 479/-, with the expectation of receiving 2GB of data daily for 56 days, based on a promotional offer. However, the actual data provided was only 1.5GB per day, falling short of the promised amount. Despite the consumer's efforts to resolve the issue, Vodafone did not take any action.
Panipat Commission Holds Axis Bank Liable For Delaying Release Of Fixed Deposit After Maturity Date
Case Title: M/s Siddharth Wollen Mills vs Axis Bank
The Panipat District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Dr. RK Dogra (President) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member) held Axis Bank liable of deficiency of service for not releasing the Fixed Deposit of Rs 1.4 Lacs to the complainant, even after the maturity date.
Case Title: Nek Ram Pal vs. Pramerica Life Insurance Ltd. and 2 others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member), and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member), dismissed a consumer complaint on account of it involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and cheating. The District Commission held that a consumer commission is unsuited for such matters as they cannot be resolved summarily. The complainant was advised to pursue the matter in a competent civil court instead.
Case Title: Saurabh Sinha vs Chairman, Railway Board and other
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Railway Board and Northern Railway liable for deficiency in service due to which the complainant could not seek a refund for an un-confirmed train ticket.
Case Title: Anil Kumar vs The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Mr Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company liable for repudiating a genuine insurance claim made by the owner of the missing truck. While holding that a claim cannot be repudiated on the ground of delay, the District Commission ordered Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company to disburse the insurance amount of Rs. 11,000,00, pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Bharat Kalta vs Amazon India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) held Amazon India liable for failure to deliver a 6-seater dining set worth Rs. 17,108/-. Amazon not only failed to deliver the dining set but also failed to process the refund. Along with ordering Amazon to refund the sale amount, the District Commission ordered it to give Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs to the complainant.
Case Title: Surender Hohan Khanna vs Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital and Ayurveda Research Institute and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi comprising Ms. Monika A Srivastava (President), Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member) and Sh. U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Mool Chand Khairatiram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research Institute liable for failure to disclose the amount approved by the third-party health insurance administrator. The District Commission also ordered New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to pay Rs. 24,329 to the complainant, which represented the difference between the initial approval and the actual claim amount.
Case Title: K.R. Prasad v. M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation to a policy holder whose claim under the 'Corona Rakshak Policy' was rejected by M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance on the ground that the policy holder had not provided treatment records for bronchial asthma.
Case Title: Sri C. Achuth vs The Secretary Chief Executive Office State Government and others
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held the Secretary of State Government SC/ST/Backward & Minority Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the residential site even after 9 years of the payment to the complainant.
Case Title: Adwait Haldar vs. M/S Magma HDI Gen Insurance Co. Ltd.
The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar allowed a consumer complaint against an insurance company. The consumer's claim was based on the allegation that his E-Rickshaw was stolen, and his insurance claim was wrongly rejected by the insurance company (Opposite Party). According to the complainant, he had a valid insurance policy and the theft occurred under distressing circumstances, where he was left unconscious by thieves after being intoxicated. He faced delays in reporting the incident to the insurance company and in filing a police report due to circumstances beyond his control.
Case Title: Maddikunta Kistaiah vs Akhil Jonnadula, Aj Photography
The Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench presided by Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (President) along with Sri. Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member) partly allowed a consumer complaint against a photographer for failing to deliver photographs and videos from a grandchild's first birthday celebration. For this the complainant paid Rs. 57,000/- to the photographer. This led to significant distress for the complainant, who lost out on the treasured memories of the special event due to the non-delivery of the promised album and videos.
Case Title: Hira Lal vs Tata Motors Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Shri Purender Vaidya (President), Shri Yashwant Singh (Member) and Ms. Manchali (Member), found Tata Motors Limited and its authorized dealer responsible for failing to provide the car with the advertised mileage. They were held accountable for engaging in unfair trade practices and were directed to refund the car's purchase price, compensate the complainant, and cover the legal costs.
Case Title: K. Venkatasubbaiah vs Manager, State Bank of India
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K. (President), Sri Chandrashekar S. Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held SBI liable for an unauthorized fraudulent transaction from the complainant's bank account. The District Commission cited a circular issued by the RBI which exempts customers from liability for unauthorized electronic banking transactions.
Case Title: Mr. Ganji Kailash Chander vs. MakeMyTrip & Ors.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench presided by Sri. M. Ram Gopal Reddy along with Smt. J. Shyamala (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in Service for failing to refund a significant amount to a complainant. The complainant booked four flight tickets through MakeMyTrip for a trip to the USA, but due to COVID-19, the flights got canceled. Despite numerous requests, MakeMyTrip delayed refunding the amount to the complainant's wallet, which remained unresolved from 2020 onwards. The Commission found that this delay in refunding the amount to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. As a result, the Commission directed MakeMyTrip to refund the entire amount along with interest, compensation, and legal costs.
Case Title: Mr. Ganji Kailash Chander vs. MakeMyTrip & Ors.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench presided by Sri. M. Ram Gopal Reddy along with Smt. J. Shyamala (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in Service for failing to refund a significant amount to a complainant. The complainant booked four flight tickets through MakeMyTrip for a trip to the USA, but due to COVID-19, the flights got canceled. Despite numerous requests, MakeMyTrip delayed refunding the amount to the complainant's wallet, which remained unresolved from 2020 onwards. The Commission found that this delay in refunding the amount to the complainant amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. As a result, the Commission directed MakeMyTrip to refund the entire amount along with interest, compensation, and legal costs.
Case Title: Lakshmy T Iyengar vs Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited and others
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Sri B. Devaraju (Member) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member), found Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited responsible for persistently requesting premium payments from the Complainant, even though the insurance company itself had made errors by entering the incorrect account number on multiple occasions.
Case Title: Anitha Raj and Anr. vs Bharathi Airtel Ltd and Anr.
The III Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore Urban (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President) and Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) held Bharathi Airtel Limited liable for excessively charging two of their customers who bought an international roaming pack. The District Commission held that there was a lack of clarity regarding the charges and further, Airtel did not follow TRAI guidelines which required the operator to inform customers through SMS/USSD messages upon reaching 70% of the credit limit, among other things.
Case Title: Uppala Rajeev Babu vs Paytm Hyderabad & Ors.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has allowed a consumer complaint against Paytm and Dominos directing them to compensate the complainant jointly. The complaint was regarding a Domino's gift card that the complainant purchased through Paytm but faced difficulty redeeming it for a food purchase. Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, no effective solution was provided. The bench comprising of Sri Vakkanti Narsimha Rao (President) along with Sri P.V.T.R. Jawahar Babu (Member) and Smt. D. Sridevi (Member) found that despite notices and legal action taken, both companies failed to respond or rectify the problem, indicating negligence and a deficiency in service. As a result, the Commission held the companies liable, directing them to reimburse the cost of the gift card and pay compensation for the inconvenience caused.
Case Title: Rubi Rani and others and HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President), Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating the claim made by the wife, as the nominee, of her deceased husband, who died in a road accident. The bench rejected the Insurance Company's contention regarding the influence of alcohol on the husband during the accident while terming it 'irrelevant' to the factual scenario.
Case Title: Rabinder Kumar vs Harman International and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Shri Narayan Thakur (Member) held Consulting Rooms Private Limited (Online Seller) and Harman International Private Limited (Manufacturer) liable for selling a defective JBL Bluetooth Soundbar and Subwoofer. The District Commission ordered them to jointly and severally refund Rs. 8,999/- purchase amount, pay Rs. 4,000/- compensation and pay litigation costs amounting to Rs. 5,000/-.
Case Title: Harjit Singh vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Toyota Kirloskar Motor and its authorized dealer, EM Pee Motors Limited, liable of deficiency in service for selling a car which with noise and excessive oil consumption issues. The manufacturer and the dealer were ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant for the harassment he faced with the newly bought car.
Case: Gurbax Rai vs Daikin Air and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Daikin Air-Conditioning India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer, Akshoka Enterprises, Mohali, liable for selling a defective AC unit with inadequate cooling issues and for their subsequent failure to replace it even during the warranty period. They were directed to refund the billed amount, pay Rs. 7,000/- compensation and Rs. 7,000/- litigation costs.
Case Title: Ramesh Kumar vs HDFC Bank Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat, Haryana bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held HDFC Bank Limited and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for their failure to provide compensation to a farmer who had suffered losses in his insured crops. Along with disbursing the insurance amount, HDFC Bank and the insurance company were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the farmer.
Case: Dr Surya Prakash vs Flipkart Pvt. Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench, comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member), and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member), held that complaints involving allegations of fraud, forgery, etc., cannot be entertained by Consumer Commissions and fall within the jurisdiction of a civil court. Thus, it dismissed the complaint filed by a consumer alleging fraud on the part of Flipkart, Sony India, and an online seller.
Case Title: Shruti Garg vs Fire Boltt and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Fire Boltt and its Distributor, Savex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. liable for their failure to replace defective headphones, well within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to jointly replace the headphones, and pay Rs. 1,000/- compensation and Rs. 1,000 legal costs.
Case Title: Manish Bagi vs The Infinity Retail Limited Tading as Croma and others.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri Sanjeev Kulkarni (President) and Sri Girish S. Patil (Member) held Xiaomi India's M.I. Customer Head Office and Grievance Officer along with the dealer, Infinity Retail Limited liable for selling a defective T.V. to the Complainant. The Complainant's grievances remained unaddressed after several attempts and the manufacturer and the dealer failed to even respond to his legal notice, which constituted a deficiency in service.
Case Title: Shaik Abdul Khader vs. Hyderabad Metro Rail
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II bench presided by Sri. Vakkanti Narsimha Rao along with Sri. P.V.T.R. Jawahar Babu (Member) and Smt. D. Sridevi (Member) recently allowed a consumer complaint against Hyderabad Metro Rail for incorrect direction signs at Malakpet Metro Station. The complaint alleged that these signs led the commuter (Complainant) in the wrong direction, causing inconvenience and a safety risk. Despite admitting fault, the metro authority didn't rectify the signs promptly. As a result, the Commission held Hyderabad Metro Rail liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, directing them to change the signs and pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation for inconvenience, along with Rs. 1000/- as legal costs.
Case Title: Prabhaker Rao Athri Pathri vs. EZEESHOP18
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Mrs. B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) allowed a consumer complaint against EZEESHOP18 for delivering reading glasses that did not match their advertised description. Despite promises of intelligent, photochromic, and multifocal lenses, the glasses turned out to be of standard quality. Consequently, the Commission found that the seller was liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, directing them to refund the purchase amount of Rs. 1,199/- and pay an additional Rs. 2,000/- as compensation, along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs.
Case Title: Abhishek vs Harpreet Kaur
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench led by Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) held a coaching teacher liable for failure to provide adequate coaching services, as promised, to a student preparing for the IELTS examination. The teacher was ordered to refund the fee paid by the student for availing the service.
Case: Surjit Singh vs Punjab Gramin Bank and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (Punjab) bench comprising Lalit Mohan Dogra (President) and Bhagwan Singh Matharu (Member) held Punjab Gramin Bank and Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The Bank and the Insurance Company failed to process the cheque for Rs. 46,645 in favour of the Complainant, which was due post the maturing of the insurance policy, as per the agreement.
Case Title: Shri Jagan Nath vs BHIM APP
The Kullu (Himachal Pradesh) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sh. Purender Vaidya as president and Ms. Pooja Gupta as member, allowed a consumer complaint against BHIM APP. The issue was related to a failed transaction of ₹20,000/- from the complainant's State Bank of India (SBI) account to Punjab National Bank (PNB) through BHIM APP. The commission observed that while the initial transfer failed due to technical issues with PNB's system, a subsequent attempt showed that the amount was deducted from consumer's SBI account but not credited to the PNB account. They concluded that BHIM APP (Opposite party No.1), responsible for the transaction, was liable for not ensuring the completion of the transaction. As a result, the commission held BHIM APP (Opposite Party No.1) liable for deficiency in service. BHIM App was directed to refund ₹20,000/- with 6% interest from the date of complaint, along with compensation of ₹5,000/- for mental distress and ₹3,000/- litigation expenses.
Case Title: Sameer Varma vs Kia Motors India and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Monika A Srivastava (President), Ms Kiran Kaushal (Member) and Shri U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Kia Motors India and its authorized dealer, Frontier Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for their failure to resolve the car's rusting problem and discolouration. The bench rejected the contention that the discolouration was due to rising pollution levels and other external factors. It held Kia Motors and its dealer responsible for its maintenance, in the warranty period.
Case Title: Neelam Sharma and Anr. vs IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and S. K. Sardana (Member) noted that the deceased driver of the insured car should be considered as effectively stepping into the shoes of the owner while operating the vehicle, therefore, is entitled to Personal Accident Cover benefit under the insurance policy.
Case Title: Shri Dhaval Lalit Ajmera vs. Renaissance Mumbai Convention Centre Hotel & Lakeside Chalet, Marriott Group
The Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Suburban Additional, presided by Mr. Ravindra P. Nagre along with Mr. S.V. Kalal as member, partly allowed a consumer complaint against Renaissance Mumbai Convention Centre Hotel & Lakeside Chalet for shifting a room reservation on the day of check-in without informing the complainant, causing mental agony and trauma to him and his family. Consequently, the Commission held the hotel liable for a deficiency in their services and unfair trade practices, ordering a compensation of Rs.25,000/- along with costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
Case Title: Sri. Joseph Fernandez vs. Fortune99 Homes
The Hyderabad District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, led by Mrs. B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), along with Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr. B. Raja Reddy (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Fortune99 Homes for failing to deliver the possession of the purchased plots as agreed upon. The complainant paid 75% of the total amount for two plots in NCS Fortune Medi City. Despite this, the company didn't secure necessary approvals or register the plots. While acknowledging the company's failure to deliver possession as per the agreement, the Commission held Fortune99 Homes liable for deficient services, directing them to refund the entire paid amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- with 9% interest along with Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 25,000/- towards costs.
Case Title: Gurtej Singh vs. Hotel International
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora along with Smt. Suman Khanna as member, held Hotel International (Opposite Party) liable for deficient services as they charged extra GST on bottled drinks above their printed price, causing inconvenience to the customer. The commission partially allowed the consumer complaint and directed the hotel to refund the excess GST of Rs.3.25/- along with interest and pay Rs.3000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses to the complainant.
Case Title: Armaan Bakshi vs. Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
The Gurdaspur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra along with Sh. Bhagwan Singh Matharu as member, allowed a consumer complaint against Flipkart India holding them liable for deficiency in services for delivering an empty package. The consumer ordered a backpack but received an empty package, missing the purchased item and essential documents. Despite multiple refund requests, Flipkart failed to provide a refund. Even though Flipkart claimed to be an intermediary platform, the commission held them accountable for receiving payment and thus responsible for the product's delivery. As a result, they ordered Flipkart to refund Rs.3,149/- along with 9% interest, compensate Rs.1,000/- for mental distress, and cover litigation costs.
Nike Shoe Sole Puncture, Shimla Consumer Commission Orders Refund And Compensation
Case Title: Nek Ram Shyam vs. Nike Showroom
The Shimla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising of Dr. Baldev Singh as president and Mr. Jagdev Singh Raitka as member allowed a complaint against a Nike Showroom. The contention was that the shoes purchased from the showroom had a manufacturing defect causing the sole to puncture within three months, falling within the warranty period. Despite the consumer's efforts to address the issue and claim the warranty, the showroom refused to offer any assistance. The Commission allowed the complaint, holding the Nike showroom (Opposite Party) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the Commission directed the showroom to refund the purchase amount of Rs.17,595/- to the complainant. Additionally, they were ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. Further, if necessary, the showroom had to collect the faulty product at its own expense.
Case Title: KVS Appa Rao and Anr. vs General Manager, South Central Railway
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Sri Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President) and Smt. D. Sreedevi (Member) held South Central Railway liable for negligence which resulted in great inconvenience (suffocation) to the passengers of AC 3 compartment in the Garib Rath train (12739) going from Vishakhapatnam to Secunderabad. The railway authority was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and pay Rs. 5,000 legal costs.
Selling A Book Above MRP, Hyderabad Commission Holds Amazon And Its Seller Liable
Case Title: Kethavath Naresh vs Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs C. Lakhsmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Raja Reddy (Member) held Amazon and its seller, Saraswati Book House liable for selling a book over the price of its MRP. The District Commission emphasized the liability of intermediary platforms to ensure that their sellers adhere to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020.
Case Title: Suman Nandi vs. Prem Gurung
The Alipurduar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in West Bengal allowed a consumer complaint filed by a customer who faced problems with a “tour operator”. The complainant paid Rs. 4,000/- for a car service but did not receive it on reaching the destination. Despite attempts to contact the operator, there was no response, so the complainant had to hire another vehicle for Rs. 35,000/-. The District Commission, presided by Shri Santanu Misra along with Mr. Rajib Das and Mrs. Smt. Giti Basak Agarwala, found the tour operator responsible for deficiency in their services and directed them to refund Rs. 1,500/-, along with an extra payment of Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for the distress caused.
Case Title: Somashekara Reddy K V vs The Manager Hypermarket India Pvt. Ltd.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Sparmax Hypermarket Store, Yelaharika, Bangalore liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The Store prohibited the concerned customer from bringing his carry bag, charged Rs. 22 for its carry bag and failed to waive off parking fee even though the customer was eligible for the offer.
Case Title: Siriki Sai Sumanth vs Alliance Air Aviation Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising Mrs B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Mr B. Rajareddy (Member) held MakeMyTrip and Alliance Air Aviation liable for deficiency in service for their failure to inform the Complainant regarding flight change schedule on time. Further, Alliance Air failed to provide the web check-in link to the Complainant. Both MakeMyTrip and Alliance Air were ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,500/- each.
Case Title: Vishnu S. S. vs Flipkart
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Sri B. Narayanappa (President), Smt. Jyothi N (Member) and Smt. Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held Flipkart liable for cancelling the Complainant's order two times due to unforeseen circumstances and for failing to refund the deducted amount. Flipkart was directed to refund the purchase price of the product, pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Sri Ashok Das vs. Senior Vice President, Amazon.In, Amazon India
The Cooch Behar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mrs. Rumpa Mandal along with Mr. Subhas Chandra Guin as member allowed a consumer complaint against Amazon India. The dispute was regarding a purchase made through Amazon for 30 items of Daffodils Mosquito Bug Bird Net Transparent White Barriers by the complainants. Despite payment of Rs. 17,970/- in advance, only one item was delivered, prompting cancellation and return of the order. Upon cancellation and return of the order following the prescribed procedure, the complainants did not receive the refund of the prepaid amount.
Case Title: Sandeep Sharma vs BSES
The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed a consumer complaint against BSES (Electricity Provider) regarding an unauthorized disconnection of electricity from two meters at a Delhi residence. The complainant, residing at premises with both commercial and domestic meters faced a power cut after receiving bills not in his name. BSES disconnected the electricity without allowing the complainant to address the outstanding bills first. The Consumer Commission presided by Mr. Sukhvir Singh Malhotra along with Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Bansal as members, recognized the complainant as a consumer for the domestic meter but not for the commercial one. They directed the restoration of electricity for the domestic meter and granted Rs. 5000/- compensation for service deficiency, while dismissing relief for the commercial meter.
Case: Dinesh Kumar Tak vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench, headed by Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member), addressed a complaint related to an accident where the automatic airbags of Maruti Suzuki Brezza failed to deploy. The bench acknowledged the significance of collision details, such as force and side-impact, in determining whether the airbags should have been activated. Consequently, the Consumer Commission was deemed unsuitable for cases requiring in-depth evidence, and the complainant was granted the option to pursue the matter in a civil court.
