Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: April 2024
Apoorva Pandita
5 May 2024 3:00 AM GMT
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Non-Standard Basis Of Settling Insurance Claims Apply To Both Private And Public Insurance Companies, NCDRC Holds Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Liable The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) held that the guidelines to settle an insurance...
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) held that the guidelines to settle an insurance claim on a non-standard basis apply to both private and public insurance companies. If the claim involves the overloading of a tanker, although below 75% of the permissible limit, the claim would be proportionately reduced to the degree of overloading.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, held that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the National Commission is restricted to specific circumstances, such as when the State Commission has acted beyond its legal authority and has failed to exercise its rightful jurisdiction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that reliance on force majeure while retaining the buyer's deposits constitutes a deficiency of service and also amounts to unfair trade practice.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya, held that a buyer cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flat that they have paid for.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Monika Bansal & Ors. v/s Total Environment Building Systems Pvt. Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has re-emphasized that buyers should not be subjected to indefinite delay for possession of their property. The bench presided over by Mr. Ram Surat Ram Maurya alongside Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as member while partly allowing a consumer complaint, observed that an unreasonable delay by a builder in offering possession of flats amounted to a deficiency of service on their part.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Timeless Jewels
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Sadhna Shanker (Member) held that insurance companies cannot appoint surveyors indiscriminately solely to get a favourable report. The appointment of multiple surveyors without any reasonable cause was held to violate the IRDA Regulation No. 64.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Shalini Srivastava vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and Dr Sandhya Shanker (Member) held that if the insured fails to disclose all material facts in the proposal form, the claim is liable to be repudiated irrespective of whether the cause of death was related to the non-disclosed facts or not.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) held United India Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid insurance claim of a stolen tractor based on a delayed intimation of 10 days. The NCDRC held that delay in intimation of claim was no longer an issue in insurance disputes.
Telangana High Court
Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Private Ltd. vs Union of India
The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti dismissed a writ petition filed by PepsiCo to claim an exemption under certain packaging requirements mandated by Rule 6(1)(a) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
Case Title: Buchi Ramarao Valury vs Covai Property Centre (India) Private Limited and Ors.
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench comprising Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Anil Agrawal (Member), Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Deepak Anurag (Member) closed an information filed against Covai Property Centre, its subsidiary and Ozone Urbana Infra Developers for allegations concerning abuse of dominance and anti-competitive agreements under Section 4 and 3 of the Competition Act, 2002 respectively.
Competition Commission of India (CCI)
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) bench comprising Ms Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr Anil Agrawal (Member) and Mr Deepak Anurag (Member) dismissed information filed against the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL), for issuing a circular directing accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) operating under proprietorship to transition to specific legal entities by a set deadline. The CCI held that the circular was not anti-competitive as the transition to legal entities separate from their owners was necessary for accountability and compliance purposes.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mrs Padma Pandey (Presiding Member) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held that at the stage of provisional admission, there is lack of a binding contract between the student and the school. Therefore, the student cannot be refused the refund of the provisional fee on leaving the school before a regular admission is finalized.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh
U.P. State Commission Holds LIC Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Based On Insufficient Evidence
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh bench comprising Mr Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs Sudha Upadhyay (Member) held LIC liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim. The State Commission held that LIC failed to prove that the deceased was not involved in an accident. Further, repudiation based on the nominee's status as a 'wife' was held to be irrelevant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Mr Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) set aside a repudiation of an insurance claim by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The State Commission held that genuine claims must not be repudiated solely based on a delay. The delay was caused due to the imprisonment of the Claimant for 4.5 years, which the State Commission found to be justified.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh bench comprising Justice Gautam Chourdiya (President) and Pramod Kumar Varma (Member) held Oriental Insurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of an accidental claim based on overloading of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The State Commission held that the gross vehicle weight was revised and approved by the transport department. It was further endorsed and revised in the policy document. Therefore, the repudiation was invalid.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala bench comprising Sri Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and Sri Radhakrishnan K.R. (Member) held BSNL and Mokeri Telephone Exchange liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide adequate internet/telecom services. The State Commission held that merely providing an undertaking that for a rebate in rent during the faulty period does not absolve BSNL and Mokeri.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Sh. Manoj Kumar Pant vs General Manager/Regional Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Limited
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) held Birla Sun Life Insurance Company liable for repudiating a valid claim based on an unreasonable policy clause excluding coverage for injuries sustained within 90 days from the issuance of the policy. It was directed to reimburse the claim amount of Rs. 6,23,896/- with interest and pay Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs to the Complainant.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka
Case Title: Chandrakumar and Anr. vs Chandrakanth Kembhavi
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka bench comprising Justice Huluvadi G Ramesh (President), Mr K.B. Sangannanavar (Judicial Member) and Mrs M. Divyashree (Member) remanded a matter back to the Mysuru District Commission as several discrepancies were noted in the Complainant's statement, engineer's report, and receipt of payment. The State Commission held that the issue could have been clarified if the District Commission had appointed its commissioner to inspect the construction site on the costs payable by the Complainant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Anita Gupta Vs. Hdfc Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, held HDFC Insurance liable for deficiency in service over the rejection of a health insurance claim solely on the presence of non-communication of pre-existing conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Praveen Chauhan Vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that if possession is not delivered within 42 months or beyond 48 months, it constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of the builder.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.Vs. Ms. Suman Rana & Anr.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held that even in cases where the insured violates their insurance policy terms, the insurance claim can resolved, though with modified conditions.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Burden Of Proving Medical Negligence Lies With The Claimant: Delhi State Commission
Case Title: Col. Jeetendra Gulati Vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside members Ms. Pinaki and Mr. J.P. Agrawal, dismissed a complaint against Max Super Speciality Hospital and held that mere claims lacking supporting evidence cannot be regarded as valid proof and burden of proof to prove a medical negligence lies with the claimant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai (Maharashtra) bench comprising Shri. P.G. Kadu (Incharge President), Smt. S.A. Petkar (Member) and Smt. G.M. Kapse (Member) held VLCC Health Care Ltd. liable for negligently carrying out laser hair reduction treatment on the Complainant, which led to a severe burn on her entire chin. It was directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohit Nigam vs Air India Ltd. and Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President), Shri. Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Shri. Sameer Kamble (Member) held Indian Airlines liable for negligence and deficiency in service for failure to conduct mandatory pre-flight checks which led to a delay of 24 hours. Indian Airlines merged with Air India in the year 2007.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held PNB MetLife India Insurance Company Ltd liable of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for misrepresenting the Complainant that the term of the policies was five years and misspelling the name of the nominee. The bench directed the insurance company to refund the premiums of Rs. 2,59,997/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra (Himachal Pradesh)
Kangra District Commission Holds Puma India And Its Showroom Liable For Selling Deformed Shoes
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kangra (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood (Member) and Narayan Thakur (Member) held Puma India and its showroom liable for deficiency in services for selling deformed shoes to the Complainant. The bench directed Puma and its showroom to refund Rs. 6,299/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to supply CCTV footage of ATM to the Complainant of a failed ATM transaction of Rs. 10,000/-. The bench directed the Union Bank of India and Punjab National Bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the mental agony and harassment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr. Suman Singh (Member) held Lemon & Tree Holidays Resorts liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The Company failed to provide services even after charging Rs. 1,20,000/- for the Holiday Package Membership from the Complainant. The bench directed the company to refund Rs. 1,20,000/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President). Ms Mamta Kaura (Member) and Mr Narayan Thakur (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in services for wrongfully repudiating an accidental claim based on lack of intimation and unauthorized usage of the vehicles during the accident.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) dismissed a complaint against LIC noting that the insured carries a responsibility of accurately providing details in the proposal form. The bench held that the insured didn't disclose the pre-existing health conditions in the proposal form and that LIC rightly repudiated the claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
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 Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in services for failure to conduct a proper inquiry into the unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 80,000/- from the Complainant and reverse the whole amount. The bench directed PNB to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000 to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- for attempting to misguide the commission.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Mohammed Ibrahim (President) and Prakash Chandra Tripathi (Member) held United Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services repudiating a genuine claim. The repudiation was based solely on late reporting of the claim because of personal challenges.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Case Title: Brahma Nand vs Muthoot Finance Ltd. and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R.K. Dogra (President) and Dr Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held Muthoot Finance Limited and Liberty General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for failure to reimburse the insurance claim even after receiving the requisite documents. Muthoot Finance, being the Complainant's employer, was also held liable for the repudiation because it acted on behalf of the insurance company to facilitate the policy to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran. V (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held Flipkart liable for failure to disclose seller information, as mandated under Rule 5(3)(a) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020. The District Commission observed that such non-disclosure undermines transparency and hinders consumers' ability to make informed decisions or seek redressal.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising D.B Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran. V (Member) and Mrs Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held Maruti Suzuki and its dealer liable for failure to fulfil the promised repair within a reasonable timeframe, coupled with additional damages to the car post-service. They were directed to pay Rs. 1.5 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a medical claim based on fictitious and unclear grounds. The Insurance Company alleged fraud on the part of the insured, however, failed to verify the authenticity of his medical documents before making a decision.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Urban Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Amazon liable for failure to initiate a refund after the wrongly delivered Samsung T.V. was returned to the Seller. It was directed to initiate the refund, and pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- for litigation costs to the Complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Nagender Singh Kadian (President), Dr. Tripti Pannu (Member) and Sh. Vijender Singh (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim for a car involved in an accident. The Insurance Company failed to provide adequate evidence to prove that the repudiation was justified based on the Complainant's irresponsive behaviour, a pre-settlement, and overvaluation of the damages.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr Baldev Singh (President) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) dismissed a complaint against Samsung, its store, and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. (the financer). The Complainant who alleged manufacturing defects with the purchased Samsung TV failed to substantiate her claim of deficiencies on the part of Samsung, the store, or the Financer. Further, the main problem with the screen was duly attended by the Financer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solan (Himachal Pradesh)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Solan (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising D.R. Thakur (President), Vijay Lamba (Member) and Neelam Gupta (Member) dismissed a consumer complaint against PNB Metlife LIC Ltd. The bench observed that the insurance company received the premium. However, the acceptance of the insurance policy was not conveyed to the insured. Therefore, the contract for insurance between the company and the deceased wasn't finalized.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench consisting of Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), dismissed a complaint against Northern Railways regarding stolen belongings. The Commission held that the responsibility for the safety of goods during a train journey lies with the passengers, unless negligence on the part of Railways is proven.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-IV, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Ramachandra M.S. (President) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held Redbus is liable for deficiency in services for failure to notify the Complainant about a bus departing earlier than scheduled from the bus stop. The bench directed Redbus to refund the booking amount of Rs. 1,023.5/- and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Redus was also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi
Case Title: Hari Mohan vs Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), found Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. accountable for wrongfully rejecting a valid medical claim. The Commission noted that while the Insurance Company approved one claim, it rejected another similar claim, raising doubts about consistent adherence to the policy terms.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Gupta vs DCB Bank Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr Harshali Kaur (Member) held DCB Bank liable for charging foreclosure fee from an individual borrower, as against the terms of the loan and RBI guidelines. The District Commission observed that the Bank wrongfully classified an individual loan as a business loan to levy foreclosure charges.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jolly PF Vs. Badriya Exclusive Furniture
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by D.B. Banu as President, alongside members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia. T.N. held Badriya Exclusive Furniture liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Commission elucidated on the lack of an effective customer grievance redressal system in such exhibitions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana)
Rewari District Commission Holds Toll Plaza Liable For Double Charging Within 24 Hours
Case Title: Ram Kishan Saini vs Kathuwas Toll Plaza and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rewari (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Shri Rajender Parshad (Member) held Kathuwas Toll Plaza liable for charging twice for a return journey within 24 hours. The double charging comprised a violation of the toll rules which provide that the toll plaza is entitled to only half of the toll amount for a return journey within 24 hours.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Asha Devi and Others vs Future Generally India Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chamba (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President) and Ms Mamta Kaura (Member) held Future Generally Insurance India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for repudiating a valid accidental claim by relying on an apprehensive blood sample report which had discrepancies regarding handling and testing.
Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka)
Case Title: Srinivs. P. Alias vs Croma Kalyan Nagar
The Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru (Karnataka) bench comprising Shivarama K (President), Chadrashekar S. Noola and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held Croma and LG liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair and replace the refrigerator purchased by the Complainant which had regular issues such as food spoilage, foul odour, and black fungus formation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana)
Case Title: Sonu vs RBL Bank Ltd and anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panipat (Haryana) bench comprising Dr R. K. Dogra (President) and Dr Rekha Chaudhary (Member) held RBL Bank Ltd. liable for deficiency in services for failure to honour the agreement made with the Complainant to return the tractor upon the payment of outstanding instalments by him. The bench directed the bank to release the tractor and directed the Complainant to pay any outstanding amount to the bank. The bank was also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and SK Sardana (Member) held TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in services for wrongful repudiation of a genuine medical claim. It held that symptoms such as cough, fever, and diabetes are typical ailments of modern life and cannot be classified as pre-existing diseases. The bench directed the insurance company to pay the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh dismissed a complaint against State Bank of India (SBI) Cards and Payment Services on the allegation of failure to reverse an unauthorized OTP-based credit card transaction. The District Commission perused the RBI Guidelines and held that a customer shall bear the entire loss resulting from unauthorized transactions if it is due to the customer's negligence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Sh. Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Sh. Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver the possession of the flat within the stipulated time or initiate the refund of the amount advanced. It was directed to refund the outstanding amount, pay Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Chandigarh District Commission Holds Uber Liable For Charging In Excess Of Contracted Amount
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Uber India liable for unfair trade practice for charging excess fares beyond the contracted amount. It held that Uber cannot escape liability by contending that it is a mere facilitator between the drivers and the customers, as a portion of the payment made by the customer inevitably reaches Uber.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held J.W. Marriott Hotel liable for unfair trade practice for retaining full payment of the booking amount even after cancellation due to unforeseen circumstances endured by the customer. The cancellation was in line with the facilitator's (MakeMyTrip) terms and conditions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Singh (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held Voltas, its technician and Cool Star Refrigeration Store, Chandigarh liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for failure to repair the refrigerator after charging Rs. 1,800/- from the Complainant. The District Commission directed them to refund Rs. 1,800/- to the Complainant and pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- along with Rs. 5,000/- for the litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon
Gurgaon District Commission Holds BATA Liable For Sale Of Defective Shoes And Failure To Replace
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held BATA footwear liable for selling defective shoes and subsequently, failing to replace it before the proceedings started.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
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 Apollo Munich Health Insurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid insurance claim on the pretext of non-disclosure of a prior illness. The district Commission held that there was no nexus between the prior disease and the new ailment for which the insurance amount was being claimed.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (“District Commission”)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (“District Commission”) bench comprising Mr Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Ms Mandeep Kaur (Member) dismissed a complaint against LA Roma Pizzeria as the aggrieved customer failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding allegations of mistreatment and denial of normal water.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
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 Stay Vista Private Limited and the Hideaway Cottage liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Stay Vista, an online hotel booking platform, failed to resolve a customer's grievance after substandard conditions at the hotel and a discrepancy in its location were reported.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
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 Miniso India liable for charging Rs. 12 extra for the carry bag without informing the customer before making the payment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neena Sandhu (President), Smt. Ruby Sharma (Member) and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Google India liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide upgraded storage despite receiving payments. It rejected the argument of Google India that the storage services were being provided by Google LLC, which is a separate legal entity. A direct relationship between Google India and Google LLC was found and the complaint was allowed.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-west Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-west Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Airtel liable for failure to provide free DTH connection for the first 2 months, as promised in the package initially. The District Commission directed Airtel to refund the amount and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neetu Sandhu (President), Ruby Sharma (Member) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) dismissed a complaint against IDFC First Bank and Ebix Travels because the allegations involved complex events, requiring further evidence and the presence of witnesses. Therefore, the Complainant was set at liberty to pursue the matter in an appropriate court of law.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban, Karnataka bench comprising Sri Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held Flipkart liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failure to replace a washing machine which was damaged in transit.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Surjeet Kaur Presiding (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held SBI Card liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve disputes regarding unauthorized transactions within a reasonable time frame.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
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 Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Club failed to honour the promised terms of membership and failed to rectify the issues with the validity period.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neena Sandhu (President), Smt. Ruby Sharma (Member) and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) dismissed a complaint against United India Insurance Company for repudiation of a stolen car's claim. The District Commission held that the car keys were negligently left inside the car, which contributed to the theft. Further, the FIR was filed with an unexplained delay of 30 days, which raised serious concerns regarding the validity of the claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held Oyo and 2 of its registered hotels liable for denying check-in to the Complainant, despite confirmed booking. This created significant hurdles in the career opportunity of the Complainant, for which he had made the bookings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Ernakulam District Commission Holds BATA Showroom Liable For Selling Outdated Sandals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) held BATA Showroom (MG Road), Ernakulam liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service for selling outdated sandals. The sandals turned out to be defective as their soles broke into 2 pieces within 2 days of the purchase.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Satpal (President), Dr. Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Oyo Rooms and Hotel Kasauli Continental liable for failure to assure check-in, despite receiving full payment for the same. Even though the Hotel was no more tied up with Oyo, there was a lock-in requirement of 12 months during which the Hotel was responsible for honouring confirmed bookings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Satpal (President), Dr Sushma Garg (Member) and Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Mahindra & Mahindra and its authorized dealer liable for deficiency in service for failure to rectify issues with the voice recognition capacity of the infotainment system of the car. The District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 40684.50/- for the deficient infotainment system, Rs. 15,000/- compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for premature encashment of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) without the Complainant's consent. The bank was directed to reimburse the loss along with 7% interest.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, Bengaluru Urban bench comprising Sri. Shivarama K (President), Sri. Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Thomas Cook (India) liable for failure to procure the Complainant's Australian Visa within a reasonable time. The delay in procurement of the visa led to the cancellation of the Complainant's trip.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-I (Rajasthan)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur-I (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Sube Singh Yadav (President) and Neelam Sharma (Member) held Oyo Rooms liable for deficiency in services for failure to provide adequate transportation and other facilities as promised under the holiday package. Out of the total package amount of Rs. 1,23,896/-, Oyo was directed to make a refund of Rs. 61,948/-, pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Haldiram Product Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Haldiram engaged in the selling of stale sweets infected with fungus. It also failed to resolve the consumer's grievances by replacing only 3 bags of sweets among many.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–X, New Delhi bench comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held Food Hall, Chanakya Mall liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for negligently leaving pieces of a white-coloured glove in a packed food item. Further, the Food Hall management failed to address the grievance or extend an apology to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Sh. Jaswant Singh (President), Sh. Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held Airtel and Vodafone liable for disconnecting the Complainant's mobile connections despite the fulfilment of outstanding dues. The District Commission directed them to restore the connections or pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant along with Rs. 15,000/- for litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Mr Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr B.M. Sharma (Member) held New India Assurance Company liable for not honouring the complete claim for the insured stock which was burned down due to a fire accident. The District Commission held that the surveyor undervalued the claim amount without giving any justifiable reasons.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (Haryana) bench comprising Dr Neelima Shangla (President), Neelam (Member) and Ramesh Kumar (Member) held Vmake Visas liable for failure to arrange the Canadian Permanent Residence (PR) for the Complainant within the agreed timeframe. It was directed to refund the entire collected amount, and pay Rs. 50,000/- compensation and Rs. 11,000/- litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (Haryana) bench comprising Smt. Neena Sandhu (President), Smt. Ruby Sharma (Member) and Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma (Member) held Pizza Wings restaurant liable for delivering chicken roll instead of paneer roll. The District Commission directed Pizza Wings to pay Rs. 5,000/- as a lumpsum compensation amount to the aggrieved consumer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban (Maharashtra) bench comprising Smt. Samindara S. Surve (President), Sanjay S. Jagdale (Member) and Shri Sameer Kamble (Member) held Hindustan Times Media Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to provide access to its employment platform despite receiving payments for the same. It was directed to refund the payment with interest, pay Rs. 2 Lakh consolidated compensation and Rs. 10,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held Asian Public School, Gurgaon liable for deliberately misrepresenting the dates of admission and withdrawal to charge more fee for extra months. The school was directed to refund the extra fee and pay Rs. 15,000/- compensation and Rs. 11,000/- litigation costs.
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-III, South Kolkata (West Bengal)
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission-III, South Kolkata (West Bengal) bench comprising Mrs. Monihar Begum (Presiding Member) and Mr. Manish Deb (Member) held UCO Bank liable for deficiency in service for failure to utilize the Core Banking Solution (CBS) facility to credit the matured fixed deposit amount in the Complainant's savings account. The Bank was directed to transfer the matured amount with interest and pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Central Kolkata (West Bengal) bench comprising Mrs Sukla Sengupta (President) and Mr Reyazuddin Khan (Member) held Marco-Polo Restaurant, Park Street (Kolkata) liable for charging more than MRP for packaged water and a 650 ml Kingfisher (S) bottle. The District Commission also held that the restaurant had a duty to serve the customers without charging additional service charges.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held One Plus and its seller, Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to resolve issues with a newly purchased phone, within the warranty period. They were directed to refund the amount of the phone with interest, and pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Jindal (President), Ms Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Ms Khushwinder Kaur (Member) dismissed a complaint against National Insurance Company Ltd. It found that the damage to the insured car resulted from the deliberate and wilful actions of the Complainant's son, driving into a water-logged underpass, absolving the Insurance Company of liability.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Vodafone Idea Limited liable for applying international roaming rates when the complainant was in India. Additionally, it was found guilty of abruptly deactivating both incoming and outgoing services without any prior notice or SMS alerts.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab) bench comprising Shri Sanjeev Batra (President), Ms Shivani Bhargava (Member) and Shri Manjit Singh Bhinder (Member) held Punjabi University liable for deficiency in service for failure to dispatch the requested academic transcript to a student within a reasonable time. Further, the University was also held liable for failure to refund the fee submitted to procure the said transcript.
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority)
Rajasthan RERA Imposes 50 Lakh Fine On Builder For Failure To Register Project Under RERA
Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Mrs. Veenu Gupta (Chairperson), has imposed a fine of Rs. 50 lakhs on the builders for failing to register the project under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA)
TN RERA Orders Builder To Compensate Homebuyer For Mental Agony Faced Due To Delayed Possession
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TNRERA) bench Comprising of TMT N. Uma Maheshwari (Adjudicating Officer) has directed the Builder to pay compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience faced by Homebuyers due to delays in delivering possession, despite fulfilling all payment requirements on time.
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA)
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Srikant Badli (Chairperson) and BC Badalia (Member), has held that a builder cannot demand full payment from the homebuyer if the Project's Occupancy Certificate has not been obtained and the construction of the flat is not complete within the agreed time for delivery of possession.
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA)
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Srikant Badli and BC Badalia, has granted relief to a non-Himachali homebuyer under whose favor the builder was not executing a conveyance deed, as the homebuyer had not obtained necessary permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. Consequently, HPRERA directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the flat with interest if permission is not obtained under the act.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the mere non-execution of the Agreement for Sale does not preclude homebuyers from invoking Section 18 of RERA, which confers an unqualified right upon the homebuyer to get refund of amount with interest if builder fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession of the flat on agreed timeline.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), Mahesh Pathak (Member) and Ravindra (Member), has appoints Chandak Realtors Private Limited as the new Promoter of the Anantya 1A & 1B Project located in Kurla after the former promoter failed to implement the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) Scheme for the redevelopment of three societies.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA )
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA ) bench comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has restrained Buildox Private Limited from advertising and selling its proposed Hafeezpet, Hyderabad project until the final disposal of the complaint filed against Buildox for violating Section 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, pertaining to advertising an unregistered project.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority)
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) comprising Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member), has directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer with interest, rejecting the builder's contention that the homebuyer is not a consumer but an investor. Thus, the homebuyer is not entitled to file a complaint before the authority.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that demanding additional payment from homebuyers after receiving over 20% of the flat price for executing the agreement for sale is illegal. Consequently, the MahaREAT held the builder's termination of the letter of intent upon the homebuyers' failure to make the demanded payment as illegal.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA)
MahaRERA: A Real Estate Project Cannot Have Two Or Multiple Registration Numbers
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) bench, comprising of Ajoy Mehta (Chairperson), and Mahesh Pathak (Member), has held that as per Section 5(1)(a) of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a real estate project cannot have two or multiple registration numbers.
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority)
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA/Authority) bench, comprising of Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member), has held that the mother filing a complaint through the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) representing the daughter, who is the homebuyer, will be considered as a Homebuyer and an Aggrieved Person as defined under Section 2(d), 2(zg)(i) read with Section 31(1) of the RERA, 2016.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has held that the mere non-execution of the Agreement for Sale does not preclude homebuyers from invoking Section 18 of RERA, which confers an unqualified right upon the homebuyer to get refund of amount with interest if builder fails to complete the project or is unable to give possession of the flat on agreed timeline.
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal)
Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT/Tribunal) bench, comprising of Justice Shri Shriram R. Jagtap (Judicial Member) and Dr. K. Shivaji (Technical Member), has granted interest to homebuyer for delayed possession by rejecting the builder's contention of late approval of Occupation Certificate due to internal disputes between Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) regarding the issuance of approvals.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority)
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Goyal (Member), has held that the offer of possession made by the builder before obtaining the Occupation Certificate from local authorities is invalid and contrary to the law. Accordingly, the authority directed the builder to pay interest to the homebuyer for the delayed possession.
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority)
Punjab RERA Orders Compensation For Homebuyers After Project Site Was Declared As Protected Monument
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA/Authority) bench consisting of Justice Balbir Singh (Adjudicating Officer), has directed the builder to pay compensation on the amount paid by the homebuyers to book the project site in an auction after the project site was declared a Protected Monument by the Punjab Government under Section 4(3) of the Punjab Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1964.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA)
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA) bench, comprising of Justice Neelmani N Raju (Member), has directed the builder to fully refund the booking price of Rs. 1 Lakh paid by the homebuyer on the spot after the request of the sales executive to book two flats, without reading the terms of the document.
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA)
Karnataka RERA Grants Homebuyer Permission To Withdraw From Project Due To Delayed Possession
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KRERA/Authority) bench, comprising Justice Neelmani N Raju (Member), has granted the Homebuyer right to withdraw from the real estate project following several years of delayed possession. Subsequently, the Authority directed the builder to refund the entire amount paid by the homebuyer, along with interest.
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA)
UPRERA Releases New Standard Operating Procedure For Registration Of Real Estate Agents
Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA) has released a new Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Registration of Real Estate Agents. This SOP has been released in accordance with Section 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which stipulates provisions for the registration of real estate agents, and Section 10, which stipulates provisions related to the functions of real estate agents.
Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA)
The Himachal Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HPRERA) bench comprising of Justice Dr. Srikant Badli and BC Badalia, has granted relief to a non-Himachali homebuyer under whose favor the builder was not executing a conveyance deed, as the homebuyer had not obtained necessary permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. Consequently, HPRERA directed the builder to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase the flat with interest if permission is not obtained under the act.
