Supreme Court Once Loss Is Caused By Fire, Cause Of Fire Becomes Immaterial, Supreme Court Allows Insurance Claim Cause Title: CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1215 Reiterating that the cause of fire is immaterial, when the loss is occurred to the insured from the fire, the Supreme Court on...
Supreme Court
Once Loss Is Caused By Fire, Cause Of Fire Becomes Immaterial, Supreme Court Allows Insurance Claim
Cause Title: CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA VERSUS ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1215
Reiterating that the cause of fire is immaterial, when the loss is occurred to the insured from the fire, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 16) allowed a fire insurance claim, noting that the insurer can't deny claim saying that the proximate cause of fire was not provided in the specified peril.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences vs Rajendra Nath Keserwani
FIRST APPEAL NO.456 OF 2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has partly allowed an appeal filed by the Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (SGPGI), Lucknow. The Commission set aside the State Commission's findings of medical negligence against the treating doctors, while holding the Institute liable solely for deficiencies in record-keeping and documentation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: M.K. Aggarwal Hosiery (P) Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Case No.: CC 269/2012
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has partly allowed a complaint filed by M.K. Aggarwal Hosiery (P) Ltd. against New India Assurance Co. Ltd., upholding the surveyor's assessment of loss and directing the insurer to pay interest and costs for delayed settlement
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
No Medical Negligence Proven: NCDRC Rejects Complaint Against Northern Railway and Batra Hospitals
Case Title: Smt. Sarla Devi vs. Northern Railway Central Hospital & Ors.
Case No. Consumer Complaint No. 2227 of 2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), held that no medical negligence or deficiency in service was proved against Northern Railway Central Hospital, Batra Hospital, or the treating doctors in relation to the treatment of the complainant's daughter, who died due to abdominal tuberculosis with perforation peritonitis and multiorgan failure.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Manoj Khanna vs. M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Case No.: CC/441/2016
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has held Parsvnath Developers Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for failing to allot and hand over possession of a residential apartment despite receiving ₹20,00,000 from the complainants. The Commission directed the developer to refund the entire amount with applicable interest and further awarded ₹1,00,000 as compensation for mental agony along with ₹50,000 towards litigation costs.
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr.Harshdeep Singh Nat vs Sukhm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd
CC No.28 of 2023
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President), Simarjot Kaur (Member), and Vishav Kant Garg (Member), has held M/s Sukhm Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial plot. The Commission allowed the complaint and directed a full refund with interest, along with compensation and litigation costs.
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandigarh State Consumer Commission Dismisses Sony's Appeal, Confirms Defect In Playstation-5
Case Title:Sony India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Alaukik Rattan Sharma & Anr.
Case no: FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/117/2025
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri and Shri Preetinder Singh, has upheld the District Commission's finding of deficiency in service against Sony India (O.P No.1 ), Goel Bros. (O.P No.2 ),, and Technocare (Sony-authorized service centre) (O.P No.3 ) after a PlayStation-5 repeatedly malfunctioned during the warranty period. The Commission held that the console's system-generated error logs were credible electronic evidence of recurring defects, and noted that the opposite parties had failed to produce any technical or expert report to rebut them.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Electricity Bill Dispute Must Go To CGRF; Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside Order Against UPCL
Case Title: Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sh. Raja Ram
SC/5/A/13/2020
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Kumkum Rani (President) and C.M. Singh (Member), set aside a complaint filed against Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. seeking rectification of an electricity bill. The Commission allowed the appeal and held that the complaint was not maintainable, as the District Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain disputes that fall exclusively within the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) under the Electricity Act.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sh. Chander Paul Sood vs Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited
F.A.No.05/2024
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), has held Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited liable for deficiency in service for unilaterally altering the terms of its Deep Discount Bonds through early redemption without obtaining the mandatory consent of bondholders.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Restaurants Cannot Charge Above MRP For Packaged Water: Chandigarh State Commission
Case Title: Ishita Khanna vs. Ghazal Restaurant
Appeal Number: A/142/2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, presided over by Mrs. Padma Pandey, Presiding Member, along with Preetinder Singh, Member, while setting aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Chandigarh, held that restaurants cannot charge more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for pre-packed products. The Commission observed that the MRP is the highest price at which a product can be sold to the end consumer and that it includes all taxes, packaging costs, and the retailer's profit margin.
Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: A. Keerthy Aberna v. Legsgo Corporate
Case Number: R.P. No. 46/2025
The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, presided over by Justice R. Subbiah (President), has set aside an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South), which had accepted the written version of the opposite party beyond the statutory period of 45 days prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MALVINDER SINGH CHATHA vs WTC NOIDA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY PVT. LTD
CC NO. SC/4/CC/89/2025
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has held WTC Noida Development Company Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver two units despite receiving nearly 70% of the sale consideration
Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd. vs Rajiv Vohra
F.A No.162 of 2024
The Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Mr. Vishav Kant Garg (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by Country Club Hospitality and Holidays Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's direction to refund the membership fee. The State Commission held that the complainant himself was in breach of the agreement by failing to pay the outstanding balance of ₹10,000 and the mandatory Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC), and therefore was not entitled to avail the holiday benefits.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. A. Padmavathy vs. Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. & State Bank of India
Case no. SC/29/CC/1/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench), comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member), has held Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for failing to complete its “Urbana Avenue” residential project and for not delivering possession of the complainant's flat despite receiving the entire sale consideration, including a ₹75 lakh home loan disbursed by SBI. The Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the builder to refund ₹22 lakh with 9% interest, discharge the ₹75 lakh home loan with applicable interest, and pay ₹10 lakh compensation and ₹1 lakh litigation costs.
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Rejects Appeal For Higher Compensation In Ford Endeavour Repair Case
Case Title : M/S GREEN FORCE ENGINEERS PVT. LTD. vs M/S BHAGAT CARS PVT. LTD
SC/4/FA/154/2025
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Rajesh Kumar Arya (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Green Force Engineers Pvt. Ltd. seeking enhancement of compensation for alleged faulty repair of a Ford Endeavour by M/s Bhagat Cars Pvt. Ltd. (Bhagat Ford).
Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurpreet Singh
First Appeal No. 358 of 2024
The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Vishav Kant Garg (Member), held that although the driver's transport licence had expired on the date of the accident, his application for renewal had been filed within the one-year statutory window under Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore the lapse could not be attributed to the vehicle owner. Consequently, the Commission found that the insurer was not justified in repudiating the claim in toto and affirmed the District Commission's direction to settle the claim on a non-standard basis.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Shree Bhagwan Jindal & Anr. vs. WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/521/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has held WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. and WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial unit within the stipulated time despite receiving substantial payment from the complainants. The Commission has directed the builders to refund ₹18,90,000 (the deposited amount) with 9% interest per annum from the dates of deposit till realization, and has further awarded ₹30,000 towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban
Case Title: Alok Rajendra Bector vs. Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd.
Case No.: CC/292/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, comprising Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President) and Shri Sameer S. Kamble (Member), held Niva Bupa Health Insurance Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully cancelling the complainant's policy and rejecting his overseas cancer treatment claim. The Commission found that the insurer's unjustified cancellation prevented the complainant from availing the required cashless facility, making the repudiation illegal. It directed Niva Bupa to pay ₹66,50,000 along with compensation and litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Muhiyadeen K.M. v. M/s Oriental Insurance Co. and Anr.
Case No: CC No. 170 of 2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently directed the insurance company and Medisep to jointly compensate a man whose claim for reimbursement of hospital expenses was repudiated. The Bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. was considering a complaint preferred by a man covered under the MEDISEP Health Insurance Scheme introduced in collaboration with Oriental Insurance Company.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sh. Abhishek Pandey vs Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Case No. CC/469/2024
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry, President, Bariq Ahmad, Member and Shekhar Chandra, Member has held Magic Eye Developers Pvt. Ltd. liable unilateral cancellation of flat allotted to the complainant, reselling the unit and retaining the funds paid by him.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sh. Rajiv Kumar vs Pearl Grand Galaxy
Case Number: Case No. 20/2024
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry, President and Shekhar Chandra, Member has held Pearl Grand Galaxy banquet hall liable for failure to refund the advance amount on account of cancellation of bookings due to Covid-19.
Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Case no. CC/203/2021
Case Title: Raman vs. Institute of Engineering & Technology, Bhaddal & Ors.
The complainant, Mr. Raman, took admission in the D-Pharmacy (two-year course) at the Institute of Engineering & Technology (I.E.T.), Bhaddal, Punjab (OP-1) in 2019. The complainant stated that he enrolled based on the assurances of OP-3, who allegedly acted as a commission agent for the institute. At the time of admission, OP-1 informed the complainant that the annual course fee was ₹20,000 and transportation charges were ₹12,000 per year. The complainant accordingly paid ₹20,000 as first-year fee and later ₹6,000 for six months' transport, and attended classes regularly from September 2019 to February 2020.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Sudharsanan C.R. v. Godrej/Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No: CC No. 769 of 2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently passed an award against Godrej for failing to replace a failed compressor of an air conditioner that it manufactured within the warranty period.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/44/CC/406/2023
Case Title: Rama Kant Verma Vs. Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has partly allowed a complaint filed by Rama Kant Verma against Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd., holding the insurer guilty of arbitrary claim deductions and deficiency in service for failing to establish that the policy exclusions relied upon had been duly disclosed to or accepted by the insured.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha
Case Title: Vani S Prasad vs Apple India Pvt.Ltd & Ord
DC/554/CC No.358/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha, comprising P.R. Sholy (President in Charge) and C.K. Lekhamma (Member), held Apple liable for deficiency of service due to a manufacturing defect in the iPhone 13 battery. The Commission allowed the complaint in part and ordered Apple to replace the battery free of cost and provide a fresh six-month warranty.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Deepak Marwaha Vs. Indian Oil-Adani Gas Private Limited
Case No. CC/394/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has held Indian Oil–Adani Gas Private Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for issuing an “astronomical” retrospective PNG bill for nearly five years without any technical proof of a faulty meter.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Consumer Commission Rejects Complaint Against Airtel Over International Roaming Charges
Case Title: Amandeep Singh Gill v. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Anr.
Case No. DC/AB1/44/CC/316/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint against Bharti Crescent and Bharti Airtel Ltd., holding that the charge of ₹649 was towards activation of an international roaming pack and did not amount to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds AirAsia Liable For Non-Refund Of Cancelled Flight Fare
Case Title: Yadavu P B v Air Asia (India) Ltd.
Case No: CC 162/ 24
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur has directed Air Asia (India) to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony caused to a passenger due to airline's failure to issue an automatic refund after his flight got cancelled for operational reasons. The order was passed by a bench comprising President C T Sabu and members Sreeja S and Ram Mohan R in a complaint filed by a passenger who had booked the airline for travel from Bangalore to Cochin, paying an amount of Rs. 2,893/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: JOGINDER SINGH vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/195/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint against Kotak Mahindra Bank, holding that the dispute concerning alleged unauthorised credit card transactions was premature, as the matter was still under investigation and had not been finally settled by the bank
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Raj Kumari and ors Vs. LIC
Case No.: CC/137/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has held that insurance companies cannot reject legitimate claims by taking shelter behind minor or hyper-technical objections, particularly when the insured has acted in good faith. Holding the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) guilty of deficiency in service, the Commission directed LIC to pay the accidental death benefit denied under a life insurance policy.
Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dels Davis vs Hyson Fiat
Case Number: CC/229/2018
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S, Member and Ram Mohan R, Member has held FCA India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, its dealer and its service provider liable for selling a defective FIAT Linea T-Jet car to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Rama Kant Verma v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd.
Case No. : DC/AB1/44/CC/406/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Limited guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for partially settling a medical insurance claim without proving that the policy exclusion clauses were duly disclosed to or accepted by the insured. The Commission observed that an insurer cannot claim the benefit of exclusion clauses unless it establishes that such terms formed part of the contract and were communicated to the insured.