Supreme Court Financier Can't Claim Insurance Over Theft Of Vehicle Surrendered By Insured Owner : Supreme Court Cause Title: K. PRAKASHCHAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634 The Supreme Court has held that a mere surrender of an insured vehicle by its owner to another person, who had financed the purchase of a vehicle, would not be...
Supreme Court
Financier Can't Claim Insurance Over Theft Of Vehicle Surrendered By Insured Owner : Supreme Court
Cause Title: K. PRAKASHCHAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634
The Supreme Court has held that a mere surrender of an insured vehicle by its owner to another person, who had financed the purchase of a vehicle, would not be sufficient for the financer to claim indemnification in the event of loss or theft of a vehicle.
Supreme Court
Consumer Forum's Jurisdiction Not Ousted By Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court
Cause Title: T.K.A. PADMANABHAN VERSUS ABHIYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court recently held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement would not preclude the consumer forum from adjudicating the dispute on merit. “…an arbitration clause does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), State Commission and the District Forum order which had referred a dispute over delay in handing over the possession of the residential flat unit to arbitration.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS KAVITA CHOWDHARY
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 375
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 15) held that a failure of the bank to present the cheque within the prescribed validity period of the cheque without any reasonable explanation would amount to 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the liability of the Canara Bank for deficiency in rendering service to its customer, who had deposited the cheque with the bank, but the bank failed to present the instruments before the expiry of the validity period of the cheque, rendering the check to be dishonoured with the remark “stale cheque.”
Supreme Court
Cause Title: ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) VS. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS. (and connected matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 40
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 12) observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, obtained solely against a builder company, against its directors or promoters personally, unless a specific finding of liability was made against them in the original proceedings.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS VIJAYA BANK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 267
The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 19) observed that merely earning interest on bank deposits does not automatically render the transaction “commercial” so as to exclude a person from the definition of a “consumer”; rather, it must be examined whether the deposit has a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS KANIKA & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the compassionate assistance received by a dependent of a deceased employee would be liable to be deductible from the compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Supreme Court
IN RE: PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1144/2021
Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Ensure Functioning Of Consumer Commissions In Smaller States, Seeks SG's Assistance. Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently empowered High Court Judges to hear consumer appeals in States where State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Many States found it “not viable” to constitute full-fledged State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions owing to low pendency.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Seeks Union & NMC Responses On Plea To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act
Case: ASSOCIATION OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (INDIA) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) No. 110/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission on a plea to declare that doctors will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers (India).
Supreme Court
Cause Title: ITC LIMITED VERSUS AASHNA ROY
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 129
The Supreme Court has again set aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order, which had directed the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a Model for a faulty haircut. A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan noted that the NCDRC failed to assess how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 Crore. The Court pointed out that a general discussion on the loss, without sufficient proof of the loss, cannot justify payment of compensation, having a huge value.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER VERSUS M/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 117
The Supreme Court has observed that mere leasing or renting of a residential flat does not automatically exclude the owner from the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless it is proved that the dominant intention at the time of flat purchase was commercial.
Supreme Court
Case Details: KUMUD LALL v. SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THR LRS & ORS.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 33646-33647/2018
The Supreme Court on February 3 reserved for judgment the issue of whether, for the negligence by a person, the estate of such person should be held liable for compensation through legal heirs.
Supreme Court
Doctor's Legal Heirs Liable For Medical Negligence Under Consumer Protection Act : Supreme Court
Cause Title: Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (with connected matter)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) held that upon the death of a doctor, his or her legal heirs can be substituted in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, but their liability for compensation arising from the doctor's alleged negligence is limited to the extent of the estate inherited from the deceased.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: Kumud Lall VERSUS Suresh Chandra Roy (Dead) Through LRs and Others (with connected matter)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 454
The Supreme Court has recently recommended that the Law Commission of India re-examine Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, to consider expanding its scope to include the tortious claims against deceased wrongdoers. At present, Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act (“Act”) follows an old legal principle called “actio personalis moritur cum persona”, which means a personal legal action dies with the person. In simple terms, in many personal injury or tort cases, if the accused/negligent person dies before the adjudication of the case, the case may also come to an end.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another
Case No.: CWP No.2239 of 2021
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a provisional assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be made without conducting a site inspection or inspecting the records maintained by the consumer.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 31700 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Puthur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sethumadhavan and Anr.
Case No: WA 1152 of 2026
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the creditors of a co-operative society can recover the amounts deposited by invoking Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1986 do not take away the rights of creditors to invoke the Consumer Protection Act to recover the deposits.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Purab Premium Apartment Allottees Association Vs. Residents Welfare Association, Purab Premium Apartments & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 170
Case Number: CM(M) 2481/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a petition challenging an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which dismissed execution proceedings against a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) and its office bearers on the ground that they were not parties to the original consumer complaint.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: N. Priyamvada & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6488/2026
The Delhi High Court, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, has issued notice to the Union of India in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The plea challenges provisions which vest the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) with the power to adjudicate “substantial questions of law” through benches that may include technical and non-judicial members. The Bench directed the Union of India and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to file their reply within six weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 23, 2026.
Delhi High Court
Case title: Neerja v. UoI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 531
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7059/2026
The Delhi High Court has directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to examine a petitioner's allegation that the web copy of an order uploaded on its portal differed from the certified copy later supplied to him. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the grievance required appropriate consideration by the NCDRC itself and called for specific findings on the allegations raised by the petitioner.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Passenger Paid For Business Class, Got Defective Seat: NCDRC Upholds Compensation Against Air India
Case Title: Justice Rajesh Chandra v. Air India Limited
Case No.: First Appeal No. 152/2024 & 177/2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice Saroj Yadav (Presiding Member) and Shashi Nandkeolyar (Member), held Air India liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide a functional Business Class seat despite charging a substantial upgrade fee. Upholding the State Commission's order, the Commission directed refund of the Business Class fare component with interest and compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant during the long-haul international flight.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No.: NC/CC/184/2015
Case Title: Neeraj Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Neelkanth Township Planner Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi, President, and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member, held that homebuyers who default in making payments cannot challenge cancellation of allotment as an unfair trade practice. Finding that the complainants had failed to adhere to the agreed payment schedule, the Commission declined to restore the allotments but directed the builder to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest at 9% per annum.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Kamla Kant & Company LLP vs Indra Mohan Singh 'Honey'
DIARY NO.13053/NCDRC/2026-SA
In temporary respite for Bollywood actor Salman Khan, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on Wednesday (June 10) stayed the proceedings initiated against him in a case related to "misleading" Pan Masala advertisement, regarding genuineness of his signatures.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Veeresh Berry v. M/s Citi Center Developers & Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 197 of 2026
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.), Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, refused to condone a delay of 179 days in filing an appeal by a commercial unit allottee against a builder, holding that the reasons cited, including age, financial hardship, legal consultations and collection of documents, did not constitute “sufficient cause” under law. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the appeal as barred by limitation.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
NCDRC: Fire Insurance Claim Can't Be Repudiated On Mere Suspicion Without Proof Of Fraud
Case Title: M/s Shri Hira Industries v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 1470 of 2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.), Presiding Member and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, has held that an insurance claim cannot be repudiated solely on the basis of suspicion regarding the cause of fire in the absence of cogent evidence. The Commission, holding the repudiation of the claim to be unjustified, observed that once the occurrence of fire is established and there is no evidence of wilful act or fraud on the part of the insured, the insurer cannot deny liability.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Prem Prakash Rajput & Ors. v. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. & Ors
Case No.: EA No. 77 of 2021 (with connected Execution Applications) in Consumer Case No. 1951 of 2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member), held that M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. (AHTTL) had failed to comply with the refund orders passed in favour of homebuyers, and that such non-compliance warranted strict enforcement. The Commission further observed that where the corporate structure is used to evade liability, the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil may be invoked, and directors/key managerial personnel may be held accountable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case title: Salman Salim Khan v/s Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an interim order on Wednesday (April 8) has kept in abeyance bailable arrest warrants issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against actor Salman Khan, in a complaint alleging misleading advertisement by Rajshree Pan Masala starring the actor. The Commission also stayed all further proceedings against the actor before the District Commission.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Pradip Sonavane & Anr. v. DSSD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: NC/CC/13/2026
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed a consumer complaint against a developer and housing society as barred by limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when possession was taken in 2016 and could not be treated as a continuing cause of action merely because alleged deficiencies were discovered later.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Asian Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: NC/CC/133/2013
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), allowed the complaint filed by M/s Asian Theatres Pvt. Ltd. against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., holding that the repudiation of the insurance claim was arbitrary and amounted to deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Details: Procure Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No. 2755 of 2018 (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) , Bench comprising AVM J. Rajendra, Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, has held Axis Bank Limited guilty of deficiency in service for refusing to accept deposits of demonetised currency in a KYC-compliant current account during the demonetisation period and directed the bank to compensate the complainant company for the loss suffered.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
No Proof Of Manufacturing Defect: NCDRC Refuses Replacement Of 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Mishra v. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd.
Revision Petition No.: NC/RP/403/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), dismissed a revision petition seeking replacement of a 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio, holding that replacement is not an automatic remedy in the absence of proof of an inherent manufacturing defect.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case Title: Misleading advertisement by Vajiram and Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP with respect to UPSC CSE 2023 advertisements.
Case No.: CCPA-2/24/2024-CCPA.
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹7 lakh on Vajiram & Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP for publishing misleading advertisements relating to the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023 and directed the coaching institute to discontinue such advertisements.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
CCPA Fines Storia ₹1 Lakh; Says '100% Tender Coconut Water' Claim Misled Consumers
Case: Misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice by M/s Storia Foods and Beverages Private Limited with respect to "100% Tender Coconut Water", associated health claims, and "100% Juice" claims on its Pomegranate, Mixed Fruit, Mango, Sugarcane and Guava Chilli variants.
Case No.: CCPA-2/71/2024-CCPA
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on Storia Foods and Beverages Private Limited for misleading advertisements relating to its coconut water and fruit juice products. The Authority held that claims such as “100% Tender Coconut Water”, “100% Natural Tender Coconut Water” and “100% Juice” were likely to mislead consumers about the true nature and composition of the products.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case Number: F. No. CCPA-2/72/2024-CCPA [E-35629]
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on Mrs. Bector's Food Specialities Ltd. for publishing misleading advertisements and engaging in unfair trade practices by marketing its bread products as “100% Atta Bread” and “100% Whole Wheat Bread.” The authority also directed the company to immediately discontinue such advertisements across all media platforms and submit a compliance report within 15 days.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Misleading JEE Advanced Ads: CCPA Imposes ₹8 Lakh Penalty On Narayana Educational Institutions
Case Title: In Re: Misleading Advertisement by Narayana Educational Institutions with respect to JEE Advanced 2024 Results
Case Number: CCPA-2/38/2024-CCPA
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed an ₹8 lakh penalty on Narayana Educational Institutions for publishing misleading advertisements relating to the JEE Advanced 2024 results after finding that the institute concealed material information about the courses pursued by successful candidates.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case No.: CCPA-2/94/2025-2025
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, has imposed penalties on PhysicsWallah Limited and McAfee Software India Private Limited for deploying "dark patterns" that misled consumers and influenced their choices on digital platforms. The Authority imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on PhysicsWallah and ₹1 lakh on McAfee, directing both companies to remove such practices and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions without manipulation.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued an advisory prohibiting hotels and restaurants from adding extra charges like “LPG charges”, “gas surcharge”, or “fuel cost recovery” to customer bills, stating that such practices are unfair under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The move comes after multiple complaints that eateries were adding these charges automatically, over and above menu prices and taxes. The CCPA clarified that operational costs such as LPG, fuel, and electricity are part of running a business and must already be included in the price of food items. Charging them separately lacks transparency and misleads consumers.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case No.: FA/143/2022
Case Title: MR. HANS BATRA VS. HDFC BANK
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed an appeal against HDFC Bank, holding that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of “commercial purpose”. The Commission observed that the mere availing of an overdraft facility does not, by itself, render a transaction commercial. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the facility was availed for commercial use, the complainant could not be excluded from the definition of a “consumer”. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the District Commission for fresh adjudication on merits.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/42/2026
Case Title: Aayush Bansal Vs. TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD & ANR
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), held Tata SIA Airlines Ltd liable for deficiency in service for preponing a flight without prior intimation to passengers. The Commission observed that timely communication of schedule changes is a fundamental obligation of airlines and enhanced the compensation to ₹50,000, while also awarding litigation costs and affirming the refund with interest.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
No Proof Of Pre-Existing Disease: Delhi State Commission Dismisses Religare Health Insurance Appeal
Case Title: RELIGARE HEALTH INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. MR. SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA
Case Num.: FA/356/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), has held that an insurance claim cannot be repudiated merely on suspicion of a pre-existing disease in the absence of cogent medical evidence. The Commission, while dismissing the appeal filed by Religare Health Insurance Co. Ltd., observed that symptoms or tentative hospital records do not establish concealment, especially when diagnostic tests do not confirm the disease, and upheld the finding of deficiency in service in favour of the complainant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case No.: FA/166/2023
Case Title: Dr. Rajnish Sharma & Anr. v. Mohd. Sameer
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) has dismissed an appeal filed by a surgeon and a hospital, upholding the finding of medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Commission held that Dr. Rajnish Sharma and K.K. Surgical & Maternity Hospital failed to prove successful removal of the complainant's kidney stone, and rejected their contention that a large kidney stone (17.2 mm) could reoccur within just 3.5 months of surgery, particularly when expert opinion deemed such rapid recurrence “unlikely”.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Sohil Bhasin vs Air India Through Its Managing Director
FA No.: SC/4/FA/260/2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), held Air India and Alhind Tours and Travels lia-ble for deficiency in service for failing to inform the passenger of the flight cancellation. The Commission partly allowed the appeal and held that while the airline bears primary responsibility for operating the flight and communicating cancellations, the travel agent also owes a duty of care to ensure that the passenger is duly informed, having issued the ticket and received payment.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title; Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case No; FA-238/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), dismissed an appeal filed against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that once the complainant had disposed of the allegedly defective refrigerator, the product was no longer available for inspection and the alleged defect could not be verified.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: RAJEEV KUMAR RAKHRA VS RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD. & ANR.
Case No.: FA- 243-2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed an appeal filed by complainant against Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Reliance Retail Ltd., holding that the complainant had suffered deficiency in service due to non-activation of an international SIM card despite payment.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra
Case Title : Uttam Chatterjee & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.SC/27/CC/233/2021
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai comprising Poonam V. Maharshi (Presiding Member) and Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan (Member) held Lodha Developers Ltd liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession and for demanding charges not specified in the initial agreement. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and held that retaining the complainants' money without fulfilling contractual obligations amounted to a breach of trust, causing wrongful gain to the builders and undue hardship to the complainants.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND ANR. VS. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH
Case No.: FA/150/2020
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), upheld the order of the District Commission holding the Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway guilty of deficiency in service for failing to inform a passenger in advance about the change in his ticket status from 'Reservation Against Cancellation' (RAC) to 'Waiting List'.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case Title: V.V. Venkatesh Babu v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.
Case No.: SC/29/A/716/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Judicial Member Ravi Shankar and Member Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, has held Standard Chartered Bank liable for unfair trade practice for demanding ₹33.83 lakh from a customer despite closure of his credit card account in 2010.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Ramanjit Sidhu & Anr. v. M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/74/2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has held M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete construction of the unit and hand over possession within the stipulated deadline. The Commission observed that a homebuyer cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession and that such delay defeats the very purpose of the agreement.
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shruti Sudhir Kirtane vs HP Employee's Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Case No.: CC No. SC/27/CC/18/26
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Presid-ing Member Mukesh V. Sharma and Member Poonam V. Maharshi has held HP Employ-ee's Co-operative Credit Society Ltd liable for deficiency in service and unfair and arbitrary practice for enforcing undisclosed restrictions on premature withdrawal of deposits and withholding admitted dues of a retired employee.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Karan Bansal v. Stellantis India Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Review Application No. SC/4/RA/17/2025 in CC No. 23/2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member), has held that where a vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defects, the liability to refund the purchase consideration lies with the manufacturer and not the dealer.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sunny Antony v. The Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank Co. Ltd.
Case Number: I.A. No. 1134/2025 in APPEAL No. 728/2025
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has reiterated that a former President of a District Consumer Commission is prohibited from practicing as an advocate before Consumer Commissions, in view of the statutory bar contained in the Consumer Protection Model Rules, 2020. The Commission, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member), made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by Sunny Antony against an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kottayam.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission
Case Title: Nishant Sharma vs Kiran Stationary Mart
(SC/2/A/227/2024)
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission, comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), dismissed the appeal against Kiran Stationery Mart and Samsung for the denial of warranty coverage. The Commission held that the complainant had already exhausted the one-time screen replacement benefit under the ADLD plan and that the subsequent damage to the device was the result of mishandling.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Akash Goel v. Commissioner (Sports), Delhi Development Authority
Case No.: First Appeal No. 430 of 2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) liable for deficiency in service for charging dependent membership fees despite not grant-ing dependent membership. The Commission allowed the appeal and directed the DDA to refund the excess amount and deposit Rs. 20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The Branch Manager, M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashok S/o Mahalingappa Doni (deceased Rep by LRs) & Anr.
Case No: Appeal No. 1161/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench-2, Belagavi, comprising Hon'ble Sri Ravi Shankar (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Smt. Sunita C. Bagewadi (Lady Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., holding that under Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insurance stands transferred along with transfer of the vehicle, and repudiation of the claim was not justified.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Name: Dheeraj Khanna v. Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Appeal No. 106 of 2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, presided over by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member), has held Liberty General Insurance liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating a home insurance claim arising from internal leakage damage. The Commission observed that internal leakage causing sudden and extensive damage is covered under the policy and cannot be excluded by misinterpreting exclusion clauses.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma & Anr. vs Raja Ram Hospital–Maternity & Trauma Centre & Anr.
Case No.: SC/5/A/185/2019
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising President Kumkum Rani and Member B.S. Manral, dismissed an appeal alleging medical negligence in connection with a miscarriage, holding that the complainants failed to produce any material evidence demon-strating lapse in the standard of care or professional negligence on the part of the treating doctor.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Details:
1. M/s B.M. Hyundai vs Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi & Anr. – First Appeal No. 353 of 2019
2. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi & Anr. – First Appeal No. 402 of 2019
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Kumkum Rani (President) and C. M. Singh (Member), has held M/s B.M. Hyundai and Hyundai Motor India Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for withholding the exchange bonus. The Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission that the complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme and accordingly dismissed the appeals.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: GAGAN BAGHEL AND ANR. VS G.S PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.
CC. NO. 1046/2017
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has held M/S G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency of service for failing to complete construction and hand over possession of an apartment in its “Sikka Karmic Green” project within the stipulated time.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Ruksana Nazlin M
Case No.: FA No. 16/2024 (SC/32/A/16/2024)
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member), and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd., affirming a District Com-mission's order directing refund of service fees to a client. The Commission held that retention of processing fees without initiating any actual visa documen-tation process amounts to “unfair enrichment” and “deficiency in service.”
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mange Ram v. M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies & Anr.
First Appeal No. 464 of 2017
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed against M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies and M/s Sonalika International Tractors Ltd., holding that the inspection report relied upon by the complainant was a fabricated and unreliable document and that no manufacturing defect in the tractor was established through credible expert evidence.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manufacturing Defect Must Be Proved By Expert Evidence: Delhi State Consumer Commission
M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Sahil Gupta & Anr.
Appeal No.: FA No. 353/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's order which had directed refund and compensation to a consumer alleging defect in an air conditioner.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Parsvnath Developers Limited
Case Number: FA/336/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by a homebuyer seeking possession of a residential plot under a pre-launch scheme and upheld the District Commission's direction to Parsvnath Developers Ltd. to refund the deposited amount with interest, holding that no error was committed in granting refund in the absence of allotment of a specific plot.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Sharma
Case No.: FA/1072/2014
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that repudiation of an insurance claim based on mere assumptions and presumptions, without cogent evidence, amounts to deficiency in service.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kavita
Case No.: Appeal No. 2838/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising President Ravishankar and Member Sunita C. Bagewadi, has dismissed an appeal filed by SBI General Insurance Company Limited, refusing to interfere with the District Commission's order condoning a delay of 7 years and 28 days in filing a consumer complaint relating to a motor insurance claim.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Mrs. Sarmila Sharma
Case No.: FA/191/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., thereby upholding the finding of deficiency in service against the Bank for auctioning a borrower's pledged gold jewellery without any contractual authority. The Commission observed that the Sanction Letter governing the gold loan did not contain any clause authorising auction of the mortgaged ornaments in the event of default, and therefore, the Bank's action lacked legal justification.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Pankaj Mahindra & Anr. v. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (now Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.)
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/73/2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has held Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (now Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.) guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to deliver lawful possession of a flat within the stipulated time and for issuing a mere “fit-out possession” letter without obtaining the mandatory Completion Certificate.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Manoj Loharia v. T.R. Sawhney Motors & Ors.,
FA No. 143 of 2019
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by a car pur-chaser alleging that a used vehicle had been fraudulently sold to him by M/s T.R. Sawhney Mo-tors Private Limited and Maruti Suzuki India Limited. Upholding the order of the District Commission, the State Commission held that in the absence of an expert report, a plea of manufac-turing defect cannot be sustained and no deficiency in service was made out.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Dewan Worldwide Holidays v. Ishwar Dayal Sharma
Case No.: FA-582/2019
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Dewan Worldwide Holidays and upheld the order passed by the District Forum.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Gurudeva Trust v. Jayaprakash
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 56 of 2024
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), D. Ajith Kumar (Judicial Member), and K.R. Radha-krishnan (Member), allowed a revision petition filed by Gurudeva Trust and set aside the order of the District Commission, holding that a dispute already settled through a Lok Adalat award cannot be reopened by filing a fresh consumer complaint for its enforcement.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
COVID-19 Flight Cancellation Not Deficiency In Service: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Case Title: Har Mohan Singh v. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: FA/377/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), dismissed an appeal filed against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. and Korean Airlines Co. Ltd., holding that cancellation of international flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental restrictions did not amount to deficiency in service.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mainuddin v. Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SC/29/CC/99/2021
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench), comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had failed to establish any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the machinery supplied.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
EPF–ESI Benefit Disputes Not Consumer Matters: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Case Title: Jai Prakash Malik v. ESI & Anr.
Case No.: FA-195/2022
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that disputes relating to Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) benefits, arising out of an employer–employee relationship, do not constitute consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Rajat Enterprises v. Pradeep Singh
First Appeal No. SC/2/FA/212/2025
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by a mobile phone dealer and set aside an ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Commission, holding that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing or technical defect in the absence of expert evidence and that no guarantee period was specified in the sales invoice.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Bhiwadi Polymers Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: FA/283/2015
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Bhiwadi Polymers Ltd. against New India Assurance Company Ltd., affirming that the consumer complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Shobha Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 50/2010
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Ms. Bimla Kumari, has allowed an appeal and set aside an order of the District Consumer Forum which had dismissed a consumer complaint as barred by the principle of res judicata. The State Commission held that rejection of a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on technical grounds such as limitation or lack of jurisdiction, does not amount to adjudication on merits and therefore does not bar a fresh examination of the dispute by the consumer forum.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Honda Cars India Ltd vs Prathap.M
SC/29/A/825 & 857/2021
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. ( Member) has allowed appeals filed by Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda, setting aside a District Commission order that had previously held them liable for a car's engine failure. The State Commission observed that the damage was a consequential loss resulting from the driver's negligence—specifically driving the vehicle without a radiator cap—rather than any inherent manufacturing defect.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MS. SUNITA KAIN vs. INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO.-237/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), held India First Life Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating an insurance claim on the ground of alleged non-disclosure of pre-existing disease. The Commission observed that the insurer failed to produce any cogent medical evidence, relied on a contradictory and hearsay-based investigation report, and could not establish that the alleged illness had any nexus with the cause of death.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title : AAYUSH BANSAL & ANR Vs TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD
Case No: FA No. SC/4/FA/42/2026
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), enhanced the compensation awarded against Tata SIA Airlines Ltd. for preponing an international flight without prior intimation to passengers. The Commission observed that consumer compensation must realistically account for the inconvenience, distress and suffering caused to consumers, and should also serve as a deterrent against negligent conduct by service providers.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gurvinder Singh Bhasin & Ors.
Case No.: FA-255/2016
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Member Judicial) has dismissed an appeal filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., affirming that an insurer cannot indefinitely delay or deny legitimate medical reimbursement claims based on unsubstantiated allegations of non-cooperation.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case Title: MURUGAN VS D. SUDHINDRA RAO
Case No: SC/29/CC/52/2016
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. (Lady Member), dismissed a complaint seeking compensation for the demolition of a building by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The Commission held that the dispute was civil in nature and did not fall within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, as no consumer-service provider relationship existed between the parties.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: HOUSING FINANCE LTD. VS. SMT. BINDU ROY
Case No.: FA-115/2019
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Pinki (Member Judicial), upheld an order directing LIC Housing Finance Ltd. to pay ₹10 lakh compensation for losing the complainant's original property documents, holding the finance company guilty of deficiency in service after it failed to return the title deeds despite full repayment of the housing loan.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand, Dehradun
Case Name: M/s Eapro Global Limited v. Shiva Motocorp – Jaguar Land Rover & Anr.
Case No.: SC/5/CC/2/2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttarakhand, Dehradun, comprising Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr. B.S. Manral (Member), held Jaguar Land Rover India Ltd. liable for selling a vehicle with inherent manufacturing defects and engaging in unfair trade practices. The Commission observed that misleading advertisements regarding a vehicle's performance—particularly its acceleration—and unauthorised structural alteration of the chassis constituted gross deficiency in service.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Director, Consortium Securities Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta
Case No : SC/5/A/104/20200
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, comprising Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and C.M. Singh (Member), allowed an appeal filed by Consortium Securities Pvt. Ltd., set aside the District Commission's order, and held that the complainant had availed the services of the share broker for a commercial purpose. Consequently, the Commission ruled that he did not fall within the definition of a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case No.: FA/240/24
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Ashok
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and set aside the District Commission's order directing reimbursement of a mediclaim amount, holding that the insurer had rightly repudiated the claim on the basis of the investigator's report pointing to non-cooperation and discrepancies in the hospital records.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra
Case Title: Rajani Prakash Malik vs Dr.Ashok T. Bhole
Case No: CC NO. SC/27/CC/13/2013
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, comprising Mukesh V. Sharma (Presiding Member) and Poonam V. Maharshi (Member), held an ophthalmic surgeon liable for deficiency in service for obtaining consent through a pre-printed form without adequately informing the patient of the material risks associated with the surgery. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the doctor to pay compensation.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Pooja Kumari
Case No.: First Appeal No. 269/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) allowed the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and set aside the District Commission's order directing reimbursement of the mediclaim amount, holding that the insurer had rightly repudiated the claim on the basis of the investigator's report pointing to discrepancies and suspected fabrication in the hospital records.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Sathyavalli & Anr. v. Central Bank of India & Anr.
Case No.: CC No. 421/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising Sri. C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Member), held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for losing the original Pattayam deposited by a borrower as security for an agricultural loan and directed it to pay compensation of ₹2.5 lakh along with litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Shaik Altaf v. FirstCry.com
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 19/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has directed FirstCry.com to refund the amount paid by a consumer and pay compensation after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in cancelling an order, withholding the refund amount and marking the consumer as a "fraud user" without substantiating its allegations.
Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ganesh J. vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CC/199/2025
The Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharadhi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N.B. (Member) held Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and its dealers liable for deficiency in service for failing to rectify recurring defects in a newly purchased motorcycle and directed them to refund the vehicle's price after deducting 10% depreciation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhojpur
Case Title: Ravi Shanker Pandey v. North Central Railway & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Case No. 296/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhojpur, Ara, comprising President Krishna Pratap Singh and Member Kamal Kishore Singh, has held the North Central Railway and the Ministry of Railways liable for deficiency in service after a passenger and his companions, despite holding confirmed reserved tickets, were unable to occupy their allotted seats and had to complete their journey standing.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Bonthala Sindhuja v. The Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member), and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has directed HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. to pay a ₹50 lakh death claim, holding that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim based on alleged non-disclosure when the questions in the proposal form are ambiguous and unclear. The Commission held that any ambiguity in the proposal form must be construed against the insurer and in favour of the insured.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case No.: CC/378/2024
Case Title: Monika Kiran v. M/s Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic & Ors.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharavathi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N. (Member), dismissed the consumer complaint filed against Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic and its doctors, holding that the complainant failed to establish negligence or deficiency in service through any expert medical evidence and that the treatments had been undertaken with her informed consent.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
Case Title: Anshul Jindal vs MG Motors India Pvt Ltd.
CC No.: DC/80/RBT/CC/54/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), has held M/s MG Motors India Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for manufacturing defects in the vehicle and failure to provide free warranty repairs. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer to refund the full price of the vehicle, along with compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Siju Raj A. v. PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
Case No.: CC/116/23
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member), has held PNB Housing Finance Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for unjustifiably delaying the issuance of a loan pre-closure statement and thereafter charging interest for the period of delay caused by its own conduct.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
Case Title: Jatinder Kapoor vs M/s Deccan Clap- India Pvt Ltd & Ors
CC No.: DC/80/CC/47/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), has held M/s Deccan Clap-India Pvt. Ltd. and its agents liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to complete painting and polishing work within the stipulated time and for repeatedly revising project estimates without the consumer's consent.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal
Case Title: Shaily Sikka v. ICICI Bank & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 03 of 2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal, comprising Smt. Neelam Kashyap (President), Smt. Harisha Mehta (Member) and Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha (Member), has held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for arbitrarily imposing a lien on the complainant's savings account without following due procedure and without producing any material to substantiate the alleged fraud dispute on the basis of which the lien was imposed.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: CC/660/18
Case Title: Paulson M.O. v. Dhana Kendra Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member) and Ram Mohan R. (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Dhana Kendra Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., holding that although the complainant was not entitled to the prized chit amount for failing to prove readiness to furnish sufficient security, the chit fund company was deficient in service for failing to properly maintain and endorse instalment payments in the passbook and for failing to refund the amount payable to the subscriber under the chit scheme.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, Delhi
Case Title: BHANU PRATAP vs COUNTRY HOLIDAYS TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.
Case No : CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/326/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, Delhi, comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President) and Ritu Garodia (Member), held Country Holidays Travel India Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for failing to provide hotel bookings under a holiday membership package despite the complainant's attempts to avail the membership benefits. The Commission directed the company to refund the membership fee with interest and pay compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title : Showkat Ahmad Mir vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd
Case No : CC No: 148/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for the wrongful repudiation of an insurance claim. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that although a surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence, it cannot be treated as conclusive and must be examined alongside the other material available on record.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala
Case Title: Dr. Krishan Lal Kapoor vs JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Case No: CC No.-318/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, has directed Tata Motors Ltd. to either replace a Tata Harrier SUV found to have inherent manufacturing defects with a new defect-free vehicle or refund the purchase price of ₹21.40 lakh along with interest.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling
Case Title : Soloman Lepcha vs Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd
CC No. 09/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, comprising Tikendra Narayan Pradhan (President) and Bhawana Thakur (Female Member), held Amazon and Clicktech Retail Private Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for delivering an incorrect product and subsequently refusing to issue a refund. Allowing the complaint, the Commission held both Opposite Parties jointly and severally liable to refund the purchase amount and pay compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Rahul Goyal v. Caper Rooftop Bistro
Case No.: DC/44/CC/215/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President)and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Caper Rooftop Bistro, holding that the restaurant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for automatically levying and collecting a service charge without obtaining the consumer's consent. The Commission directed the restaurant to refund the illegally collected service charge of ₹129 and pay ₹5,000 as compensation and litigation costs to the complainant.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–South II
Case Title: A. K. PANDA vs TVS ELECTRONICS LTD.
Case No: CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/187/2023
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–South II, comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), held TVS Electronics Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to rectify defects in the complainant's laptop despite charging service fees and claiming to have carried out repairs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad
Case Title: Abdul Azeez C. v. Air Asia India Limited
Case No.: DC/563/CC/484/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, comprising President Vinay Menon V. and Members Vidya A. and Krishnankutty N.K., held Air Asia India Limited liable for deficiency in service for delaying a flight, causing a passenger to miss his connecting flight and resulting in damage to a hybrid jackfruit sapling he was transporting for agricultural research.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar
Case Title: Sanjeev Duggal v. Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CC/469/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, comprising Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd., holding that the restaurant had indulged in an unfair trade practice by levying service charges without obtaining the consumer's consent. The Commission directed the restaurant to refund the service charges collected from the complainant and pay compensation and litigation costs, while rejecting the allegations regarding misbehavior by staff, substandard food quality, and wrongful charging of buffet fees for a minor child due to lack of evidence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Sathish Sangamithra v. Finisyer Kuries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No: C.C No. 496 of 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently directed a chitty company based in Kodungallur, its Managing Director and Board of Directors to refund an amount of Rs. 8.25 lakhs paid by its subscriber as instalments over a period of around 11 years after the company closed down its offices without notice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
No Proof Of Refund, Seller Liable: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Sidhu v. William Penn Pvt. Ltd. (Seller) & Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CC/427/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed a complaint against a seller for failing to substantiate its claim that a refund had been processed, holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact and that mere bald averments without cogent documentary evidence cannot be accepted.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Aggarwal v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited & Others
Case N.: CC/115/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and its officials liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for installing a wireless internet connection instead of the promised optic-fibre wired connection and for failing to refund the advance amount despite assurances.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Dealer Liable For Failure To Transfer Ownership Of Exchanged Vehicle: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Case Title: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Khanna v. Regional Office (True Value), Maruti Suzuki India and M/s C.M. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 326 of 2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held that a vehicle dealer is responsible for ensuring the transfer of ownership of an exchanged car to the subsequent purchaser. The Commission ruled that failure to do so constitutes deficiency in service, particularly where the vehicle continues to remain registered in the original owner's name and leads to legal consequences for him.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central)
Case Title: Samreen v. Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill & Anr.,
Consumer Complaint No. DC/77/CC/148/2023
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central) has held a treating doctor and a nursing home guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, holding them liable for causing permanent infertility to a pregnant woman due to delayed diagnosis and substandard med-ical care.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Ouseph George Karumathi v. Shijo Yohannan
Case No: CC No. 353 of 2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently passed an award granting a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to a complainant since the constructor engaged by him for building his house abandoned work midway and failed to complete construction even after receiving substantial payment of more than 9 lakhs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Subhash Chander Jindal v. Punjab National Bank and others
Case No.: CC/685/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has held Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Raksha Health Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for closing a genuine Mediclaim as “No Claim” despite treatment records being on file.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title: Gh Nabi Reshi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: 27/2016
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Ms. Nyla Yaseen, has held Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to settle a legitimate fire insurance claim. The Commission observed that the insurer neither settled the claim nor repudiated it on valid grounds, and instead relied upon a surveyor's assessment based on “presumptions and assumptions”.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad
Case Title: Akash Sharma vs. M/S Garden Grills 2.0
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 518/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad, comprising Amit Arora (President) and Indira Bhadana (Member), has allowed a consumer complaint against a restaurant for failing to provide free drinking water to a customer. In Akash Sharma vs. M/S Garden Grills 2.0, the Commission held that compelling a customer to purchase bottled water amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Thomas Joseph v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
Case No.: CC No. DC/555/CC/324/2015
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising comprising Presi-dent D.B. Binu, and Members Ramachandran V. and Sreevidhia T.N , has held Jet Airways (India) Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for refusing boarding to a minor child on baseless grounds. The Commission rejected the airline's plea of non-service of notice, holding that Jet Airways had full knowledge of the proceedings, which amounted to deemed service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Shailendra Bhatnagar Vs. Air India and Anr
Case Number: CC/446/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Mr. Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Air India liable for deficiency in service for providing substandard facilities during a long-haul international flight, thereby causing mental agony and harassment to the passengers.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Noble Mathew v. M/s Pothen Autos
Case No: CC. No. 943 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, in a recent order, awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to a consumer, whose booking advance was retained by a car dealer even after he cancelled the booking.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Croma, HP Liable For Sale Of Laptop With Manufacturing Defect
Case Title: Kanika Vs. Infiniti Retails Ltd. (Croma) & Ors.
Consumer Complaint No. CC/160/2021
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) and Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for selling a laptop suffering from a manufacturing defect and failing to replace or refund the same despite repeated complaints.
Amritsar Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amritsar Consumer Commission Orders Home Centre To Replace Almirah For Defective Supply
Case Title: Dr. Karan Grewal v. Home Centre
Consumer Complaint No.: 47 of 2021
The Amritsar Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Ms. Mandeep Kaur (Member), allowed a consumer complaint against Home Centre, holding that the supply of a defective almirah and the failure to rectify the defects amounted to deficiency in service.
North Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Teena Sareen v. M/s Lakkadhaara Furniture Company
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2025
The North Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Porvorim, comprising Ms. Bela N. Naik (President) and Auroliano de Oliveira (Member), has directed Lakkadhaara Furniture Company to refund ₹88,200 along with ₹30,000 as compensation. The Commission held the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to deliver a bed set within the promised timeframe and for providing misleading information regarding the shipment of the product.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Sanjay Singla v. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/139/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for reporting a consumer as a CIBIL defaulter despite full and final settlement of credit card dues.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Surendra Adlakha vs. Qatar Airways IBE
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/280/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Qatar Airways, holding that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was made out in respect of a special repatriation flight operated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ganjam
Case Title: Smt. Kumari Gochayat v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: DC/354/CC/39/2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ganjam at Berhampur, presided over by Shri Satish Kumar Panigrahi (President I/c) and Smt. Saritri Pattanaik (Member), has held that a cardiac death occurring during strenuous overseas employment can qualify as an “accidental death” under a personal accident insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti
Case No.: 371/2018
Case Title: Samriddhi Singh v. Union of India & Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti, comprising Mr. Amar Jeet Verma (President) and Mr. Ajay Prakash Singh (Member), has held the Indian Railways guilty of deficiency in service, observing that the inordinate delay of an Intercity Superfast Train, which caused a student to miss a crucial entrance examination, amounted to negligence and warranted compensation for mental agony and academic loss.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case No: CC.No. 385 of 2023
Case Title: Anil Baby and Anr. v. Sri Vinayaka Travels
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently awarded compensation to two consumers, who were forced to hire taxi to reach their examination centre after the bus they were travelling in was delayed due to repeated breakdowns and stoppage at check posts for alleged tax arrears.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Dilpreet Singh Gandhi v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/44/CC/236/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has directed Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. to reimburse a maternity claim and pay compensation, holding the repudiation of the claim to be wrong and arbitrary.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
CASE TITLE: Rajeev Goyal v. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: CC 364 of 2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd.and its authorised dealer, holding that a car purchased in the name of a proprietorship concern engaged in commercial activity does not fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Sukhvir Singh v. United India Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: CC/20/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II, Chandigarh, comprising Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member), has held that an alleged route permit violation having no nexus with the occurrence of an accident cannot be a valid ground for repudiation of a motor insurance claim. Holding the repudiation to be arbitrary, the Commission found United India Insurance Company Limited guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to reimburse the claim amount along with interest and compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Roopam Kumar vs. SBI Cards & Payment
Case No.: CC DC/AB1/44/CC/255/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), has held SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to redress an unauthorised credit card transactions despite prompt intimation by the cardholder. The Commission ruled that the complainant was entitled to zero liability under the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017, and directed the company to refund the disputed amount along with interest, remove her name from the CIBIL records, and pay compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak
Case Title: HarshaVardhan Gujjeti vs. M/s. INOX Leisure Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: C.C. No. 47 of 2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sangareddy, comprising Smt. P. Kasthuri (President), Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (Member), and Sri Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member), has held that delaying the screening of a movie by exhibiting commercial advertisements after the scheduled start time printed on the ticket amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi
Case Title: Karan Pradeep v. Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: DC/83/CC/343/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi, comprising Ms. Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member), has ruled that online travel portals cannot evade responsibility toward consumers by claiming to be mere “facilitators.” The Commis-sion held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in service for giving false assurances regarding refund processing and directed Malaysia Airlines to refund the ticket amount with interest, along with compensation for mental agony.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Dilbar Singh v. State Bank of India
Case No. DC/AB1/44/CC/18/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), has held the State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for recovering an excess amount from the borrower (complainant) at the time of closure of his home loan despite recalculation directions issued by the Banking Ombudsman.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Harminder Pal v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/278/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member), has held that mere suspicion regarding the cause of loss, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot justify repudiation of a motor insurance claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI(New Delhi)
Case Title: Jhanvi Sharma vs Air India
CC/153/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI(New Delhi), comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Air India liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide adequate Business Class services and for providing substandard facilities during an international flight. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and held that the airline had failed to meet its duty as a service provider.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Wing Commander Mohit Kumar Garg (Retd.) & Anr. v. M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/166/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr. Bariq Ahmad (Member), and Mr. Shekhar Chan-dra (Member), has held M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete the work as per its contractual obligations. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that despite receipt of the legal notice, the firm failed to respond and did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that the renovation work had been completed in accordance with the agreed terms.
Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Krishnakutty V vs Sri. Bose Varghese
Case Number: CC/201/2018
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S., Member and Ram Mohan R. Member has held a shop owner liable for displaying misleading advertisement and charging an excess amount for photocopy from the complainant. The bench further raised concerns regarding the impact of such practices on the consumers which jeopardize their dignity and right to live freely without exploitation.
Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds IFFCO Tokio Liable For Repudiating Accident Insurance Claim
Case Title: Thomas vs Branch Manager, IFFCO
Case Number: CC/492/21
The Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member), and Ram Mohan R. (Member), held IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for wrongfully repudiating an accident insurance claim despite the insured suffering functional disability due to the accident. The Commission observed that rejecting a legitimate claim on illogical and unexplained grounds amounts to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Munir Kaushal v. Ford India Pvt Ltd. and others
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/294/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., holding them liable for deficiency in service due to the persistent issues faced by the complainant with a newly purchased vehicle.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad
Case Title: Parthasarathi T & Ors. v. Ministry of Indian Railways & Ors.
Case No.: DC/563/CC/529/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, comprising Sri. Vinay Menon V. (President), Smt. Vidya A. (Member), and Sri. Krishnankutty N.K. (Member), held the Indian Railways liable for deficiency in service after finding that passengers with confirmed reservations found their seats occupied by unauthorized and ticketless passengers in the sleeper coaches.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi
Case Title: Anuradha Narang v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: CC No. DC/78/CC/25/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi, comprising S.S. Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member), held Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for repudiating an insurance claim by relying on an exclusion clause. The Commission allowed the complaint and held that the insurer failed to prove that the treatment for which reimbursement was sought fell within the scope of the exclusion clause.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title: Nasir Ud Din Zargar v. Al Nawaf Pharmaceutical & J&K Bank, Old Chowk Kupwara
CC No: 33/C/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), held J&K Bank liable for deficiency in ser-vice for disbursing the loan amount to a third party without the complainant's consent. The Com-mission partly allowed the complaint and held that the initiation of recovery proceedings and charging of EMIs on the entire loan amount, without lawful disbursement, amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi
Case Title: Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/83/CC/122/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi, comprising President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal, has held Apple India liable for deficiency in service for failing to disclose the conditions attached to its “iPhone findable after power off” feature. Observing that the representation was displayed without any disclaimer or indication of conditions, the Commission directed the company to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Case Title: Raminder Kaur v. Good Flipping Burgers
Execution Application No.: DC/79/EA/133/2025 (In CC No. 428/2023)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), issued bailable warrants against an official of Good Flipping Burgers for failure to comply with its earlier order directing refund and payment of compensation to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam
Case Title: Jithin M Basheer v. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 656/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam, comprising Smt. S.K. Sreela (President) and Sri. Stanly Harold (Member), has held that supplying goods with lesser quantity than advertised amounts to a “defect” and constitutes misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: SAJU P JOSEPH vs Polycab India Private Limited
CC NO. DC/555/CC/743/2024
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Ramachandran V. (Presiding Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), held Polycab India Private Limited and another opposite party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for refusing to replace a defective inverter during the subsistence of the warranty period. The Commission observed that the defect had arisen within the five-year manufacturer's warranty and that the failure of the opposite parties to honour the warranty obligations warranted relief to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Kodila Krishan Chaitanya v. Perfume 24x7.com
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 18/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has held Perfume 24x7.com guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for delivering products completely different from those ordered online, and directed refund along with compensation and punitive damages. The Commission emphasised that once consideration is paid, a seller is legally bound to deliver the exact goods ordered, and failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Robin A.K. v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd.
Case No.: CC 159/21
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member) and Ram Mohan R. (Member), held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for rejecting a COVID-19 insurance claim on the ground of shortfall in hospitalization duration.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Mrs. P. Masumbi v. M/s Adarsha Automotives Pvt. Ltd. & Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
Case No.: CC/160/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), held Adarsha Automotives Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and negligence for failing to properly inspect and replace coolant during periodic servicing of a Maruti Brezza vehicle, resulting in engine damage due to overheating.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Atal Harshavardhan Reddy v. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: 82/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating a mediclaim based on a medical observation later clarified by the treating hospital. The Commission also held Continental Hospitals liable for recording the observation without proper verification.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad
Adilabad Consumer Commission Holds Flipkart Liable For Wrong Product Delivery
Case Title: Rathod Swasthik v. Flipkart Internet Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 187/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Adilabad comprising Sri Jabez Samuel (President), Smt. Ch. Sandhya Reddy (Member) and Sri R. Narayan Reddy (Member), held Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Consulting Rooms Private Limited liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after a consumer who ordered a Qubo Q600 Air Purifier received a Qubo Q500 model instead.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Praneesh v. IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC 843/17
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member), held IMS Learning Resources Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to issue proper and timely receipts for the entire amount collected from a student towards GRE and IELTS coaching programmes.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora
Baramulla Consumer Commission Holds J&K Bank Liable For Deducting Insurance Premium Without Consent
Case Title: Tabreiz Ahmad Lone v. J&K Bank
Case No.: CC/33/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Nyla Yaseen (Member), held J&K Bank liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for deducting ₹2 lakh from a customer's account towards a MetLife insurance policy without his consent or authorization.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Veerendra Kumar Meena & Ors. v. Air India Express Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/44/CC/345/2024 / CC/345/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh, President, and Shri Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member, has held Air India Express guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying boarding to an IAS officer and his family despite their timely arrival at the boarding gate. The Commission observed that airlines cannot arbitrarily classify passengers as “No Show” passengers when they have completed check-in formalities and reached the boarding gate before the stipulated closure time.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora
Case Title: Mehvish Ashraf Prop. M/S Olive Couture v. Senior Superintendent of Posts Baramulla & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 12/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), held the postal authorities liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver a parcel containing three pashmina shawls worth ₹60,000 and directed them to compensate the complainant for the loss along with damages for mental agony.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi
Case Title: JALALUDDIN vs TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD
CC NO. DC/83/CC/199/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi, comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member), held Tata AIA Life Insurance Company Limited liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for cancelling insurance policies nearly one year after the death of the insured on frivolous grounds. The Commission directed the insurer to release the insured amount to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora
Case Title: Showket Ahmed Dar Vs. New India Assurance Company
Case No.: 61/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Nyla Yaseen (Member), held New India Assurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for arbitrarily repudiating a cattle insurance claim on the ground that the death occurred within an alleged two-day cooling period, without placing any cogent policy condition on record to substantiate the defence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry
Case Title: P. Sundarakumara Manikandan v. The Proprietor, Briyani & Co.
Case No.: CC/15/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry, comprising Shri S. Mouttouvel (President), Smt. A.S. Suvitha (Member) and Shri G. Arumugam (Member), held Briyani & Co. liable for deficiency in service for serving contaminated and unsafe food after a consumer allegedly discovered a dead insect in the biriyani served at the restaurant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora, Jammu & Kashmir
Defective Paint Supply: Baramulla Consumer Commission Holds Indigo Paints Liable
Case Title: Muzamil Traders v. M/S Indigo Paints Limited
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 12/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora, Jammu & Kashmir, comprising President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Ms. Nyla Yaseen, held M/S Indigo Paints Limited liable for supplying defective paint products to a local trader. The Commission observed that a small shopkeeper purchasing goods exclusively for earning livelihood through self-employment would fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, despite the transaction having a commercial element.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title: Naseer Ahmad Khan v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 04/2017
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Ms. Nyla Yaseen, held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service after finding that the assessment of losses suffered by an insured poultry farm in a fire incident was grossly inadequate. The Commission observed that a surveyor's assessment cannot absolve an insurer of its contractual obligation to indemnify the insured to the extent of the actual loss, particularly where substantial documentary evidence supports a higher claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II
Case Title: PRIYANKA BHARDWAJ & ANR vs INDIA CAKES PRIVATE LIMITED
CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/216/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President) and Ritu Garodia (Member), held India Cakes Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver a birthday cake and bouquet despite accepting the entire consideration, including an additional delivery charge of ₹275. The Commission allowed the complaint and directed the company to refund the amount paid along with interest and compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Ullaji Chennamma v. Ola Head Office (Bengaluru Office), represented by its Grievance Officer
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No.12/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising President Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar and Members Sri N. Narayana Reddy and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar, has held Ola liable for deficiency in service after an auto driver allegedly diverted the route, demanded extra money and abandoned a judicial aspirant and her mother midway while they were on their way to attend the Andhra Pradesh Junior Civil Judge Mains Examination. The Commission held that merely functioning as an online platform would not absolve the company of its responsibility towards consumers availing services through its application.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District
Case Title: Sh. Mukesh Kumar vs M/s Madhanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL)
CC No:DC/80/CC/437/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), held Madhanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (MVVNL) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide electricity infrastructure despite receiving full payment from the complainant. The Commission allowed the complaint and ordered the immediate installation of the required equipment without delay.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Renu Goyal v. Unisex Fashions
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/406/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), held Unisex Fashions liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging an additional ₹500 from the complainant during exchange of a product purchased under its “One on One” promotional scheme. The Commission observed that once the opposite party accepted the exchange request, it could not arbitrarily demand any extra amount in the absence of specific terms and conditions authorizing such recovery.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh
Case Title: Shanti Devi v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
Case No.: DC/44/CC/190/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh, comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and S.K. Sardana (Member), held the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for paying a reduced maturity amount under Jeevan Saral Policy despite the policy document issued to the complainant reflecting a higher maturity sum assured. The Commission observed that LIC failed to justify the alterations made in the policy copy subsequently produced during the proceedings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II
Case Title: Aysa vs TATA AIA Life Insurance
Case No.276/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member), has partly allowed a complaint against TATA AIA Life Insurance challenging the repudiation of a life insurance policy. While upholding the repudiation of the claim, the Commission held that the insured had failed to complete the mandatory identity and health verification requirements.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Baramulla/Bandipora
J&K Consumer Commission Directs IndiGo To Pay ₹1.19 lakh For Loss Of Umrah Pilgrims' Baggage
Case Title: Mohammad Maqbool Hakeem & Anr. vs. IndiGo Airlines
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 26/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Baramulla/Bandipora, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Nyla Yaseen (Member), has directed IndiGo Airlines to pay ₹1.19 lakh to two pilgrims returning from Umrah after one of their five checked-in bags was lost. The Commission observed that the airline's failure to properly handle and tag baggage, and its inability to trace the lost items, amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam
Case Title : Dr. Ostin Oomachen vs Piccolo Weddings
C C No. 163/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam, comprising Manulal V.S (President), Smt. Bindhu R (Member) and Sri K.M. Anto (Member), held Piccolo Weddings and its proprietor liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide agreed wedding photography and videography services. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that the lapses caused great mental agony and hardship to the complainants, who had invested in preserving memories of a once-in-a-lifetime event.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora
Case Title: Irshad Rashid Dand vs. Physics Wallah Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: 46/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Baramulla/Bandipora, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Nyla Yaseen (Member), has directed Physics Wallah Private Limited and its local coordinator to refund ₹35,000 and pay compensation to a complainant whose son was denied access to a NEET 2027 course despite full payment. The Commission observed that retention of fees without providing the agreed services constitutes an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
EPFO Liable For Decade-Long Delay In PF Transfer; Chandigarh Commission Awards ₹50,000 Compensation
Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/465/2021
Case Title: Omesh Garg V. Employees Provident Fund Organisation
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh (Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President and B.M. Sharma, Member) held the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) guilty of deficiency in service for causing an inordinate delay of nearly a decade in transferring the complainant's provident fund and directed it to pay ₹50,000 as compensation and litigation costs.
South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar Sharma vs Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital
CC NO. DC/83/CC/299/2018
The South Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member), dismissed the complaint against Max Smart Super Speciality Hospital in relation to the allegation of medical negligence. The Commission, however, held United India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service on account of its failure to furnish a formal repudiation letter containing valid reasons to the complainant within a reasonable time.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case No.: CC 172/21
Case Title: Arun v. Marvel Hero & Hero Motocorp Ltd
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. and Ram Mohan R. (Members), held the dealer guilty of deficiency in service for failing to rectify multiple defects in the complainant's motorcycle despite repeated servicing.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
DTDC Liable For Missing Consignment, Thrissur Consumer Commission Awards ₹55,000 Compensation
Case Title: Pratheeksha Subin v. J. Anjaneyulu (Channel Partner, DTDC Express Ltd.) & Anr.
Case No.: CC 571/24
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. and Ram Mohan R. (Members), held DTDC Express Limited and its channel partner guilty of deficiency in service for failing to deliver one out of eight boxes of paintings entrusted to them, and directed them to compensate the complainant for the mental agony, hardship, and inconvenience caused.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Ugeesh Kumar K.U. v. Mosaic Wellness Pvt. Ltd. & Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CC 241/24
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising Sri. C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S., and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members), held seller Mosaic Wellness Pvt. Ltd. and e-commerce platform Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Commission observed that selling a product meant for human consumption after its expiry date constitutes an unfair trade practice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi
Case Title: Vaibhav Singh Bhadana vs. Fujitsu General India Pvt Ltd.
Case No.: DC/78/CC/238/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi, comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member), has held Fujitsu General (India) Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for selling a defective air conditioner that failed to provide adequate cooling shortly after installation. The Commission observed that the exhaustive number of service calls made by the consumer proved the existence of an inherent defect that the company's technicians failed to resolve.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi
Delhi Consumer Commission Issues NBW Against Haldiram's MD For Non-Compliance Of Order
Execution Case No.: DC/77/EA/16/2025 In DC/77/CC/131/2023
Case Title: Ms. Raminder Kaur v. Haldiram's
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Dr. Rashmi Bansal (Member), has issued a non-bailable warrant against Pankaj Aggarwal, Managing Director of M/s Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd., for non-compliance with its order in execution proceedings.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi
Case Title: Koti Sai Pavan v. Realme Mobile Telecommunication (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/120/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Dr. Rashmi Bansal (Member), has held Realme Mobile Telecommunication (India) Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and for selling a defective product after a mobile phone exploded, causing physical injuries to the complainant. The Commission noted that the incident also resulted in the complainant losing the opportunity to appear in an examination scheduled the next day, thereby causing loss of one year.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
Case Title: Kamal Bhatia vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors
CC No.54/2019
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising a Bench of Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member), has held United India Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to redress the complainant's grievance and handling the matter negligently.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Number: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/529/2021
Case Title: Ajaib Singh v. Director Prosecution and Litigation & Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh (Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President and B.M. Sharma, Member) held the Punjab Government authorities guilty of deficiency in service for restricting the medical reimbursement of a retired Deputy District Attorney without establishing that he had been informed of the applicable policy conditions, and directed them to pay the balance amount of ₹2,90,201 along with 9% interest and ₹20,000 towards compensation and litigation costs.