Supreme Court Bank Liable For Delay In Presenting Cheque : Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Under Consumer Protection Act 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...
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.”
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.
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.
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.