Supreme Court NCDRC Decree Against Builder Company Can't Be Executed Against Directors/Promoters Without Personal Liability Fixed: 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.