Government of India
Government Amends E-Commerce Rules To Strengthen Consumer Protection
The Government of India has amended the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 through the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, with the aim of strengthening consumer protection and promoting greater transparency in the digital marketplace. The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026 will come into force on January 1, 2027.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case Title: In Re: Misleading Advertisement and Sale of 'Cyclosinone Herbicide' on Flipkart
F No. CCPA/2/2026-A (E-39132)
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty on e-commerce platform Flipkart for listing, advertising and facilitating the sale of an unregistered agro-chemical product, 'Cyclosinone Herbicide', and held that the claims made in relation to the product constituted a misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
CCPA Fines Flipkart ₹5 Lakh For Selling Non-BIS Compliant Toys
Case No.: CCPA-2/11/2023-CCPA (Part-4)
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), comprising Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, has imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on Flipkart Internet Private Limited for facilitating the listing, advertising and sale of toys that did not comply with mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirements under the Toys (Quality Control) Order, 2020
Supreme Court
Over 18K Cases Pending In NCDRC As On July 31, 2026 : Report Before Supreme Court
Case: In Re Pay And Allowance Of The Members Of The U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had 18,767 cases pending as on July 31, 2026, according to a report submitted to the Supreme Court after the Court raised concerns over delays in consumer dispute resolution.
Supreme Court
Case: M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd v M/s Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt Ltd.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 969
The Supreme Court on Monday (21 September 2026) set aside an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that directed New India Assurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 2.4 Crore on a fire insurance claim. The Court held that the insurer was justified in repudiating the claim.
Delhi High Court
Title: NISHANT JETHRA v. DELHI ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION & ORS
W.P.(C) 13485/2026
The Delhi High Court has issued notice on a PIL challenging the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) framework governing Group Net Metering (GNM) and Virtual Net Metering (VNM) for renewable energy projects. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia sought response of the DERC, BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, BSES Yamuna Power Limited, Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited and New Delhi Municipal Council.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Ford India Private Limited v. Shri Yogesh Jain and others
CWP No.19472 of 2026(O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Ford India challenging concurrent orders of consumer fora directing refund of the price of a Ford EcoSport vehicle whose airbag safety system largely failed to deploy in a serious accident, holding that a manufacturing defect of this nature can be inferred from the circumstances without a mandatory laboratory test.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Bajaj Insurance v Varsha Sirwani, MP-4227-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 382
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside orders dismissing an appeal filed by an insurance company before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), holding that its application seeking extension of time to furnish the pre-deposit receipt ought to have been placed before the State Commission for consideration.
Kerala High Court
229 Posts Needed To Strengthen Consumer Commissions In Kerala; High Court Seeks Govt Progress Report
Case Title: Adv. J Surya v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Case No: WP(PIL) 53/ 2026 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (10 September) directed the State government to apprise the progress made towards creating 229 posts for the purpose of infrastructural development of Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions across the State, including the State Commission. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M issued the order while considering a PIL relating to the infrastructural development of Consumer Redressal Commission across the State.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Flipkart Internet Private Limited v. Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case No: WP 27949/2026
The Karnataka High Court on September 3 directed Flipkart Internet Private Limited to file an affidavit detailing the measures being taken to ensure that only BIS-compliant products are listed and sold on its e-commerce platform. Justice Suraj Govindaraj also recorded Flipkart's submission that it would pay the ₹5 lakh penalty imposed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under protest, subject to the outcome of its writ petition challenging the penalty.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Surender Pal Singh & Smt. Preeti v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway & Ors.
Case no.: REVISION PETITION NO, 1089 OF 2015
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, has held that the failure of Railway authorities to provide adequate security arrangements, including the absence of security personnel and failure to ensure that coach doors remained fastened during night hours, amounts to deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Secretary, Lucknow Development Authority v. Bahar Akhtar
Case No.: NC/RP/381/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has partly allowed a revision petition filed by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) concerning the allotment of a commercial shop at Balaganj Shopping Centre, Lucknow. The Commission directed the Authority to first determine the identity and actual area of the shop in the complainant's possession on the basis of the allotment letter and Advocate Commissioner's report, and thereafter raise the demand accordingly.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
JCB Burnt In Naxal Attack: NCDRC Dismisses Oriental Insurance's Revision Plea
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Abhishek Gondi
Case No.: NC/RP/453/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), has held that The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. could not repudiate an insurance claim merely on the ground that the JCB's helper did not possess a valid driving licence, where the evidence did not establish that he was actually driving the vehicle when it was set on fire by Naxalites.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Sanjay Dutt Sharma v. Idea Cellular Ltd. & Ors.
Revision Petition No. NC/RP/915/2026
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by an advocate seeking enhancement of compensation awarded in a dispute concerning the disconnection of his mobile connection, holding that he failed to produce documentary evidence to establish that he had subscribed to a lifetime validity scheme or suffered any loss due to the disconnection.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Nikhil Mehta & Anr. v. Gardenview Abode Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case Number: NC/CC/83/2026
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, has declined to entertain a consumer complaint against Gardenview Abode Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., holding that the complainants had already secured a refund with interest from the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) in respect of the same transaction.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
NCDRC Dismisses Property Dispute Complaint As Time-Barred, Holds Valuation Claim An “Excuse”
Case Title: Hamid Hussain Banday v. M/s LGCL Properties Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: NC/CC/168/2025
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising President Justice A.P. Sahi and Member Shri Bharatkumar Pandya, has dismissed a consumer complaint against M/s LGCL Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.
Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (Additional Bench)
Case Title: Chandrakala & Ors. v. Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: C.C. No. 116 of 2015
The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (Additional Bench) has held Apollo Hospitals liable for medical negligence for failing to provide timely treatment to a patient suffering from an acute ischemic stroke during the critical "golden hour" period.
Sikkim State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gangtok
Case Number: First Appeal No.03 of 2024
Case Title: Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Bijay Rai
The Sikkim State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gangtok, comprising Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan (President), Hem Kumar Chettri (Member) and Karma Loday Lepcha (Member), upheld the finding of deficiency in service against Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. in relation to a Royal Stag whisky bottle that contained foreign particles despite its cap and hologram being intact.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi
Star Health Liable For Wrongfully Limiting Mediclaim Reimbursement: Belagavi Consumer Commission
Case Title: Prafula W/o Devdutt Kopikar & Ors. v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd.
Case No.: Complaint No. 381/2025
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Belagavi, comprising Sri M.I. Shigli (President) and Sri Girishagouda S. Patil (Member), has held Star Health and Allied Insurance Company Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for restricting a mediclaim reimbursement on the basis of a sub-limit clause that it failed to establish as part of the renewed insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad
Case Title: Ramavadh & Anr. v. Citizens Specialty Hospital & Ors.
Case No.: C.C. No. 567/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Hyderabad, comprising President Mrs. B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi and Members Mrs. C. Lakshmi Prasanna and Mr. B. Raji Reddy, has held Citizens Specialty Hospital and its Consultant Neurologist Dr. Aparna Vijay Kumar liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service for delaying a life-saving stroke procedure while awaiting family consent and a COVID-19 RT-PCR report. The Commission held that the delay resulted in the loss of a crucial therapeutic window for treatment.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Y. Raghavendra v. OLA Electric Mobility Private Limited & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 65/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has held OLA Electric Mobility Pvt. Ltd. and its Kurnool showroom liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver an electric vehicle despite receiving the entire sale consideration from a consumer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi
Case Title: Deyzeel Aggarwal v. InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo)
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/80/CC/76/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta and Harpreet Kaur Chharya (Members), has held InterGlobe Aviation Limited (IndiGo) liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying boarding to a passenger after rescheduling his flight. The Commission observed that contractual limitation clauses in an airline's Conditions of Carriage cannot operate as a complete defence against statutory remedies available under consumer law.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada
Case Title: Mr. Sushanth N.G. v. Air India Express Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 234/2025.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dakshina Kannada, comprising President (I/C) Sri Somashekarappa K. Handigol and Member Smt. Sharadamma H.G., has held Air India Express guilty of deficiency in service for failing to provide the special handling promised for a passenger's high-value sports bicycle despite collecting a separate special equipment handling fee.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Justice (Retd.) T.R. Ramachandran Nair & Anr. v. Nibav Lifts Private Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 217/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., has held Nibav Lifts Private Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for accepting an advance payment towards installation of a home elevator without conducting a proper feasibility assessment, and directed it to refund the advance amount with interest.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title: Abdul Gani Pir & Anr. v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complainant No:65/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Ms. Nyla Yaseen, has partly allowed a consumer complaint against Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., holding that an insurer cannot repudiate an insurance claim solely on the basis of a surveyor's report, particularly in the absence of independent evidence supporting the repudiation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Kurnool Consumer Commission Orders Kia India To Refund ₹11 Lakh For Recurring DPF Issues In Sonet
Case Title: Tummakomma Ravindranath v. Kia India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 48 of 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, directed Kia India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorised dealer MG Brothers Kia, Kurnool, to refund the ex-showroom price of a Kia Sonet diesel vehicle after finding that repeated repair attempts failed to provide a permanent solution to recurring Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) issues. The Commission held that although a manufacturing defect had not been conclusively established, the failure of the manufacturer and dealer to provide a durable and effective solution during the warranty period amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kakinada
Case Title: D. Venkateswara Rao v. The Executive Officer, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamyvari Devasthanam & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 22/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kakinada, has directed a licensed shop operating within the premises of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, to deposit ₹7 lakh as punitive damages in the Consumer Welfare Fund after finding that it sold a packaged drinking water bottle above its printed Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The Bench comprising President Sri Ch. Raghupathy Vasantha Kumar and Members Smt. Chakka Susi and Sri Chaganti Nageswara Rao held that collecting ₹25 for a packaged drinking water bottle carrying an MRP of ₹18 constituted an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi
Amount Debited From ATM Transaction But No Cash Dispensed: Consumer Commission Holds Bank Liable
Case Title: Jitender Singh v. Punjab & Sindh Bank & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No.: DC/77/CC/153/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VIII (Central), Delhi, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Dr. Rashmi Bansal (Member), has held Punjab & Sind Bank liable for deficiency in service for failing to reverse ₹10,000 debited from a consumer's account in a failed ATM transaction where no cash was dispensed.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Govindan v. Manager, Bank of India, Kuruppampady Branch & Anr.
Case No.: CC No. 867 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., has held Bank of India guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for subjecting an elderly customer to repeated visits and procedural hurdles before releasing funds lying in his deceased wife's account.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-I (North)
Case Title: Bikash Agarwal & Ors. v. M/s Ideal Real Estate Private Limited
Case No.: DC/315/CC/84/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata-I (North), comprising Kallol Chattopadhyay (President), Sahana Ahmed Basu (Presiding Member), and Rukhsana Samim (Member), has partly allowed a complaint against M/s Ideal Real Estate Private Limited and held that a real estate developer's failure to refund the amount deposited by homebuyers after cancelling their allotment constitutes an "unfair trade practice".
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar
Samsung Phone Sold With Pre-Activated Warranty: Haridwar Consumer Commission Holds Dealer Liable
Case Title: Aman v. Maira Enterprises & Ors.
Case No.: DC/50/CC/12/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar, comprising President Shri Gagan Kumar Gupta, Member Dr. Amesh Rawat and Member Smt. Ranjana Goyal, has partly allowed a complaint against Maira Enterprises, holding it liable for deficiency in service for selling a Samsung mobile phone whose warranty had been activated before the date of purchase without disclosing the same to the consumer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Venugopala Pillai P.V. v. M/s Kalyan Silks
Case No.: CC No. 1001 of 2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., has held that Kalyan Silks engaged in a misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice by prominently advertising shopping benefits worth ₹1,500 on purchases of ₹3,000 while displaying material redemption conditions in inconspicuous print without reasonable prominence. The Commission also found deficiency in service for issuing invoices that became illegible within a short period and failing to provide a legible replacement when the grievance was raised.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Mere Suspicion Of Income Misstatement Not Enough To Reject Insurance Claim: Kurnool Commission
Case Title: Smt. Gandla Prameela v. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 173/2025
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 HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service after it unjustifiably repudiated a ₹1 crore accidental death insurance claim on the ground of alleged income suppression, and directed the insurer to pay the assured amount with interest and compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, Jammu & Kashmir
Case Title: Ghulam Mohammad Shah v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, Jammu & Kashmir, has held that an insurer cannot repudiate an insurance claim merely by alleging that the supporting bills are fake unless such allegations are backed by cogent evidence. Holding Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the Commission partly allowed a complaint filed by a shop owner whose insurance claim arising from a fire incident had been rejected on the ground that the bills submitted by him were forged.