Supreme CourtConsumer Protection Act | Keeping Bank Deposit Not 'Commercial Purpose' Merely Because Interest Is Earned : Supreme CourtCause Title: SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS VIJAYA BANKCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 267The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 19) observed that merely earning interest on bank deposits does not automatically...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.