Delhi High Court Single Benches In NCDRC: Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Examine NCDRC's Jurisdiction And Bench Constitution Case Title: NBCC India Limited vs. Randhir Singh Redhu and Ors. The High Court of Delhi has issued a notice regarding a Writ petition addressing the issue of jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the...
Delhi High Court
Case Title: NBCC India Limited vs. Randhir Singh Redhu and Ors.
The High Court of Delhi has issued a notice regarding a Writ petition addressing the issue of jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and the constitution of its Benches. The High Court granted a stay on the NCDRC order until the next hearing and issued a notice since the Petitioner was able to present a prima facie case before the Court.
The Petitioner, NBCC India Ltd, a management consulting company challenged the NCDRC's order dated 23.02.2023 contending that the Presiding Member of the Commission lacks the jurisdiction to issue such orders.
National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Global Hospital vs. P. Manjula & 3 Ors.
The NCDRC disposed of the appeals and upheld the Telangana State Consumer Commission’s order. The Commission held that the Global Hospital (Hospital) is liable for negligence and deficiency in service due to improper oxygen supply to the patient during the surgery. It awarded a compensation of Rs. 18 Lakhs with a simple interest rate at 9% p.a with an increased cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the complainants.
Case Title: Suresh Prasad Gupta vs. M.D Tata Motors & 2 Ors.
The NCDRC allowed the Revision Petition filed against Tata Motors and its 2 dealers namely Pirana Motors and Guinea Motors and directed them to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation. The Commission determined that the dealers failed to provide evidence to support their claim that the malfunction in the vehicle's engine was due to any action or negligence on the part of the Complainant. Moreover, they could not demonstrate that the issue fell outside the terms of the warranty that were applicable at the relevant time.
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Jagjit & Anr.
The NCDRC consisting of Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed a Revision Petition by the Life Insurance Corporation of India and ordered to pay a cost of Rs. 15,000 to the Complainants. The Commission upheld the Lower Commissions decision orders that LIC is liable as it already had knowledge of the previous policy and the complainants were not informed and had no prior knowledge that such information is required to be provided. Therefore, there was no intentional concealment of material facts by the deceased.
Case Title: Royal Sundaram General Insurance vs Latha
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition and ordered the Insurance Company to pay the complainant the insurance claim amount of Rs. 10 Lakhs, along with Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as Litigation cost. Additionally, the NCDRC directed the Insurance Company to pay interest at a rate of 9% on the delayed payment, calculated from the date of filing the complaint.
Case Title: Dr. Hemant & Anr. vs Zenal Construction Private Limited & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) consisting of Presiding Member Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya dismissed a complaint filed by the complainants against Zenal Construction Pvt. The Commission determined that the complaint was not maintainable because the complainants had booked the shops for “commercial purposes” and not solely for the purpose of earning a livelihood through self-employment.
Case Title: Ashish Vohra vs. Raheja Developers Limited.
The NCDRC, comprising Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Member), partly allowed the complaint and directed Raheja Developers Limited. to refund the entire amount deposited by the complainant, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The Commission reasoned that the Developer is liable for gross negligence as it failed to finish the project, obtain the occupation certificate, or provide essential amenities for habitation despite collecting over 95% of the payment from the Homebuyers.
Case Title: Hotel Leela Avenue Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
The NCDRC, consisting of Presiding Member Subhash Chandra, dismissed a consumer complaint filed by the complainant against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Apex Commission was of the view that the initial assessment of loss by the surveyor included the loss incurred in the Galleria, which as per the final report was not to be covered by the insurance policies and therefore, dismissed the complaint filed by the Hotel.
Case Title: Jagruk Nagrik & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC presided over by Presiding Member Dinesh Singh and Member Binoy Kumar dismissed the Revision Petition and held that there was a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Divisional Railway Manager, Divisional Office, Northern Railways.
The Commission modified the decision made by the Lower Consumer Commissions and instructed the Railways to refund the amount of Rs. 5150 with an interest rate of 9% per annum with Rs. 5000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 25000 as litigation costs before the three consumer commissions.
Case Title: Jagruk Nagrik & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr.
The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) consisting of Presiding Member Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Member) allowed the complaint and directed Shreeniwas Cotton Mill and The Lodha Group to refund the entire deposited amount, with an interest rate of 9%. The complaint was filed for deficiency of service and misrepresentation regarding the height of the building as being the “World’s Tallest”.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
Case Title: Mr. Shameem Uddin vs. The Country Head of Kuwait Airways & Ors.
The Delhi State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint and held the Country Head of Kuwait Airways and Kuwait Airways liable for deficiency of service as it failed to provide quality services to the Complainant.
The State Commission directed the Airways to pay an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation for the financial loss with a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental harassment and Rs. 50,000/- for litigation expenses.
Case Title: DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinod Rao
The State Consumer Commission in Maharashtra dismissed an appeal filed by filed by DHL Express I Pvt. Ltd. and held it guilty of deficiency in service. The State Commission upheld the District Commission’s order and awarded to pay Rs. 25,000 towards the loss of the iPhone and mental agony with an interest rate of 9% per annum, costs of Rs. 8,000 with an additional cost of Rs. 3,000 to the Complainant.
Case Title: Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd. vs B.Ramchander Reddy
The Telangana State Consumer Commission presided by Meena Ramanathan (President) and K. Ranga Rao (Member) allowed an appeal and set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission in Hyderabad. The Complaint was filed by an Agriculturalist against Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd., a real estate business, for deficiency of service. The State Commission ruled that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Limitation Act.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
Case Title: Kishore Chandra Dhanraj Shah vs. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Surat District Consumer Commission, led by Justice P.P. Mekhia (President) and Dr. Tirtheshbhai Mehta (Member) allowed the complaint against Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and held it liable for serious negligence, unfair trade practices, and deficiency of service.
The Commission ruled that the Insurance Company's decision to deny the claim was unjustified. Consequently, the Insurance Company has been ordered to pay Rs. 1,32,862/- along with an interest rate of 9% per annum. Additionally, the Commission awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the mental harassment and inconvenience caused and another Rs. 2,000 to cover the litigation cost.
Case Title: Sri Vempadampu Suryanarayana vs. Toyata
The District Consumer Commission, Vizianagaram allowed the complaint in favor of the Complainant against Toyota (Dealer) and Leela Krishna Toyota (Sub-dealer).
As per the Commission's decision, the Dealer and Sub-dealer are required to reimburse the Complainant with an amount of Rs. 25,13,569/-, along with an interest of 12% per annum. Additionally, they must also pay Rs. 2,84,552/- and Rs. 1,31,313.91/- for the EMIs and bank closure charges, respectively with Rs. 1 Lakh compensation for the inconvenience caused and Rs. 30,000/- for the legal expenses incurred, including the Advocate Fee of Rs. 5,000/-.
Case Title: Smt. Reddy Siva Swarupa vs. Kolors Health Care India Pvt Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad – I presided by B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) allowed the complaint and directed Kolors Health Care Pvt. Ltd. to refund Rs. 2,15,000/- along with interest rate of 9%. It imposed a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and a cost of Rs.15,000/- on Kolors Health Care.
Case Title: Lt. Col. Manpreet Singh vs Indigo Airlines
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, consisting of Suresh Kumar Sardana (Presiding Member) and BM Sharma (Member), has ordered Indigo and its ticket agent to compensate an Indian Army Officer. The commission held that by refusing to let the family board the flight or demanding an additional payment of Rs.4500/-, both Indigo and the ticket agent engaged in unfair trade practices and failed to provide satisfactory service to the Army officer and his family.
Case Title: Mavarpu Parmesh vs Paytm
The Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission consisting M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member), and J. Shyamala (Member), directed Paytm to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for the mental distress caused to a consumer. The case involved a situation where the consumer's account was debited while doing a Paytm transaction, but the amount was not transferred to the intended recipient, indicating a deficiency in service.
Case Title: Abha Dobriyal vs Bank of Baroda
The District Consumer Commission at Chandigarh consisting of Surjeet Sharma (Presiding Member) and B.M. Sharma (Member) allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Bank of Baroda to pay a compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for rendering deficient services along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. The Commission observed that the Bank failed to upload the revised claim form, which was their responsibility, not the complainants' constituting a deficiency in service and causing mental agony, harassment, and loss to the complainants.