Delhi High Court Delhi HC Quashes Summons Issued To H&M Over Alleged Violation Of 2011 Legal Metrology Rules Case Title: H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi The High Court of Delhi quashed a summoning order against H&M Pvt. Ltd., situated at Select City Walk Mall, Saket for violating Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology...
Delhi High Court
Case Title: H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
The High Court of Delhi quashed a summoning order against H&M Pvt. Ltd., situated at Select City Walk Mall, Saket for violating Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Upon being inspected, the Legal Metrology Department wrongfully concluded that H&M Pvt. Ltd. had not followed the mandatory labeling requirements. The High Court held that the 2011 Rules are not applicable to ‘loose garments’.
National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: DCW Ltd. vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC allowed the complaint filed by DCW Ltd. against United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and held it liable for deficiency in service. The Commission set aside the Maharashtra State Commission’s order. It held that the assertion of willful negligence due to mishandling of the DG Set when the lube oil pressure was below the manual's specifications was a mere presumption. The Commission highlighted that there was no ground or reasonable basis for the rejection of the Insurance claim since no commission appears on the part of the Complainant.
Case Title: Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd & Anr. vs. Sanjay Ghosh
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by IndusInd Bank Ltd. against Sanjay Ghosh and upheld the State Commission order holding that the Bank had acted in total violation of the instructions contained in the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers formulated by Reserve Bank of India. It observed that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to those under Special Statutes and an Arbitration clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions.
Case: Sunil Kumar vs Shimlaauto Zone & Anr
The NCDRC clarified that any payment based on the Insured Declared Value (IDV) should be prioritized to repay any outstanding auto loan, with the remaining balance going to the customer. Moreover, the NCDRC also ruled against the authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland Ltd, ordering them to pay the IDV along with Rs. 50,000 in compensation for the wrongful transfer of the vehicle to the financer without the customer’s consent, and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs to the customer.
Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd & 3 Ors. vs. Ravi Kumar
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by HDFC Bank against Tamil Nadu’s State Commission order and held it liable for deficiency in service. It was observed that the pre-sale notice was sent to an incorrect address, not matching the address as documented in the Loan Agreement. Moreover, the notice contained an incorrect loan account number. This was seen as a deliberate, arbitrary, and unlawful action on the part of HDFC Bank.
Case Title: Girish vs Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 Ors
The NCDRC rejected a vehicle insurance claim on the grounds of an invalid driving license held by the driver who was operating the car at the time of the accident. This case reached the NCDRC after the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra overturned the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Latur, which had previously dismissed the insurance claim.
Case Title: Indian Railway & 2 Ors. vs Uma Agarwal
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Indian Railways holding it liable for deficiency in service. It held that as per the provisions of the Railways Act, it was established that if it is proven that the loss, destruction, or damage occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees, then the Railways would be held responsible. Moreover, it has violated several of its duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not having adequate personnel, not closing the gates at night, allowing intruders in the coach, and not aiding the Complainant in filing the FIR.
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. against Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. and Athena Insurance and Reinsurance Brokers ‘P’ Ltd. It upheld the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission’s order and pointed that there is no proven concealment of the material fact in the proposal form since the term 'accident' refers to an unexpected unfortunate event causing damage or injury.
Case Title: Life Insurance of India Ltd. vs Geeta Madhavrao Damahes & 2 Ors.
The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by LIC and upheld the State Commission's decision. It held that LIC must fulfill its responsibility as a public sector insurance company and pay the entire amount under the policy, regardless of the initial claim made by the complainant for a lesser sum. It directed LIC to pay Rs. 6 lakhs with a bonus amount.
Case Title: HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Rajiv Kumar Agarwal & Anr.
The NCDRC issued a clarification stating that vehicle owners who have insurance but have not registered their vehicles in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act and rules are not eligible to file insurance claims. It was held that non-registration of a vehicle is not only a violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 but also a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the Motor Insurance Policy.
Case Title: Medical Superintendent Safdarjung Hospital & Anr. vs Sudhir Kumar Verma
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Safdarjung Hospital guilty of medical negligence and directed the hospital to pay Rs. 11.05 lakh to a man whose wife died due to deficiency in service. It emphasized that overcrowded wards and doctors' overtime duties were not acceptable excuses for medical negligence. It reasserted the importance of maintaining medical standards and ensuring accountability within healthcare institutions.
The NCDRC dismissed an appeal filed by Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. against the order issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority. The CCPA's order pertained to Cloudtail’s infringement of consumer rights by selling domestic pressure cookers to consumers in breach of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) regulations. CCPA had observed that despite the suspension of imports, Cloudtail had continued to sell these pressure cookers to consumers, indicating a deliberate disregard for the quality standards.
The NCDRC’s President Justice A.P. Sahi issued a notification dated 11th August, 2023 with practice directions for Consumer Commissions. The said directions have been issued by the President in terms of Regulation 24 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
Case Title: Dr. Santosh Gaydhankar vs. Sandeep Kumar
The Uttrakhand State Consumer Commission allowed the appeal filed by Dr. Santosh Gaydhankar against Sandeep Kumar and Jaya Maxwell Hospital. It pointed out that the consumer complaint filed by the complainant wasn't valid since the issue stemmed from an ultrasound report prepared by the Appellant for the complainant's wife. However, the complaint should have been filed by the wife herself, as she was the one affected by the report's alleged inaccuracy. The complainant lacked the authority of his wife to file the complaint on her behalf.
Case Title: National Labour and Consumer Association and Anr. vs R. S. Corporation and Ors.
The bench of the Gujarat State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ruled that a consumer dispute should not be considered trivial solely because of the small amount involved. The commission emphasized that it is imperative for consumer courts to evaluate and decide on the underlying issues in such cases. Additionally, the commission disagreed with the notion that a complaint should be rejected merely on the grounds that it took up valuable time or was perceived as an attempt to prolong the proceedings.
Case Title: M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs Sh. Sushil Kumar
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench overturned an ex parte decision made by the District Commission (Dehradun) against KLM Airlines. It emphasized the significance of ensuring equitable treatment and upholding due process in legal proceedings and highlighted the principle of natural justice, which mandates that the commission hears arguments from both sides before reaching a verdict.
Case Title: G.M. Anna Aluminium vs Sunil Kumar
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Thiruvananthapuram) held a manufacturer of chili powder liable for selling chili powder packets with substantial weight deficits. Further, the bench noted that the customers generally rely on the packet labelled weight and are unlikely to suspect the genuineness of the weight displayed.
Case Title: Jayagopal K Vs Pradeep Cholayil
The State Consumer Commission in Thiruvananthapuram bench refused to condone a delay of 2,279 days in filing of an appeal and held that condonation of delay could not be claimed as a matter of right. Further, the Commission held that once the District Commission delivered the notice and order on the assigned address of the party, it would be considered deemed service. If there is a change in the address or if the party has left the country, it is the party’s responsibility to give instructions to the postal authorities to deal with the communications received at his address.
Case Title: Indian Maritime University vs Smt. Nimmi Kundlia and Anr.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand allowed an appeal filed by the Indian Maritime University contending that Consumer Forums do not have the jurisdiction to deal with admission and fee-refund matters against educational institutes. Relying on certain landmark judgments, the State Commission reiterated that educational institutes do not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as they are not rendering any services.
Case Title: Shaji David vs Shafa Diagnostic Centre
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a complaint regarding wrong diagnosis by a diagnostic centre. The Complainant failed to prove that the TPHA (ELISA) test reports granted by the diagnostic centre were faulty. The Commission further rejected the Complainant’s contention that due to wrong reports, his visa for Kuwait was rejected and that the diagnostic centre must compensate him. Moreover, the Commission noted that the complainant had filed the complaint without sufficient bonafides, causing undue hardship to the Diagnostic Centre.
Case Title: Mr. Ravindra Bajirao Galande vs. Shri Someshwar Construction Companys and Developers
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint filed against Shri Someshwar Builders and Developers and held it liable for deficiency in service as in spite of receiving the entire amount of consideration, the Construction Company failed to complete the project as assured and hand over possession of the flats. Further, the Construction Company started the construction but the quality of the construction is very low as it used substandard materials.
Case Title: M. Sainath vs Kamineni Hospitals Ltd
The Telangana State Consumer Commission ordered Kamineni Hospitals in Hyderabad to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to Sai Nath, the complainant. The Commission found the hospital liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Commission took into account the complainant's physical and mental condition and noted that the delay in performing the operation amounted to a deficiency in service. Consequently, the hospital was directed to pay the awarded compensation as a redressal measure for the harm caused to the complainant.
Case Title: Mr.Naresh Ambratlal Sahita vs. Shanklesha Constructions
The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint against Shanklesha Constructions and Mutha Constructions and found them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Despite having received the complete payment, the Construction companies did not provide possession of the flat until 2018. It held that the complainants have the right to obtain possession of the reserved flat, along with interest for the delayed delivery of possession, compensation for the mental and physical distress endured, and the costs incurred due to legal action.
Case Title: Chemmanur Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The Karnataka State Consumer Commission directed the New India Assurance Company to provide compensation of over Rs. 80.2 lakh to a jewelry company. The order comes as restitution for losses suffered by the jewelry company during a robbery incident that occurred back in 2011. The Commission held it liable for deficiency of service for the actual loss suffered due to the burglary at their showroom as well as for the inordinate delay in settling the claim.
Case Title: Regional Branch Manager, National Insurane Company Ltd. vs Kunwar Singh Dev
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench ruled that vehicle owner will not be entitled to compensation for the vehicle damaged in a road accident in the mountains in absence of hill endorsement in the driver's driving licence. Further, the bench noted that this endorsement was crucial in regions characterized by varied and challenging terrain, such as the hilly landscapes of Uttarakhand.
Case Title: Jet Airways (India) Ltd. vs Dhanpat Kumar Jain
The Bihar State Consumer Commission allowed an appeal by Jet Airways and set aside the order of District Consumer Commission, Khagaria. The Commission held that the complainant failed to provide any evidence of checking in his bag at the counter. Additionally, there was no baggage identification tag, which indicated that the complainant either did not carry any baggage or was not attentive during the check-in process.
Case Title: S. Venugopal vs. Aquatic Club
The Kerala State Commission consisting allowed a complaint against Aquatic Club in Kerala. The complaint revolves around the tragic death of the complainant's 22-year-old son, Abhijith, who drowned in the club’s swimming pool. While observing that the swimming pool facility was dangerous and no actual lifeguard was present, the commission found the Aquatic Club liable for deficiency in services and ruled that the drowning of the deceased in the swimming pool was a direct consequence of the negligence on their part.
Case Title: National Insurance Company Limited vs Atma Ram
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission ruled on an appeal filed by the National Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company rejected the consumer's claim for his stolen car based on the grounds that he had negligently left the car keys inside the vehicle. The State Commission found that the consumer had not intentionally or wilfully left the keys in the car's ignition; rather, it was an inadvertent act. The consumer had no control over the fact that the car was stolen. Consequently, the Commission held that the Insurance Company was not legally justified in repudiating the genuine claim of the complainant.
Case Title: United Insurance Company Ltd. vs Negi Digital & Anr.
The Uttrakhand State Consumer Commission dismissed the appeal and held that the boundary wall was included in the risk coverage of the policy and the insurer was obliged to compensate for the damage incurred to it. The case involved a dispute over a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, where excessive rainfall caused a flood and subsequent collapse of the complainant's property boundary wall. The Insurance Company was ordered to pay compensation of Rs 5 lakh to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
Case Title: Jindal Sales vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission – I allowed the complaint against United India Insurance relating to its failure to settle a claim for a fire accident, despite the presence of a valid fire insurance policy. It directed the Insurance Company to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 8,79,855/- along with an interest of 9% per annum. Additionally, the Insurance Company is required to provide Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant, and Rs. 15,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Shri Gandhi Behera vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The Berhampur District Consumer Commission held Flipkart liable for cancelling a customer’s order citing unforeseen error by the seller. Upon being inquired, Flipkart failed to provide the seller’s information as well as displaying the information on the website, as mandated under Regulation 5(a)(3) of the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020. The District Commission held that even as an intermediary, Flipkart cannot evade liability and cannot backtrack once the contract is confirmed.
Case Title: B. Pavan Sai vs Ponnaiyah Ramanujam Institute of Medical Sciences
The District Consumer Commission, Kanchipuram (Tamil Nadu) ordered Ponnaiyah Ramajayam Institute of Medical Science to pay refund Rs. 19 Lakhs for collecting fee more than the government-mandated amount along with a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs for wasting a full year of a student, despite the student’s legitimate expectation of receiving quality education and medical facilities. It recognized that the inadequate provision of educational and medical services amounted to a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
Case Title: Ds Chowdary vs Concu Cakes & Anr
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – I found Concu Cakes, a popular cake boutique, guilty of deficiency of service for mistakenly delivering an egg cake instead of the eggless cake that was ordered. The Commission, sympathizing with the complainant's ordeal, directed Concu Cakes’ management to compensate her with Rs. 40,000 for the mental suffering and anguish caused.
Case Title: Shri Sudhir vs Registrar, Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi bench dismissed the complaint and held that educational institutions are not covered under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. It provided that institutions rendering education, even those providing vocational courses and activities undertaken during the process of admission, pre-admission or post-admission, except coaching institutions, will not be covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Case Title: Salim P.M. v. State Bank of India
The Ernakulam Consumer Commission directed the State Bank of India to return an amount of Rs. 85,000/- to a customer from whose account certain money was fraudulently withdrawn. It observed that banks owe a duty of care to protect the interests of its customers.
Case Title: Sri Swapnashish Panna vs Head of the Department, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd
The Bolangir District Consumer Commission ordered the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance to compensate the complainant for the loss sustained due to the accidental fire that occurred to his insured vehicle, when his vehicle was parked in a mall. Not only the Insurance Company failed to prove that the complainant had tampered with the electrical system of the vehicle, it also delayed the settlement of the claim, causing mental agony to the complainant.
Case Title: Yogesh Saigal vs Thomas Cook (India) Pvt. Ltd
In a case involving the tragic car accident that occurred in Sri Lanka in 2019, the Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II, New Delhi has awarded Rs 50 lakh in damages to a man who tragically lost his wife, son, and father-in-law in the accident. The Commission ruled that two private travel and tour companies, Thomas Cook and Red Apple Travel Pvt. Ltd., were negligent and deficient in their services, leading to the fatal accident.
Case Title: Snehpal Singh vs Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], Delhi held Delhi Academy of Medical Sciences liable for unfair trade practices for not refunding the fee submitted by a student who was dissatisfied by the classes and service provided by the coaching institute. The Commission observed that charging lumpsum payment of fee in advance unjustly benefits these institutions, while also obligating the student to avail the entire course even if the quality is subpar and deficient.
Case Title: K.P. Abbas vs Indane, Indian Oil Corporation Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad absolved Indane, the subsidiary of Indian Oil Corporation and its distributer, Matha Indane, of liability arising from a consumer complaint against faulty refilling of an LPG cylinder which led to the explosion of the residential premises of the complainant. The bench perused the evidence and found that the complainant failed to establish the cause of explosion.
Case Title: S. Murugan vs Flipkart India Pvt Ltd and Ors.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu bench held Flipkart India and the TV manufacturer liable for firstly, delivery a defective TV and subsequently, failing to repair it or refund the amount. The District Commission held that Flipkart cannot escape liability as even the agent, who sells the product, has a responsibility to ensure the quality of the products sold. If the product turns out to be defective, even the agent would be held vicariously liable.
Case Title: Himanshu Sharma vs. Xiaomi India
The Chandigarh District Commission – I allowed the complaint filed against Xiaomi India as despite payment for repairs to Xiaomi, the TV remained inoperable. It held Xiaomi liable for unfair trade practices and ordered it to repair the TV within 45 days, without any additional charges. It also directed it to pay Rs. 5000 as compensation for the mental agony and Rs. 5000 as litigation cost.
Case Title: Mohinder Singh vs National Insurance Company Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur held National Insurance Company Limited liable for paying the insurance amount of a motorcycle insured by the complainant along with litigation costs. It held that the insurance company failed to show that the motorcycle was sold and even the registration certificate remained to be registered under the name of the complainant.
Case Title: S.V. Narayana Reddy vs Vaidi Chitfunds Pvt Ltd.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission – II allowed the complaint against Vaidi Chitfunds Pvt Ltd, Prodduttor Shilpa, and Prodduttor Janardhan. It emphasized that the Chit Fund Company's failure to pay the total chit amount to the Complainant, even after the chit duration period had ended, constituted a deficiency of service and an unfair trade practice. It ordered the Chit Fund Company must pay the Complainant Rs. 2,75,017 along with 15% per annum interest and compensation for the mental agony and litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Lakshay Kundu vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission-I had issued a directive to Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd to refund of Rs 4,999/-, accompanied by an interest rate of 9 per cent per annum, to a city resident. This action was taken due to the sale of a defective telescope. Additionally, Amazon was instructed to provide a compensation of Rs 2,500 for causing mental distress and harassment to the customer, coupled with Rs 2,500 to cover litigation costs. The Commission attributed its decision to Amazon's accountability for the subpar product quality, its inability to furnish a satisfactory solution, and its involvement in unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Raghuveer vs Manager, State Bank of India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vijayapur (Karnataka) held that in cases of fraudulent uses of bank and ATM information of the customer, banks bear a responsibility to investigate and verify transactions. The District Commission while directing the State Bank of India to pay Rs 8 Lakhs to the complaint held that it failed to adequately investigate the fraudulent loan application and transactions, indicating a deficiency in their service.
Case Title: Amit U. Gosar vs. Union Bank of India
The Mumbai District Commission allowed the complaint against Union Bank of India and held it guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as the Bank should have waived the processing charges as per their festive offer rather than intentionally debiting Rs. 17,700/- from his account. However, the Bank intentionally debited Rs. 17,700/- from the complainant's account, contrary to the festive offer. Moreover, letters and notices were sent to the Bank requesting a refund with interest, but the Bank failed to comply with it.
Case Title: Col. Bhalinder Singh Brar (Retd.) vs. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited & Anr.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission – I partly allowed the complaint against Krishna Auto Salesm which was filed against Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. (Skoda Auto) and the dealer. It held the dealer liable for deficiency in service and held that the dealer was at fault for disregarding its own manual's recommendation for uniform tire wear during vehicle servicing. Further, it pointed out the uneven tire wear as the dealer's negligence in adhering to the guidelines outlined in the owner's manual.
Case: Darshan Kumar vs New India Assurance Company Limited and Ors
The Ferozepur District Consumer Commission held New India Assurance Company Limited liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully rejecting the complainant’s medical claim on the basis that the hospitalization was for less than 24 hours. It noted that progress in medical technology has created scenarios where patients are occasionally treated rapidly or without prolonged hospitalization. Thus, insurance companies should not use non-admission as a reason to reject genuine claims.
Case Title: Sri Vishwanath Tiwari vs DRS Dilip Road lines Ltd.
The Hyderabad District Commission-II held DRS Dilip Road lines Ltd., a brand of Agarwal Packers and Movers, liable for damaging the Complainant’s household articles in transit. A compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- was granted to the Complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Jeko Antony v Galaxy Homes Private Limited
The Ernakulam District Consumer Commission ordered a compensation of rupees fifty thousand along with a refund of rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand at an interest rate of 9.5 per cent to a flat buyer aggrieved by lack of a valid building permit. The Commission held that the flat construction company were liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Rajeev Sharma vs. Go Airlines (India) Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Commission allowed the complaint against Go Airlines (India) Ltd. holding it responsible for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service. The Commission took into account the relevant compensation terms and conditions set forth by Go Airlines for situations involving baggage loss and ordered a maximum compensation amount of Rs. 4000. It dismissed the complaint against Make My Trip, as there was no evidence of deficiency of service or unfair trade practices on its part.
Case Title: George Joseph vs Glossy Tiles and Anr.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Commission ordered a compensation of Rs 60,000 to the complainant for discolouration and fading of the tiles within a short period after installation. The District Commission found deficiency in service on the dealer’s and the manufacturer’s part for firstly, selling subpar tiles and secondly, for not replacing the tiles despite several requests.
Case: Jeevan Road Line vs Reliance General Insurance Company Limited
The Bangalore District Consumer Commission affirmed that an insurer cannot evade the liability of compensating, even if the fitness certificate and vehicle permit are not renewed at the time of the accident, provided the insurance policy is still in force. Moreover, it noted that when a permit is applied for after the expiration of an existing one, a temporary permit is issued to cover the intervening period. This, the District Commission clarified, is distinct from permit renewal and ruled that the permit should be considered valid on the day of an accident in such cases.
Case Title: Tarun Gupta vs. Google India Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh allowed the complaint and held them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It pointed out that Google cannot evade its responsibility since Google promotes its products in India through social platforms, it attracts the general public's attention and trust, encouraging them to purchase based on the brand's reputation. Also, the complainant used Flipkart's platform with faith in its reputation, investing his hard-earned money in a product endorsed by Flipkart.
Case Title: Umesh Chand Sharma vs Dr. Manika Khanna
The New Delhi District Consumer Commission-III highlighted an important contention that in the context of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures, a well-established legal consensus exists through a series of judgments which holds that the lack of positive outcomes or success in the procedure itself does not inherently imply or establish medical negligence on the part of the doctor. The procedure’s success rate is not 100% and the doctor cannot be held liable for medical negligence solely for its failure.
Case Title: Mercy Veena D’Souza vs Cleartrip Pvt. Ltd. and Spice Jet Airlines
The Mangalore District Consumer Commission bench held SpiceJet and Cleartrip liable for not refunding the entire amount of the cancelled flight to the Complainants. The District Commission also granted Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainants. Here, both Cleartrip and SpiceJet erred in refunding the entire amount and also in making alternative arrangement for the Complainants who missed an event in Jabalpur due to such cancellation.
Case Title: Sri Ajay Velpula vs. Ola Cabs
The District Consumer Commission, Hyderabad – III allowed the complaint against Ola Cabs and held it liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It highlighted that Ola Cabs needlessly prolonged the case by asserting that the complainant was uncooperative and didn't furnish the necessary information for the refund. However, the Commission emphasized that all the required details were present in the bills issued by Ola Cabs.
Case Title: Thanthonri Dhandhayuthapani vs Y-Axis Solutions Pvt. Ltd
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission-III held a visa consultancy agency accountable for its mishandling of a visa appointment and ordered to not only refund the fees initially charged from the client but also to offer compensation totalling Rs. 17,000 to him. The District Commission found the visa consultancy firm guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Vidya Shankar Pandey vs. Delhi Development Authority
The Chandigarh District Commission allowed the complaint against Delhi Development Authority and held it liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for not refunding the interest rate as due. It highlighted that once the allocation was annulled, and the refund was made, the accrued interest on that amount should have also been returned. The Commission pointed out that the actions of the DDA, a government institution, cannot be permitted to profit at the expense of an ordinary consumer.
Case Title: EM PEE Motors Ltd vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Commission in Chandigarh has ordered Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer, EM PEE Motors, Pioneer Toyota, to pay compensation of Rs 60,000/- to the Complainant due to airbag deployment failures. The District Commission recognized the importance of airbags as a critical safety feature in vehicles, designed to protect occupants during collisions.
Case Title: Rajender Khanna vs Zoom Cars India Private Limited
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I bench fined Zoom Car India Private Limited of Rs. 15,228 for failing to deliver a self-drive rental car on time to a customer. The order came in response to a complaitnat filed against the car rental service provider for deficient service and unfair trade practices.
Case Title: Mr. Navin Jagdish Kankre vs. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai Suburban Additional held that the action of the Insurance Company in causing unreasonable delay and rejecting the claim constitutes a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He was also unable to use the vehicle due to it being an evidence in a drug trafficking case. The vehicle's color variation made it ineligible for further insurance coverage, thereby remaining in the Complainant's garage, unusable and uninsurable.
Case Title: Mrs. Apoorva S Kademan vs Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority
The Bengaluru Urban Additional District Consumer Commission – III ruled in favour of the flat owner and directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund a total of Rs. 2.1 lakhs. The Commission found that the BDA had failed to provide complete information about car parking charges during the allotment process, which constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Case Title: Sri D.V. Manohar vs Go Airlines (India) Limited.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III, Hyderabad allowed the complaint filed against Go Airlines (India) Limited. for the sudden cancellation of flights without any reasonable compensation to the Complainant constituting a deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. It was also recognized that due to the sudden flight cancellations by Go Airlines, the Complainant was forced to book Indigo Airlines tickets at a higher cost.
Case Title: D.N. Srikanth Verma vs Taxila Business School
The Medak District Consumer Commission directed Taxila Business School to refund Rs 50,000 and pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and litigation cost to a student who wasn’t unable to join the college within the stipulated time frame due to unforeseen major knee surgery. The college management was held liable for gross negligence and irresponsible conduct for deliberately delaying the refund process thereby causing hardship to the concerned student.
Case Title: G. Thimma Reddy vs Sai Veda Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd.
The Hyderabad District Consumer Commission-III imposed punitive damages on Sai Veda Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. for operating unregistered chits and for violating provision of Chit Fund Act, 1982. The bench noted that company's actions amounted to unfair trade practices by operating unregistered chits, which not only constituted a deficiency in services but also violated regulations.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar vs Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi held Trackon Courier Private Limited liable for deficiency in service owing to misplacing the courier of the complainant which contained medicines, clothes and books. The Commission held that Trackon Courier not only failed to deliver the consignment, but also failed to maintain effective communication at the time of grievances raised by the complainant. Further, it failed to substantiate that the T&C for compensation were communicated to the complainant at the time of entering into the agreement.
Case Title: Lakkireddy Lokesh Reddy vs Operations Manager, Chichas Asli Hyderabad
The Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission – I bench ruled against Chicha’s Asli Hyderabad, a well-known restaurant, for overcharging customers on pre-packaged goods. The bench found that the charging the products above the MRP, not only constitutes an unfair trade practice but also violates the amended Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, that prohibited dual MRP.
Case Title: Shanavas K.V. vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Palakkad District Commission held that the mere presence of the smell of alcohol is insufficient to definitively conclude that the driver was operating the vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Thus, the insurance company cannot reject a claim on this basis. The Commission also underscored the pivotal requirement for the insurance company to establish that the driver was genuinely "under the influence" of alcohol.
Case Title: Divya Bhola vs. Religare Health Insurance Company Limited. & Anr.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Commission allowed the complaint against Religare Health Insurance Company Limited and dismissed the complaint against Alchemist Hospital. It held the Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service by observing that unilateral policy terms should not be imposed on gullible trusting consumers who pay substantial premiums but at the time of compensation, the Insurance Company evades responsibility by using such one-sided clauses.
Case Title: Dr. Amarbir Singh vs Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd
The Ludhiana District Commission held that if there is any deficiency in service by the dealer/service provider or authorized centre regarding vehicle repairs, the manufacturer cannot be held accountable for such deficiencies. Further, it is the dealer’s and the authorized service provider’s responsibility to uphold the warranty agreements and provide service without undue charges during the warranty period.
Case Title: Manreet Gill vs Agro Tech Foods Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Commission-I highlighted the importance of substantiating complaints with credible evidence, particularly expert opinions. This emphasis came in the context of addressing a complaint raised by the petitioner concerning the alleged discovery of unwanted substance, including a dead spider, a human hair stand, and a dead flour beetle, within purchased products.