RERA Authorities Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Issue Declarations and Injunctions Like Civil Court : Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that authorities and tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) cannot adjudicate title disputes between allottees or grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs, ruling that such powers lie exclusively with civil courts. Clarifying the limits of RERA jurisdiction, the court held that disputes concerning the validity...

'Behind Every File Lies A Person': Consumer Commission Raps MEDISEP, Insurer For Wrongful Claim Repudiation, Orders Reimbursement

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently directed the insurance company and Medisep to jointly compensate a man whose claim for reimbursement of hospital expenses was repudiated.The Bench comprising D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. was considering a complaint preferred by a man covered under the MEDISEP Health Insurance Scheme introduced...

Mumbai Consumer Commission Orders Niva Bupa To Pay ₹66.50 Lakh For Wrongfully Denying Cancer Treatment Claim

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai Suburban, comprising Smt. Samindara R. Surve (President) and Shri Sameer S. Kamble (Member), held Niva Bupa Health Insurance Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully cancelling the complainant's policy and rejecting his overseas cancer treatment claim. The Commission found that the insurer's...

RERA Orders Not Decrees, Cannot Be Executed Through Civil Courts: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has recently ruled that an order passed by a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) does not amount to a civil court decree and cannot be executed through civil execution proceedings, holding that RERA orders must be enforced only through the statutory recovery mechanism provided under the Act. A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the statutory scheme...

Consumer Law Monthly Digest: November 2025

Supreme Court Company Purchasing Software To Enhance Efficiency & Profit Is Not A “Consumer” Within Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court Cause Title: M/S POLY MEDICURE LTD. VERSUS M/S BRILLIO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1102 The Supreme Court on Thursday (November 13) ruled that a person purchasing a product for a 'commercial purpose' having...

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders WTC Developers To Refund ₹18.90 Lakh For Failure To Deliver Possession

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has held WTC Chandigarh Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. and WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to deliver possession of a commercial unit within the stipulated time despite...

Renewal Application Within One Year Saves Insurance Claim Despite Expired Transport Licence, Holds Punjab Consumer Commission

The Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Daya Chaudhary (President) and Vishav Kant Garg (Member), held that although the driver's transport licence had expired on the date of the accident, his application for renewal had been filed within the one-year statutory window under Section 15(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and therefore the lapse...

Punjab RERA Directs Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers To Refund Homebuyer's Money For Delayed Possession

Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of Arunvir Vashista (Member) directed Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase a flat in their project. Authority noted that builder had agreed to hand over possession by June 2019 under the terms of the agreement but failed to provide possession by the...

Delhi State Consumer Commission Rejects Appeal Against Luminous Power; Holds No Evidence Of Deficiency In Solar Plant Installation

The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member – Judicial), upheld the dismissal of the complaint filed by Rakesh Sharma against Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Commission held that the complainant failed to produce any agreement or evidence to prove that the solar system was...

Chandigarh Consumer Commission Orders BMW India To Refund ₹1.32 Crore For Defective BMW X7

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Rajesh Kumar Arya (Member), has held BMW India Pvt. Ltd. and its senior management liable for selling a defective luxury vehicle (BMW X7 xDrive40d M Sport) and for deficiency in service. The Commission has directed the manufacturer to refund ₹1,32,90,000 (the cost of...

Military Hospital Services Provided Free Of Charge Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Mr. Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), held that medical services rendered by Military Hospitals are provided entirely free of charge to armed forces personnel and their dependents, and therefore fall outside the ambit of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act. On this ground,...

Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Realtors To Refund 1.49 Crore To Homebuyer Due To Delayed Possession

Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of GR Reddy (Member) directed Ozone Realtors to refund Rs. 1.49 crore to the homebuyer for failing to deliver possession by the promised date in December 2021. Background Facts Homebuyer (Complainant) booked Flat in the builder's (Respondent) project named Ozone Polestar in 2018. They executed an Agreement...