Consumer Cases
Failure To Deliver Possession Constitutes Continuos Wrong Unless Delivery Is Refused: Delhi State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Ansal Township Citing Limitation Period
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (member), dismissed a complaint against Ansal Township, citing it to be time-barred under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act. It further held that the failure to deliver possession constitutes an ongoing issue, permitting complaints until the point where possession is denied. Brief Facts...
Builder Can Only Forfeit 10% of Basic Sale Price In Case Of Breach Of Contract: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that the amount forfeited due to a breach of contract should be fair and justifiable. In the instant case, the commission ruled that the builder can only forfeit 10% of the deposited amount and has to refund the remaining balance to the buyer. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant booked...
Purchasing Multiple Houses Does Not Automatically Imply Commercial Purpose: Delhi State Commission Holds TDI Infrastructure Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Ms. Pinki, held that the ownership of multiple houses does not inherently demonstrate commercial intent. It was further held that the responsibility to prove that a purchase was made for commercial purposes lies with the builder, necessitating the presentation of documentary evidence. Brief Facts of the Case...
Barnala District Commission Holds Havells, Its Retailer Liable For Failure To Repair AC Despite Warranty
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Barnala (Punjab) bench of Naranjan Singh Gill (President) and Urmila Kumari (Member) held Havells and its retailer liable for deficiency in service for failure to repair an air conditioner despite it being under warranty. Brief Facts: The Complainant bought a new AC along with a stabilizer from New Jindal Enterprises...
Appeal Before Higher Forum Must Align With Relief Initially Sought At Lower Forum: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Dr. Inder Jit Singh, dismissed an appeal against Pearl Infrastructure, citing that the relief sought in the appeal differed from the original complaint, rendering it unsustainable. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant highlighted concerns about the Pearls City Mohali project by Pearl Infrastructure, alleging it...
Evidence Needs to Be Provided To Cite Force Majure Clauses As Reason Of Delay: Delhi State Commission Holds Assotech Moonshine Liable For Deficiency
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and J.P. Agrawal, held Asootech Moonshine Developers liable for deficiency in service due to delay in handing over possession citing force Majure clause. Furthermore, it was held that the developer needs to provide substantiating evidence to show that Force Majeure conditions caused the delay. Brief Facts of the Case...
Person Of Sound Mind Is Bound By Their Signature Regardless Of Not Reading Of Understanding Document: Delhi State Commission
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Ms. Pinki and Ms. Bimla Kumari, held that an adult of sound mind is generally bound by their signature on a document, even if they didn't read or understand it, unless they were deceived. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant deposited Rs. 50,000 with the ICICI Bank, based on the advice of the branch manager and a bank clerk, who assured...
Mere Ownership Of Multiple Properties Doesn't Imply Commercial Intent: Delhi State Commission Holds Omaxe Ltd. Liable For Deficiency In Service
The Delhi State Commission, presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra and Ms. Pinki (member), held Omaxe Ltd. liable for deficiency in service due to a delay in delivering possession of the flat to the buyer. It was further held that merely owning multiple properties does not necessarily indicate a commercial purpose on the buyer's part. Brief Facts of the Case The complainants booked...
Bihar State Commission Holds New India Assurance Co Liable For Wrongfully Repudiating Genuine Death Claim
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating genuine death claim under the Personal Accident Life Insurance Scheme (PAIS) facilitated by the Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank. Brief Facts: The Deceased had obtained...
Customer Is Responsible For Losses Caused By Their Negligence : Ernakulam District Commission Dismisses Complaint Against State Bank Of India
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held that a customer is responsible for losses caused by their negligence, like sharing payment credentials, until they report the unauthorized transaction to the bank, after which the bank is responsible for subsequent losses. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant...
Liability Clauses Must Be Agreed Upon By Consumer: Ernakulam District Commission Holds DTDC Liable For Deficiency In Service And Unfair Trade Practices
The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held DTDC liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to delivering a consignment to the wrong address and refusing relief, citing the presence of a liability clause. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant sent a courier containing eight...
Agent's Role In Insurance Claim Is Limited To Forwarding Claim To Insurer: NCDRC
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that an agent's liability in the insurance claim process is confined to the facilitation and forwarding of claims to the insurer. Once this role is fulfilled, they cannot be held liable for any deficiencies or delays in the claim settlement process, which are the insurer's responsibility. Brief...