Consumer Cases Annual Digest 2025 [Part-II]

Supreme Court Supreme Court Criticises NCDRC For Inventing New Case Of Medical Negligence In Appeal; Orders Complainant To Refund Rs 10 Lakh To Doctors Cause Title: Deep Nursing Home and another Versus Manmeet Singh Mattewal and others Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 883 The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep. 9) ordered a complainant to refund the ₹10 lakhs compensation received, holding that the NCDRC had wrongly awarded it by inventing a case of 'antenatal negligence' against the doctors, even though the original complaint was confined to 'post-delivery negligence'. Supreme Court Supreme Court Holds Consumer Fora Can Enforce Final Orders Passed Between 2003-2020; Rectifies Anomaly In S.25(1) Of 1986 Act Cause Title: PALM GROVES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS M/s MAGAR GIRME AND GAIKWAD ASSOCIATES ETC. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 826 In a major ruling on Friday (Aug. 22), the Supreme Court settled a long-standing issue in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which prevented many flat buyers from enforcing orders pertaining to the execution of sale deeds by the developer between 2003 and 2020. From now, the final order passed between 2003 and 2020, directing the developer to execute the sale deed or deliver possession, can be enforced under Section 25(1) of the 1986 Act, the court said. Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts View That 'No-Fault' Liability u/s163A Motor Vehicles Act Is Only For Third Party Risks; Refers To Larger Bench Cause Title: WAKIA AFRIN (MINOR) VERSUS M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 764 The Supreme Court has recently referred to a larger bench the question of whether the families of vehicle owners who die in self-accidents can be allowed compensation under the "no-fault liability" provision (Section 163A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“MVA”), or whether such claims are limited solely to third-party liability. Delhi High Court 'How Can You Charge Customers Above MRP? Why Is Extra Amount Not Part Of Service Charge?' Delhi High Court Asks Restaurant Body Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr The Delhi High Court on Friday questioned the National Restaurant Association of India (NRAI) as to how the hotels and restaurants can charge customers for a food item over and above the MRP, and why the extra amount does not form part of the service charge- which is charged as a separate category. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Delay In Informing Insurer Not Critical If Police Notified Promptly: NCDRC Holds Cholamandalam General Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Case Number: R.P. No. 2966 of 2016 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, dismissed a revision petition by Cholamandalam Insurance and held that delay in informing the insurer about the theft does not invalidate the claim if the insured promptly reports the incident to the police. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) 10% Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Reasonable In Default Of Payment Cases: NCDRC Case Title: Vishal Saxena Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited Case Number: F.A. No. 683 of 2022 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, dismissed a deficiency complaint against Taneja Developers and held that forfeiture of 10% of the earnest money in default of payment cases is a reasonable amount. Furthermore, it was held that forfeiture beyond the reasonable amount becomes a penalty. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) NCDRC Holds Royal Enfield, Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Mr.Ravindra Annappa Bindre Vs. M/s. Royal Enfield A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd. Case Number: R.P. No. 1976 of 2019 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, held Royal Enfield and its dealer liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with a defective engine. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Leaving Columns Blank In Proposal Form Does Not Amount To False Representation: NCDRC Holds Bharti AXA Life Insurance Liable For Wrongful Repudiation Of Insurance Claim Case Title: Chhoti Devi (deceased) vs Bharti AXA Life Insurance Case Number: First Appeal 722/ 2021 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member has held that leaving columns blank in insurance proposal form does not amount to a false representation. The bench held Bharti AXA Life Insurance liable for wrongly repudiating the claim of the complainant and...

Consumer Cases Annual Digest 2025 [Part-II]

Apoorva Pandita

Tags