Consumer Law Monthly Digest: April 2026

Supreme Court Bank Liable For Delay In Presenting Cheque : Supreme Court Upholds Penalty Under Consumer Protection Act Cause Title: CANARA BANK VERSUS KAVITA CHOWDHARY Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 375 The Supreme Court on Wednesday (April 15) held that a failure of the bank to present the cheque within the prescribed validity period of the cheque without any reasonable explanation would amount to 'deficiency in service' under the Consumer Protection Act. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan upheld the liability of the Canara Bank for deficiency in rendering service to its customer, who had deposited the cheque with the bank, but the bank failed to present the instruments before the expiry of the validity period of the cheque, rendering the check to be dishonoured with the remark “stale cheque.” National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) NCDRC: Fire Insurance Claim Can't Be Repudiated On Mere Suspicion Without Proof Of Fraud Case Title: M/s Shri Hira Industries v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 1470 of 2019 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, comprising AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.), Presiding Member and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, has held that an insurance claim cannot be repudiated solely on the basis of suspicion regarding the cause of fire in the absence of cogent evidence. The Commission, holding the repudiation of the claim to be unjustified, observed that once the occurrence of fire is established and there is no evidence of wilful act or fraud on the part of the insured, the insurer cannot deny liability. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) NCDRC Allows Coercive Action Against Ansal For Non-Compliance, Says Corporate Veil May Be Lifted In Appropriate Cases Case Title: Prem Prakash Rajput & Ors. v. Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. & Ors Case No.: EA No. 77 of 2021 (with connected Execution Applications) in Consumer Case No. 1951 of 2016 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain (Member), held that M/s Ansal Hi-Tech Township Ltd. (AHTTL) had failed to comply with the refund orders passed in favour of homebuyers, and that such non-compliance warranted strict enforcement. The Commission further observed that where the corporate structure is used to evade liability, the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil may be invoked, and directors/key managerial personnel may be held accountable. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) NCDRC Keeps In Abeyance Arrest Warrants Against Actor Salman Khan Over Alleged Misleading Advertisement Case title: Salman Salim Khan v/s Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Ors. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an interim order on Wednesday (April 8) has kept in abeyance bailable arrest warrants issued by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against actor Salman Khan, in a complaint alleging misleading advertisement by Rajshree Pan Masala starring the actor. The Commission also stayed all further proceedings against the actor before the District Commission. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Overdraft Facility Not Per Se Commercial Transaction: Delhi State Commission Sets Aside Dismissal Of Consumer Complaint Case No.: FA/143/2022 Case Title: MR. HANS BATRA VS. HDFC BANK The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed an appeal against HDFC Bank, holding that the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of “commercial purpose”. The Commission observed that the mere availing of an overdraft facility does not, by itself, render a transaction commercial. In the absence of any evidence to establish that the facility was availed for commercial use, the complainant could not be excluded from the definition of a “consumer”. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the District Commission for fresh adjudication on merits. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh Airline Liable For Not Informing Preponed Flight; Chandigarh State Commission Enhances Compensation To ₹50,000 Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/42/2026 Case Title: Aayush Bansal Vs. TATA SIA AIRLINES LTD & ANR The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), held Tata SIA Airlines Ltd liable for deficiency in service for preponing a flight without prior intimation to passengers. The Commission observed that timely communication of schedule changes is a fundamental obligation of airlines and enhanced the compensation to ₹50,000, while...

Consumer Law Monthly Digest: April 2026

Apoorva Pandita

Tags