Consumer Law Monthly Digest: February 2026
Apoorva Pandita
7 March 2026 4:41 PM IST
Supreme Court
Cause Title: RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VERSUS KANIKA & ORS.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 196
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the compassionate assistance received by a dependent of a deceased employee would be liable to be deductible from the compensation received under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Supreme Court
IN RE: PAY AND ALLOWANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE U.P. STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1144/2021
Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Ensure Functioning Of Consumer Commissions In Smaller States, Seeks SG's Assistance. Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court recently empowered High Court Judges to hear consumer appeals in States where State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. Many States found it “not viable” to constitute full-fledged State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions owing to low pendency.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Seeks Union & NMC Responses On Plea To Exclude Doctors From Consumer Protection Act
Case: ASSOCIATION OF HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (INDIA) v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) No. 110/2026
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union Government and the National Medical Commission on a plea to declare that doctors will not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice NV Anjaria was hearing a writ petition filed by Association of Healthcare Providers (India).
Supreme Court
Cause Title: ITC LIMITED VERSUS AASHNA ROY
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 129
The Supreme Court has again set aside the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission's (NCDRC) order, which had directed the ITC Maurya Hotel, New Delhi, to pay Rs. 2 Crore compensation to a Model for a faulty haircut. A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan noted that the NCDRC failed to assess how the respondent suffered a loss to the tune of ₹2 Crore. The Court pointed out that a general discussion on the loss, without sufficient proof of the loss, cannot justify payment of compensation, having a huge value.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHER VERSUS M/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 117
The Supreme Court has observed that mere leasing or renting of a residential flat does not automatically exclude the owner from the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless it is proved that the dominant intention at the time of flat purchase was commercial.
Supreme Court
Case Details: KUMUD LALL v. SURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THR LRS & ORS.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 33646-33647/2018
The Supreme Court on February 3 reserved for judgment the issue of whether, for the negligence by a person, the estate of such person should be held liable for compensation through legal heirs.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Purab Premium Apartment Allottees Association Vs. Residents Welfare Association, Purab Premium Apartments & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 170
Case Number: CM(M) 2481/2025
The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a petition challenging an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which dismissed execution proceedings against a Residents Welfare Association (RWA) and its office bearers on the ground that they were not parties to the original consumer complaint.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
No Proof Of Manufacturing Defect: NCDRC Refuses Replacement Of 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio
Case Title: Vinay Kumar Mishra v. Maruti Suzuki India Pvt. Ltd.
Revision Petition No.: NC/RP/403/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), dismissed a revision petition seeking replacement of a 2014 Maruti Suzuki Celerio, holding that replacement is not an automatic remedy in the absence of proof of an inherent manufacturing defect.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Karan Bansal v. Stellantis India Private Limited & Ors.
Case No.: Review Application No. SC/4/RA/17/2025 in CC No. 23/2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member), has held that where a vehicle suffers from inherent manufacturing defects, the liability to refund the purchase consideration lies with the manufacturer and not the dealer.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sunny Antony v. The Branch Manager, Indus Ind Bank Co. Ltd.
Case Number: I.A. No. 1134/2025 in APPEAL No. 728/2025
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has reiterated that a former President of a District Consumer Commission is prohibited from practicing as an advocate before Consumer Commissions, in view of the statutory bar contained in the Consumer Protection Model Rules, 2020. The Commission, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member) and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member), made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by Sunny Antony against an order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Kottayam.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission
Case Title: Nishant Sharma vs Kiran Stationary Mart
(SC/2/A/227/2024)
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission, comprising Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), dismissed the appeal against Kiran Stationery Mart and Samsung for the denial of warranty coverage. The Commission held that the complainant had already exhausted the one-time screen replacement benefit under the ADLD plan and that the subsequent damage to the device was the result of mishandling.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Akash Goel v. Commissioner (Sports), Delhi Development Authority
Case No.: First Appeal No. 430 of 2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) liable for deficiency in service for charging dependent membership fees despite not grant-ing dependent membership. The Commission allowed the appeal and directed the DDA to refund the excess amount and deposit Rs. 20,000 in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The Branch Manager, M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Ashok S/o Mahalingappa Doni (deceased Rep by LRs) & Anr.
Case No: Appeal No. 1161/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench-2, Belagavi, comprising Hon'ble Sri Ravi Shankar (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Smt. Sunita C. Bagewadi (Lady Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., holding that under Section 157(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insurance stands transferred along with transfer of the vehicle, and repudiation of the claim was not justified.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Name: Dheeraj Khanna v. Aditya Birla Capital Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Appeal No. 106 of 2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, presided over by Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr. Preetinder Singh (Member), has held Liberty General Insurance liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating a home insurance claim arising from internal leakage damage. The Commission observed that internal leakage causing sudden and extensive damage is covered under the policy and cannot be excluded by misinterpreting exclusion clauses.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Neeraj Sharma & Anr. vs Raja Ram Hospital–Maternity & Trauma Centre & Anr.
Case No.: SC/5/A/185/2019
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising President Kumkum Rani and Member B.S. Manral, dismissed an appeal alleging medical negligence in connection with a miscarriage, holding that the complainants failed to produce any material evidence demon-strating lapse in the standard of care or professional negligence on the part of the treating doctor.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Details:
1. M/s B.M. Hyundai vs Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi & Anr. – First Appeal No. 353 of 2019
2. Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Bhagwan Singh Negi & Anr. – First Appeal No. 402 of 2019
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Kumkum Rani (President) and C. M. Singh (Member), has held M/s B.M. Hyundai and Hyundai Motor India Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for withholding the exchange bonus. The Commission agreed with the findings of the District Commission that the complainant had complied with all the terms and conditions of the exchange bonus scheme and accordingly dismissed the appeals.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: GAGAN BAGHEL AND ANR. VS G.S PROMOTERS PVT. LTD.
CC. NO. 1046/2017
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has held M/S G.S. Promoters Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency of service for failing to complete construction and hand over possession of an apartment in its “Sikka Karmic Green” project within the stipulated time.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Ruksana Nazlin M
Case No.: FA No. 16/2024 (SC/32/A/16/2024)
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), Ajith Kumar D. (Judicial Member), and K.R. Radhakrishnan (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd., affirming a District Com-mission's order directing refund of service fees to a client. The Commission held that retention of processing fees without initiating any actual visa documen-tation process amounts to “unfair enrichment” and “deficiency in service.”
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Surendra Adlakha vs. Qatar Airways IBE
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/280/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Qatar Airways, holding that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was made out in respect of a special repatriation flight operated during the COVID-19 pandemic.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ganjam
Case Title: Smt. Kumari Gochayat v. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: DC/354/CC/39/2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ganjam at Berhampur, presided over by Shri Satish Kumar Panigrahi (President I/c) and Smt. Saritri Pattanaik (Member), has held that a cardiac death occurring during strenuous overseas employment can qualify as an “accidental death” under a personal accident insurance policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti
Case No.: 371/2018
Case Title: Samriddhi Singh v. Union of India & Others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Basti, comprising Mr. Amar Jeet Verma (President) and Mr. Ajay Prakash Singh (Member), has held the Indian Railways guilty of deficiency in service, observing that the inordinate delay of an Intercity Superfast Train, which caused a student to miss a crucial entrance examination, amounted to negligence and warranted compensation for mental agony and academic loss.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case No: CC.No. 385 of 2023
Case Title: Anil Baby and Anr. v. Sri Vinayaka Travels
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently awarded compensation to two consumers, who were forced to hire taxi to reach their examination centre after the bus they were travelling in was delayed due to repeated breakdowns and stoppage at check posts for alleged tax arrears.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Dilpreet Singh Gandhi v. Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/AB1/44/CC/236/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), has directed Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. to reimburse a maternity claim and pay compensation, holding the repudiation of the claim to be wrong and arbitrary.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
CASE TITLE: Rajeev Goyal v. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: CC 364 of 2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd.and its authorised dealer, holding that a car purchased in the name of a proprietorship concern engaged in commercial activity does not fall within the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Sukhvir Singh v. United India Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: CC/20/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II, Chandigarh, comprising Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member), has held that an alleged route permit violation having no nexus with the occurrence of an accident cannot be a valid ground for repudiation of a motor insurance claim. Holding the repudiation to be arbitrary, the Commission found United India Insurance Company Limited guilty of deficiency in service and directed it to reimburse the claim amount along with interest and compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Roopam Kumar vs. SBI Cards & Payment
Case No.: CC DC/AB1/44/CC/255/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), has held SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to redress an unauthorised credit card transactions despite prompt intimation by the cardholder. The Commission ruled that the complainant was entitled to zero liability under the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017, and directed the company to refund the disputed amount along with interest, remove her name from the CIBIL records, and pay compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak
Case Title: HarshaVardhan Gujjeti vs. M/s. INOX Leisure Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: C.C. No. 47 of 2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sangareddy, comprising Smt. P. Kasthuri (President), Sri Gajjala Venkateswarlu (Member), and Sri Makyam Vijay Kumar (Member), has held that delaying the screening of a movie by exhibiting commercial advertisements after the scheduled start time printed on the ticket amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi
Case Title: Karan Pradeep v. Make My Trip (India) Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: DC/83/CC/343/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi, comprising Ms. Monika A. Srivastava (President) and Ms. Kiran Kaushal (Member), has ruled that online travel portals cannot evade responsibility toward consumers by claiming to be mere “facilitators.” The Commis-sion held MakeMyTrip liable for deficiency in service for giving false assurances regarding refund processing and directed Malaysia Airlines to refund the ticket amount with interest, along with compensation for mental agony.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Dilbar Singh v. State Bank of India
Case No. DC/AB1/44/CC/18/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), has held the State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for recovering an excess amount from the borrower (complainant) at the time of closure of his home loan despite recalculation directions issued by the Banking Ombudsman.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Harminder Pal v. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. DC/AB1/44/CC/278/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Shri B.M. Sharma (Member), has held that mere suspicion regarding the cause of loss, unsupported by cogent evidence, cannot justify repudiation of a motor insurance claim.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI(New Delhi)
Case Title: Jhanvi Sharma vs Air India
CC/153/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI(New Delhi), comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Air India liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide adequate Business Class services and for providing substandard facilities during an international flight. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and held that the airline had failed to meet its duty as a service provider.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Wing Commander Mohit Kumar Garg (Retd.) & Anr. v. M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/166/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr. Bariq Ahmad (Member), and Mr. Shekhar Chan-dra (Member), has held M/s SY Interiors Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete the work as per its contractual obligations. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that despite receipt of the legal notice, the firm failed to respond and did not produce any evidence to demonstrate that the renovation work had been completed in accordance with the agreed terms.