Consumer Law Monthly Round-Up: June 2026
Apoorva Pandita
4 July 2026 11:19 AM IST
Supreme Court
Financier Can't Claim Insurance Over Theft Of Vehicle Surrendered By Insured Owner : Supreme Court
Cause Title: K. PRAKASHCHAND VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 634
The Supreme Court has held that a mere surrender of an insured vehicle by its owner to another person, who had financed the purchase of a vehicle, would not be sufficient for the financer to claim indemnification in the event of loss or theft of a vehicle.
Supreme Court
Consumer Forum's Jurisdiction Not Ousted By Mere Existence Of Arbitration Clause : Supreme Court
Cause Title: T.K.A. PADMANABHAN VERSUS ABHIYAN COOPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 633
The Supreme Court recently held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause in an agreement would not preclude the consumer forum from adjudicating the dispute on merit. “…an arbitration clause does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice V. Mohana, while setting aside the concurrent findings of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC), State Commission and the District Forum order which had referred a dispute over delay in handing over the possession of the residential flat unit to arbitration.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Puthur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sethumadhavan and Anr.
Case No: WA 1152 of 2026
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the creditors of a co-operative society can recover the amounts deposited by invoking Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1986 do not take away the rights of creditors to invoke the Consumer Protection Act to recover the deposits.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Passenger Paid For Business Class, Got Defective Seat: NCDRC Upholds Compensation Against Air India
Case Title: Justice Rajesh Chandra v. Air India Limited
Case No.: First Appeal No. 152/2024 & 177/2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice Saroj Yadav (Presiding Member) and Shashi Nandkeolyar (Member), held Air India liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide a functional Business Class seat despite charging a substantial upgrade fee. Upholding the State Commission's order, the Commission directed refund of the Business Class fare component with interest and compensation for the physical and mental agony suffered by the complainant during the long-haul international flight.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case No.: NC/CC/184/2015
Case Title: Neeraj Chaudhary & Anr. v. M/s Neelkanth Township Planner Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi, President, and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member, held that homebuyers who default in making payments cannot challenge cancellation of allotment as an unfair trade practice. Finding that the complainants had failed to adhere to the agreed payment schedule, the Commission declined to restore the allotments but directed the builder to refund the entire deposited amount along with interest at 9% per annum.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Kamla Kant & Company LLP vs Indra Mohan Singh 'Honey'
DIARY NO.13053/NCDRC/2026-SA
In temporary respite for Bollywood actor Salman Khan, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on Wednesday (June 10) stayed the proceedings initiated against him in a case related to "misleading" Pan Masala advertisement, regarding genuineness of his signatures.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Title: Veeresh Berry v. M/s Citi Center Developers & Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 197 of 2026
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising AVM J. Rajendra (Retd.), Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, refused to condone a delay of 179 days in filing an appeal by a commercial unit allottee against a builder, holding that the reasons cited, including age, financial hardship, legal consultations and collection of documents, did not constitute “sufficient cause” under law. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for condonation of delay and rejected the appeal as barred by limitation.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case Title: Misleading advertisement by Vajiram and Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP with respect to UPSC CSE 2023 advertisements.
Case No.: CCPA-2/24/2024-CCPA.
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹7 lakh on Vajiram & Ravi IAS Study Centre LLP for publishing misleading advertisements relating to the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023 and directed the coaching institute to discontinue such advertisements.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
CCPA Fines Storia ₹1 Lakh; Says '100% Tender Coconut Water' Claim Misled Consumers
Case: Misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice by M/s Storia Foods and Beverages Private Limited with respect to "100% Tender Coconut Water", associated health claims, and "100% Juice" claims on its Pomegranate, Mixed Fruit, Mango, Sugarcane and Guava Chilli variants.
Case No.: CCPA-2/71/2024-CCPA
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on Storia Foods and Beverages Private Limited for misleading advertisements relating to its coconut water and fruit juice products. The Authority held that claims such as “100% Tender Coconut Water”, “100% Natural Tender Coconut Water” and “100% Juice” were likely to mislead consumers about the true nature and composition of the products.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case Number: F. No. CCPA-2/72/2024-CCPA [E-35629]
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on Mrs. Bector's Food Specialities Ltd. for publishing misleading advertisements and engaging in unfair trade practices by marketing its bread products as “100% Atta Bread” and “100% Whole Wheat Bread.” The authority also directed the company to immediately discontinue such advertisements across all media platforms and submit a compliance report within 15 days.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Misleading JEE Advanced Ads: CCPA Imposes ₹8 Lakh Penalty On Narayana Educational Institutions
Case Title: In Re: Misleading Advertisement by Narayana Educational Institutions with respect to JEE Advanced 2024 Results
Case Number: CCPA-2/38/2024-CCPA
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed an ₹8 lakh penalty on Narayana Educational Institutions for publishing misleading advertisements relating to the JEE Advanced 2024 results after finding that the institute concealed material information about the courses pursued by successful candidates.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
Case No.: CCPA-2/94/2025-2025
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), headed by Chief Commissioner Nidhi Khare and Commissioner Anupam Mishra, has imposed penalties on PhysicsWallah Limited and McAfee Software India Private Limited for deploying "dark patterns" that misled consumers and influenced their choices on digital platforms. The Authority imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh on PhysicsWallah and ₹1 lakh on McAfee, directing both companies to remove such practices and ensure that consumers can make informed decisions without manipulation.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand
Case Title: Director, Consortium Securities Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Sh. Sunil Kumar Gupta
Case No : SC/5/A/104/20200
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, comprising Ms. Kumkum Rani (President) and C.M. Singh (Member), allowed an appeal filed by Consortium Securities Pvt. Ltd., set aside the District Commission's order, and held that the complainant had availed the services of the share broker for a commercial purpose. Consequently, the Commission ruled that he did not fall within the definition of a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case No.: FA/240/24
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Ashok
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. and set aside the District Commission's order directing reimbursement of a mediclaim amount, holding that the insurer had rightly repudiated the claim on the basis of the investigator's report pointing to non-cooperation and discrepancies in the hospital records.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra
Case Title: Rajani Prakash Malik vs Dr.Ashok T. Bhole
Case No: CC NO. SC/27/CC/13/2013
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, comprising Mukesh V. Sharma (Presiding Member) and Poonam V. Maharshi (Member), held an ophthalmic surgeon liable for deficiency in service for obtaining consent through a pre-printed form without adequately informing the patient of the material risks associated with the surgery. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the doctor to pay compensation.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Pooja Kumari
Case No.: First Appeal No. 269/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member) allowed the appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. and set aside the District Commission's order directing reimbursement of the mediclaim amount, holding that the insurer had rightly repudiated the claim on the basis of the investigator's report pointing to discrepancies and suspected fabrication in the hospital records.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Sathyavalli & Anr. v. Central Bank of India & Anr.
Case No.: CC No. 421/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising Sri. C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Member), held the Central Bank of India liable for deficiency in service for losing the original Pattayam deposited by a borrower as security for an agricultural loan and directed it to pay compensation of ₹2.5 lakh along with litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Shaik Altaf v. FirstCry.com
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 19/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member) and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has directed FirstCry.com to refund the amount paid by a consumer and pay compensation after finding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in cancelling an order, withholding the refund amount and marking the consumer as a "fraud user" without substantiating its allegations.
Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ganesh J. vs. Hero Motocorp Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: CC/199/2025
The Bengaluru Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharadhi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N.B. (Member) held Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and its dealers liable for deficiency in service for failing to rectify recurring defects in a newly purchased motorcycle and directed them to refund the vehicle's price after deducting 10% depreciation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhojpur
Case Title: Ravi Shanker Pandey v. North Central Railway & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Case No. 296/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhojpur, Ara, comprising President Krishna Pratap Singh and Member Kamal Kishore Singh, has held the North Central Railway and the Ministry of Railways liable for deficiency in service after a passenger and his companions, despite holding confirmed reserved tickets, were unable to occupy their allotted seats and had to complete their journey standing.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool
Case Title: Bonthala Sindhuja v. The Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurnool, comprising Sri Karanam Kishore Kumar (President), Sri N. Narayana Reddy (Member), and Smt. S. Nazima Kausar (Member), has directed HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. to pay a ₹50 lakh death claim, holding that an insurer cannot repudiate a claim based on alleged non-disclosure when the questions in the proposal form are ambiguous and unclear. The Commission held that any ambiguity in the proposal form must be construed against the insurer and in favour of the insured.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case No.: CC/378/2024
Case Title: Monika Kiran v. M/s Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic & Ors.
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Syed Anser Kaleem (President), Sharavathi S.M. (Member) and Jyothi N. (Member), dismissed the consumer complaint filed against Oliva Skin and Hair Clinic and its doctors, holding that the complainant failed to establish negligence or deficiency in service through any expert medical evidence and that the treatments had been undertaken with her informed consent.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
Case Title: Anshul Jindal vs MG Motors India Pvt Ltd.
CC No.: DC/80/RBT/CC/54/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), has held M/s MG Motors India Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for manufacturing defects in the vehicle and failure to provide free warranty repairs. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the manufacturer to refund the full price of the vehicle, along with compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Siju Raj A. v. PNB Housing Finance Ltd.
Case No.: CC/116/23
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member), has held PNB Housing Finance Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for unjustifiably delaying the issuance of a loan pre-closure statement and thereafter charging interest for the period of delay caused by its own conduct.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)
Case Title: Jatinder Kapoor vs M/s Deccan Clap- India Pvt Ltd & Ors
CC No.: DC/80/CC/47/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), has held M/s Deccan Clap-India Pvt. Ltd. and its agents liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for failing to complete painting and polishing work within the stipulated time and for repeatedly revising project estimates without the consumer's consent.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal
Case Title: Shaily Sikka v. ICICI Bank & Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 03 of 2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaithal, comprising Smt. Neelam Kashyap (President), Smt. Harisha Mehta (Member) and Shri Sunil Mohan Trikha (Member), has held ICICI Bank liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for arbitrarily imposing a lien on the complainant's savings account without following due procedure and without producing any material to substantiate the alleged fraud dispute on the basis of which the lien was imposed.
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: CC/660/18
Case Title: Paulson M.O. v. Dhana Kendra Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member) and Ram Mohan R. (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Dhana Kendra Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd., holding that although the complainant was not entitled to the prized chit amount for failing to prove readiness to furnish sufficient security, the chit fund company was deficient in service for failing to properly maintain and endorse instalment payments in the passbook and for failing to refund the amount payable to the subscriber under the chit scheme.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, Delhi
Case Title: BHANU PRATAP vs COUNTRY HOLIDAYS TRAVEL INDIA PVT. LTD.
Case No : CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/326/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-II, Delhi, comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President) and Ritu Garodia (Member), held Country Holidays Travel India Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service for failing to provide hotel bookings under a holiday membership package despite the complainant's attempts to avail the membership benefits. The Commission directed the company to refund the membership fee with interest and pay compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title : Showkat Ahmad Mir vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd
Case No : CC No: 148/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for the wrongful repudiation of an insurance claim. The Commission allowed the complaint, observing that although a surveyor's report is an important piece of evidence, it cannot be treated as conclusive and must be examined alongside the other material available on record.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala
Case Title: Dr. Krishan Lal Kapoor vs JKR Motors Pvt. Ltd.,
Case No: CC No.-318/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala, has directed Tata Motors Ltd. to either replace a Tata Harrier SUV found to have inherent manufacturing defects with a new defect-free vehicle or refund the purchase price of ₹21.40 lakh along with interest.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling
Case Title : Soloman Lepcha vs Amazon Seller Services Private Ltd
CC No. 09/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darjeeling, comprising Tikendra Narayan Pradhan (President) and Bhawana Thakur (Female Member), held Amazon and Clicktech Retail Private Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for delivering an incorrect product and subsequently refusing to issue a refund. Allowing the complaint, the Commission held both Opposite Parties jointly and severally liable to refund the purchase amount and pay compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Rahul Goyal v. Caper Rooftop Bistro
Case No.: DC/44/CC/215/2026
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President)and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Caper Rooftop Bistro, holding that the restaurant was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for automatically levying and collecting a service charge without obtaining the consumer's consent. The Commission directed the restaurant to refund the illegally collected service charge of ₹129 and pay ₹5,000 as compensation and litigation costs to the complainant.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–South II
Case Title: A. K. PANDA vs TVS ELECTRONICS LTD.
Case No: CC NO. DC/AB1/670/CC/187/2023
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–South II, comprising Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member), and Ritu Garodia (Member), held TVS Electronics Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to rectify defects in the complainant's laptop despite charging service fees and claiming to have carried out repairs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad
Case Title: Abdul Azeez C. v. Air Asia India Limited
Case No.: DC/563/CC/484/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, comprising President Vinay Menon V. and Members Vidya A. and Krishnankutty N.K., held Air Asia India Limited liable for deficiency in service for delaying a flight, causing a passenger to miss his connecting flight and resulting in damage to a hybrid jackfruit sapling he was transporting for agricultural research.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar
Case Title: Sanjeev Duggal v. Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: CC/469/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, comprising Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President), Jyotsna (Member) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Maya Inns Pvt. Ltd., holding that the restaurant had indulged in an unfair trade practice by levying service charges without obtaining the consumer's consent. The Commission directed the restaurant to refund the service charges collected from the complainant and pay compensation and litigation costs, while rejecting the allegations regarding misbehavior by staff, substandard food quality, and wrongful charging of buffet fees for a minor child due to lack of evidence.
