Consumer Law: Quarterly Digest 2026 (January To March)
Apoorva Pandita
5 April 2026 10:02 AM IST
Supreme Court
Cause Title: ANSAL CROWN HEIGHTS FLAT BUYERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) VS. M/S ANSAL CROWN INFRABUILD PVT. LTD. & ORS. (and connected matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 40
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 12) observed that the homebuyers cannot execute a decree, obtained solely against a builder company, against its directors or promoters personally, unless a specific finding of liability was made against them in the original proceedings.
Supreme Court
Cause Title: SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES AND CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS VIJAYA BANK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 267
The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 19) observed that merely earning interest on bank deposits does not automatically render the transaction “commercial” so as to exclude a person from the definition of a “consumer”; rather, it must be examined whether the deposit has a close and direct nexus with a profit-generating activity.
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.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: M/s Kundlas Loh Udyog v/s Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited and another
Case No.: CWP No.2239 of 2021
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a provisional assessment for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be made without conducting a site inspection or inspecting the records maintained by the consumer.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 31700 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.
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)
Case Title: Pradip Sonavane & Anr. v. DSSD Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: NC/CC/13/2026
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed a consumer complaint against a developer and housing society as barred by limitation, holding that the cause of action arose when possession was taken in 2016 and could not be treated as a continuing cause of action merely because alleged deficiencies were discovered later.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Asian Theatres Pvt. Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: NC/CC/133/2013
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member), allowed the complaint filed by M/s Asian Theatres Pvt. Ltd. against Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., holding that the repudiation of the insurance claim was arbitrary and amounted to deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
Case Details: Procure Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd.
Consumer Complaint No. 2755 of 2018 (NCDRC)
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) , Bench comprising AVM J. Rajendra, Presiding Member, and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, Member, has held Axis Bank Limited guilty of deficiency in service for refusing to accept deposits of demonetised currency in a KYC-compliant current account during the demonetisation period and directed the bank to compensate the complainant company for the loss suffered.
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.
Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has issued an advisory prohibiting hotels and restaurants from adding extra charges like “LPG charges”, “gas surcharge”, or “fuel cost recovery” to customer bills, stating that such practices are unfair under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The move comes after multiple complaints that eateries were adding these charges automatically, over and above menu prices and taxes. The CCPA clarified that operational costs such as LPG, fuel, and electricity are part of running a business and must already be included in the price of food items. Charging them separately lacks transparency and misleads consumers.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title; Mr. Subhash Chandra Gupta vs. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
Case No; FA-238/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), dismissed an appeal filed against Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., holding that once the complainant had disposed of the allegedly defective refrigerator, the product was no longer available for inspection and the alleged defect could not be verified.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: RAJEEV KUMAR RAKHRA VS RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LTD. & ANR.
Case No.: FA- 243-2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), allowed an appeal filed by complainant against Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. and Reliance Retail Ltd., holding that the complainant had suffered deficiency in service due to non-activation of an international SIM card despite payment.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra
Case Title : Uttam Chatterjee & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Ors.
CC No.SC/27/CC/233/2021
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai comprising Poonam V. Maharshi (Presiding Member) and Mrs. Dr. Nisha Amol Chavhan (Member) held Lodha Developers Ltd liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession and for demanding charges not specified in the initial agreement. The Commission partly allowed the complaint and held that retaining the complainants' money without fulfilling contractual obligations amounted to a breach of trust, causing wrongful gain to the builders and undue hardship to the complainants.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: MINISTRY OF RAILWAY AND ANR. VS. SHRI SAROJ KUMAR SINGH
Case No.: FA/150/2020
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), upheld the order of the District Commission holding the Ministry of Railways and Northern Railway guilty of deficiency in service for failing to inform a passenger in advance about the change in his ticket status from 'Reservation Against Cancellation' (RAC) to 'Waiting List'.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru
Case Title: V.V. Venkatesh Babu v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.
Case No.: SC/29/A/716/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising Judicial Member Ravi Shankar and Member Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi, has held Standard Chartered Bank liable for unfair trade practice for demanding ₹33.83 lakh from a customer despite closure of his credit card account in 2010.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh
Case Title: Ramanjit Sidhu & Anr. v. M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/74/2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has held M/s WTC Chandigarh Development Company Pvt. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failing to complete construction of the unit and hand over possession within the stipulated deadline. The Commission observed that a homebuyer cannot be compelled to wait indefinitely for possession and that such delay defeats the very purpose of the agreement.
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shruti Sudhir Kirtane vs HP Employee's Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Case No.: CC No. SC/27/CC/18/26
The Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Presid-ing Member Mukesh V. Sharma and Member Poonam V. Maharshi has held HP Employ-ee's Co-operative Credit Society Ltd liable for deficiency in service and unfair and arbitrary practice for enforcing undisclosed restrictions on premature withdrawal of deposits and withholding admitted dues of a retired employee.
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.”
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mange Ram v. M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies & Anr.
First Appeal No. 464 of 2017
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed against M/s Amar Tractor and Auto Agencies and M/s Sonalika International Tractors Ltd., holding that the inspection report relied upon by the complainant was a fabricated and unreliable document and that no manufacturing defect in the tractor was established through credible expert evidence.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manufacturing Defect Must Be Proved By Expert Evidence: Delhi State Consumer Commission
M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd v. Sahil Gupta & Anr.
Appeal No.: FA No. 353/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has allowed the appeal filed by M/s Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd., setting aside the District Commission's order which had directed refund and compensation to a consumer alleging defect in an air conditioner.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Parsvnath Developers Limited
Case Number: FA/336/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by a homebuyer seeking possession of a residential plot under a pre-launch scheme and upheld the District Commission's direction to Parsvnath Developers Ltd. to refund the deposited amount with interest, holding that no error was committed in granting refund in the absence of allotment of a specific plot.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Sharma
Case No.: FA/1072/2014
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that repudiation of an insurance claim based on mere assumptions and presumptions, without cogent evidence, amounts to deficiency in service.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kavita
Case No.: Appeal No. 2838/2024
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, comprising President Ravishankar and Member Sunita C. Bagewadi, has dismissed an appeal filed by SBI General Insurance Company Limited, refusing to interfere with the District Commission's order condoning a delay of 7 years and 28 days in filing a consumer complaint relating to a motor insurance claim.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. Mrs. Sarmila Sharma
Case No.: FA/191/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., thereby upholding the finding of deficiency in service against the Bank for auctioning a borrower's pledged gold jewellery without any contractual authority. The Commission observed that the Sanction Letter governing the gold loan did not contain any clause authorising auction of the mortgaged ornaments in the event of default, and therefore, the Bank's action lacked legal justification.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Pankaj Mahindra & Anr. v. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (now Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.)
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. SC/4/CC/73/2025
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Preetinder Singh (Member), has held Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd. (now Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd.) guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to deliver lawful possession of a flat within the stipulated time and for issuing a mere “fit-out possession” letter without obtaining the mandatory Completion Certificate.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Manoj Loharia v. T.R. Sawhney Motors & Ors.,
FA No. 143 of 2019
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed an appeal filed by a car pur-chaser alleging that a used vehicle had been fraudulently sold to him by M/s T.R. Sawhney Mo-tors Private Limited and Maruti Suzuki India Limited. Upholding the order of the District Commission, the State Commission held that in the absence of an expert report, a plea of manufac-turing defect cannot be sustained and no deficiency in service was made out.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Dewan Worldwide Holidays v. Ishwar Dayal Sharma
Case No.: FA-582/2019
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Dewan Worldwide Holidays and upheld the order passed by the District Forum.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Gurudeva Trust v. Jayaprakash
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 56 of 2024
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, comprising Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President), D. Ajith Kumar (Judicial Member), and K.R. Radha-krishnan (Member), allowed a revision petition filed by Gurudeva Trust and set aside the order of the District Commission, holding that a dispute already settled through a Lok Adalat award cannot be reopened by filing a fresh consumer complaint for its enforcement.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
COVID-19 Flight Cancellation Not Deficiency In Service: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Case Title: Har Mohan Singh v. MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Case No.: FA/377/2023
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Bimla Kumari (Member), dismissed an appeal filed against MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. and Korean Airlines Co. Ltd., holding that cancellation of international flights due to the COVID-19 pandemic and governmental restrictions did not amount to deficiency in service.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mainuddin v. Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: SC/29/CC/99/2021
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (Principal Bench), comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Mrs. Divyashree M (Member), has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Proman Infrastructure Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the complainant did not qualify as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and had failed to establish any deficiency in service or manufacturing defect in the machinery supplied.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
EPF–ESI Benefit Disputes Not Consumer Matters: Delhi State Consumer Commission
Case Title: Jai Prakash Malik v. ESI & Anr.
Case No.: FA-195/2022
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that disputes relating to Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) benefits, arising out of an employer–employee relationship, do not constitute consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act.
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Rajat Enterprises v. Pradeep Singh
First Appeal No. SC/2/FA/212/2025
The Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Yogita Dutta (Member), has allowed an appeal filed by a mobile phone dealer and set aside an ex-parte order passed by the District Consumer Commission, holding that the complainant failed to prove any manufacturing or technical defect in the absence of expert evidence and that no guarantee period was specified in the sales invoice.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Bhiwadi Polymers Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: FA/283/2015
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Bimla Kumari (Member), has dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Bhiwadi Polymers Ltd. against New India Assurance Company Ltd., affirming that the consumer complaint was barred by limitation under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Shobha Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 50/2010
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Ms. Bimla Kumari, has allowed an appeal and set aside an order of the District Consumer Forum which had dismissed a consumer complaint as barred by the principle of res judicata. The State Commission held that rejection of a civil suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on technical grounds such as limitation or lack of jurisdiction, does not amount to adjudication on merits and therefore does not bar a fresh examination of the dispute by the consumer forum.
Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Honda Cars India Ltd vs Prathap.M
SC/29/A/825 & 857/2021
The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Justice T.G. Shivashankare Gowda (President) and Divyashree M. ( Member) has allowed appeals filed by Honda Cars India Ltd. and Peninsula Honda, setting aside a District Commission order that had previously held them liable for a car's engine failure. The State Commission observed that the damage was a consequential loss resulting from the driver's negligence—specifically driving the vehicle without a radiator cap—rather than any inherent manufacturing defect.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Sathish Sangamithra v. Finisyer Kuries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No: C.C No. 496 of 2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently directed a chitty company based in Kodungallur, its Managing Director and Board of Directors to refund an amount of Rs. 8.25 lakhs paid by its subscriber as instalments over a period of around 11 years after the company closed down its offices without notice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
No Proof Of Refund, Seller Liable: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Case Title: Simranjeet Singh Sidhu v. William Penn Pvt. Ltd. (Seller) & Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CC/427/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed a complaint against a seller for failing to substantiate its claim that a refund had been processed, holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a fact and that mere bald averments without cogent documentary evidence cannot be accepted.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Sushil Kumar Aggarwal v. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited & Others
Case N.: CC/115/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited and its officials liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for installing a wireless internet connection instead of the promised optic-fibre wired connection and for failing to refund the advance amount despite assurances.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Dealer Liable For Failure To Transfer Ownership Of Exchanged Vehicle: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
Case Title: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Khanna v. Regional Office (True Value), Maruti Suzuki India and M/s C.M. Auto Sales Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 326 of 2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held that a vehicle dealer is responsible for ensuring the transfer of ownership of an exchanged car to the subsequent purchaser. The Commission ruled that failure to do so constitutes deficiency in service, particularly where the vehicle continues to remain registered in the original owner's name and leads to legal consequences for him.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central)
Case Title: Samreen v. Dr. Kuljit Kaur Gill & Anr.,
Consumer Complaint No. DC/77/CC/148/2023
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Central) has held a treating doctor and a nursing home guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service, holding them liable for causing permanent infertility to a pregnant woman due to delayed diagnosis and substandard med-ical care.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Ouseph George Karumathi v. Shijo Yohannan
Case No: CC No. 353 of 2018
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam recently passed an award granting a compensation of Rs. 1,10,000/- to a complainant since the constructor engaged by him for building his house abandoned work midway and failed to complete construction even after receiving substantial payment of more than 9 lakhs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Subhash Chander Jindal v. Punjab National Bank and others
Case No.: CC/685/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member B.M. Sharma, has held Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Raksha Health Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for closing a genuine Mediclaim as “No Claim” despite treatment records being on file.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title: Gh Nabi Reshi v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: 27/2016
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising President Peerzada Qousar Hussain and Member Ms. Nyla Yaseen, has held Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to settle a legitimate fire insurance claim. The Commission observed that the insurer neither settled the claim nor repudiated it on valid grounds, and instead relied upon a surveyor's assessment based on “presumptions and assumptions”.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad
Case Title: Akash Sharma vs. M/S Garden Grills 2.0
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 518/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Faridabad, comprising Amit Arora (President) and Indira Bhadana (Member), has allowed a consumer complaint against a restaurant for failing to provide free drinking water to a customer. In Akash Sharma vs. M/S Garden Grills 2.0, the Commission held that compelling a customer to purchase bottled water amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Thomas Joseph v. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.
Case No.: CC No. DC/555/CC/324/2015
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, comprising comprising Presi-dent D.B. Binu, and Members Ramachandran V. and Sreevidhia T.N , has held Jet Airways (India) Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for refusing boarding to a minor child on baseless grounds. The Commission rejected the airline's plea of non-service of notice, holding that Jet Airways had full knowledge of the proceedings, which amounted to deemed service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Shailendra Bhatnagar Vs. Air India and Anr
Case Number: CC/446/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–VI, New Delhi, comprising Ms. Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Mr. Shekhar Chandra (Member), has held Air India liable for deficiency in service for providing substandard facilities during a long-haul international flight, thereby causing mental agony and harassment to the passengers.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Noble Mathew v. M/s Pothen Autos
Case No: CC. No. 943 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam, in a recent order, awarded Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to a consumer, whose booking advance was retained by a car dealer even after he cancelled the booking.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Croma, HP Liable For Sale Of Laptop With Manufacturing Defect
Case Title: Kanika Vs. Infiniti Retails Ltd. (Croma) & Ors.
Consumer Complaint No. CC/160/2021
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Croma) and Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for selling a laptop suffering from a manufacturing defect and failing to replace or refund the same despite repeated complaints.
Amritsar Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Amritsar Consumer Commission Orders Home Centre To Replace Almirah For Defective Supply
Case Title: Dr. Karan Grewal v. Home Centre
Consumer Complaint No.: 47 of 2021
The Amritsar Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Ms. Mandeep Kaur (Member), allowed a consumer complaint against Home Centre, holding that the supply of a defective almirah and the failure to rectify the defects amounted to deficiency in service.
North Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Teena Sareen v. M/s Lakkadhaara Furniture Company
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2025
The North Goa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Porvorim, comprising Ms. Bela N. Naik (President) and Auroliano de Oliveira (Member), has directed Lakkadhaara Furniture Company to refund ₹88,200 along with ₹30,000 as compensation. The Commission held the company guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to deliver a bed set within the promised timeframe and for providing misleading information regarding the shipment of the product.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Sanjay Singla v. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: CC/139/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising President Amrinder Singh Sidhu and Member Brij Mohan Sharma, has held SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for reporting a consumer as a CIBIL defaulter despite full and final settlement of credit card dues.
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.
Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Krishnakutty V vs Sri. Bose Varghese
Case Number: CC/201/2018
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S., Member and Ram Mohan R. Member has held a shop owner liable for displaying misleading advertisement and charging an excess amount for photocopy from the complainant. The bench further raised concerns regarding the impact of such practices on the consumers which jeopardize their dignity and right to live freely without exploitation.
Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thrissur Consumer Commission Holds IFFCO Tokio Liable For Repudiating Accident Insurance Claim
Case Title: Thomas vs Branch Manager, IFFCO
Case Number: CC/492/21
The Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising C.T. Sabu (President), Sreeja S. (Member), and Ram Mohan R. (Member), held IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for wrongfully repudiating an accident insurance claim despite the insured suffering functional disability due to the accident. The Commission observed that rejecting a legitimate claim on illogical and unexplained grounds amounts to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh
Case Title: Munir Kaushal v. Ford India Pvt Ltd. and others
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/294/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), partly allowed a consumer complaint against Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and its authorized dealer Saluja Motors Pvt. Ltd., holding them liable for deficiency in service due to the persistent issues faced by the complainant with a newly purchased vehicle.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad
Case Title: Parthasarathi T & Ors. v. Ministry of Indian Railways & Ors.
Case No.: DC/563/CC/529/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad, comprising Sri. Vinay Menon V. (President), Smt. Vidya A. (Member), and Sri. Krishnankutty N.K. (Member), held the Indian Railways liable for deficiency in service after finding that passengers with confirmed reservations found their seats occupied by unauthorized and ticketless passengers in the sleeper coaches.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi
Case Title: Anuradha Narang v. Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: CC No. DC/78/CC/25/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi, comprising S.S. Malhotra (President) and Ravi Kumar (Member), held Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for repudiating an insurance claim by relying on an exclusion clause. The Commission allowed the complaint and held that the insurer failed to prove that the treatment for which reimbursement was sought fell within the scope of the exclusion clause.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara
Case Title: Nasir Ud Din Zargar v. Al Nawaf Pharmaceutical & J&K Bank, Old Chowk Kupwara
CC No: 33/C/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kupwara, comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms. Nyla Yaseen (Member), held J&K Bank liable for deficiency in ser-vice for disbursing the loan amount to a third party without the complainant's consent. The Com-mission partly allowed the complaint and held that the initiation of recovery proceedings and charging of EMIs on the entire loan amount, without lawful disbursement, amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi
Case Title: Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. DC/83/CC/122/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi, comprising President Monika A. Srivastava and Member Kiran Kaushal, has held Apple India liable for deficiency in service for failing to disclose the conditions attached to its “iPhone findable after power off” feature. Observing that the representation was displayed without any disclaimer or indication of conditions, the Commission directed the company to pay ₹1,00,000 as compensation to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Case Title: Raminder Kaur v. Good Flipping Burgers
Execution Application No.: DC/79/EA/133/2025 (In CC No. 428/2023)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Shekhar Chandra (Member), issued bailable warrants against an official of Good Flipping Burgers for failure to comply with its earlier order directing refund and payment of compensation to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam
Case Title: Jithin M Basheer v. Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 656/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kollam, comprising Smt. S.K. Sreela (President) and Sri. Stanly Harold (Member), has held that supplying goods with lesser quantity than advertised amounts to a “defect” and constitutes misleading advertisement and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: SAJU P JOSEPH vs Polycab India Private Limited
CC NO. DC/555/CC/743/2024
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising Ramachandran V. (Presiding Member) and Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), held Polycab India Private Limited and another opposite party liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for refusing to replace a defective inverter during the subsistence of the warranty period. The Commission observed that the defect had arisen within the five-year manufacturer's warranty and that the failure of the opposite parties to honour the warranty obligations warranted relief to the complainant.