Consumer Law Weekly Round-Up [01 July- 07 July 2023]

A weekly round-up of development in Consumer Law jurisprudence.Nominal IndexAbha Dobriyal vs Bank of BarodaMavarpu Parmesh vs PaytmLt. Col. Manpreet Singh vs Indigo AirlinesJanaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd. vs B.Ramchander ReddyJagruk Nagrik & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr.1. District Consumer Commission Imposes Cost Of Rs. 1 Lakh On Bank Of Baroda For Deficiency Of Service, Also Awards Litigation Cost Case Title: Abha Dobriyal vs Bank of BarodaThe District Consumer Commission at Chandigarh consisting of Surjeet Sharma (Presiding Member) and B.M. Sharma (Member) allowed the consumer complaint and directed the Bank of Baroda to pay a compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for rendering deficient services along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. The Commission observed that the Bank failed to upload the revised claim form, which was their responsibility, not the complainants' constituting a deficiency in service and causing mental agony, harassment, and loss to the complainants.2. Hyderabad Consumer District Commission Directs Paytm To Pay Rs. 3,000 For Deficiency Of Service, Also Awards Litigation CostCase Title: Mavarpu Parmesh vs PaytmThe Hyderabad District Consumer Redressal Commission consisting M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member), and J. Shyamala (Member), directed Paytm to pay Rs 3,000 as compensation for the mental distress caused to a consumer. The case involved a situation where the consumer's account was debited while doing a Paytm transaction, but the amount was not transferred to the intended recipient, indicating a deficiency in service.3. Chandigarh District Consumer Commission Directs Indigo Airlines To Reimburse Ticket Fare, Awards Compensation, And Litigation Cost To Army Officer And FamilyCase Title: Lt. Col. Manpreet Singh vs Indigo AirlinesThe District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, consisting of Suresh Kumar Sardana (Presiding Member) and BM Sharma (Member), has ordered Indigo and its ticket agent to compensate an Indian Army Officer. The commission held that by refusing to let the family board the flight or demanding an additional payment of Rs.4500/-, both Indigo and the ticket agent engaged in unfair trade practices and failed to provide satisfactory service to the Army officer and his family.4. Barred By Limitation, Telangana State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Real EstateFirm Case Title: Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd. vs B.Ramchander ReddyThe Telangana State Consumer Commission presided by Meena Ramanathan (President) and K. Ranga Rao (Member) allowed an appeal and set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission in Hyderabad. The complaint was filed by an Agriculturalist against Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd., a real estate business, for deficiency of service. The State Commission ruled that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Limitation Act.5. NCDRC Orders Developers To Refund Amount Due To Misrepresentation Of "One Of The Tallest Buildings In The World"Case Title: Jagruk Nagrik & Anr. v. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd. & Anr.The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) consisting of Presiding Member Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya (Presiding Member) and Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Member) allowed the complaint and directed Shreeniwas Cotton Mill and The Lodha Group to refund the entire deposited amount, with an interest rate of 9%. The complaint was filed for deficiency of service and misrepresentation regarding the height of the building as being the “World’sTallest”.

Consumer Law Weekly Round-Up [01 July- 07 July 2023]

Sachika Vij

Tags