Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: September 2023
Apoorva Pandita
8 Oct 2023 7:00 AM GMT
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023 In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the...
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution
NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023
In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This notification reveals that the National Consumer Commission and Department of Consumer Affiars have resolved a staggering 854 consumer cases in the month of August 2023 alone, whereas only 455 cases were filed during this period.
Supreme Court
Case Title: Prakash Bang vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.
The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service or defect was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to the administration of vaccine Engerix-B. It was the case of the complainant that he along with his family members had got the vaccine administered by their family doctor and that the complainant had allegedly developed ‘myositis’ as an adverse reaction due to the administration of the vaccine.
Case Title: Rohit Chaudhary & Anr. vs M/s Vipul Ltd.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a person buying goods either for resale or for use in large-scale profit-making activity, will not be a ‘consumer’ entitled to protection of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, if the commercial use is by the purchasers themselves for the purpose of earning their livelihood by means of self-employment, such purchasers of goods would continue to be ‘consumers’.
Case Title: ARN Infrastructure India Limited v. Hara Prasad Ghosh
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court set aside the decision of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (NCDRC), while upholding the principles of natural justice. The Court opined that although the opposite party had not filed its written version and may not have participated in the proceedings before the NCDRC, it nevertheless had the right to address final arguments before the NCDRC. While remanding the matter, the Court found that refusing to hear the opposite party while considering the complainant’s case on its merits amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Bench comprised of Justices B.V. Nagarathna And Ujjal Bhuyan.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.
In a significant judgment that reaffirms the principles of upholding the dignity, rights, and well-being of armed forces personnel, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a retired Air Veteran, holding the Indian Air Force (IAF) and the Indian Army jointly and vicariously liable for medical negligence. The appellant, who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital while falling sick on duty during Operation Parakram, has been awarded compensation amounting to 1 crore 54 lakhs 73,000.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.
In a pathbreaking judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court issued a series of vital directions to the Central and State Governments to ensure the effective implementation of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 (HIV Act). The Court further directed all Courts, Tribunals, and quasi-judicial bodies in the country to prioritize the cases relating to HIV-infected persons for early disposal as per the mandate of Section 34(2) of the HIV Act. The Court also directed that steps should be taken to keep the identity of HIV-infected persons anonymous. The Court passed these directions while awarding Rs 1.5 Crore compensation to an ex-Indian Air Force official who contracted HIV during a blood transfusion at a military hospital. The Court held both the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force jointly and severally liable for medical negligence.
Case Title: CPL Ashish Kumar Chauhan (Retd.) vs. Commanding Officers & Ors.
In a significant judgment delivered on September 26, the Supreme Court affirmed the applicability of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in the context of medical negligence cases, emphasizing its applicability in cases where negligence is evident and shifts the burden of proof onto the hospital or medical practitioners. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself”.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr.
The Delhi High Court has directed the members of Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India to only use the term “Staff Contribution” for the amount being charged as “service charge” currently. Justice Prathiba M Singh added that the amount being charged as “staff contribution” shall not be more than 10% of the total bill amount excluding the GST component. “…. the menu cards shall specify in bold that after the payment of ‘Staff Contribution’, no further tip is necessary to be paid to the establishment/servers/restaurant staff,” the court said.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Arti vs. Dr. Gagandeep Goyal & 3 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) held a doctor at Delhi Nursing Home, Bathinda liable for negligence when a patient's gall bladder was wrongly removed during laparoscopic surgery without her consent. The National Commission concluded the doctor had acted negligently by failing to diagnose the patient's perforated appendix and neglecting to refer her to a specialist. Consequently, the doctor was directed to pay Rs 3 lakh in compensation to the patient, who was incorrectly diagnosed and operated on, resulting in her becoming bedridden.
NCDRC Orders Reliance Life Insurance Company To Pay Rs 1 Crore And 50k Litigation Costs
Case Title: Nirmala Devi vs Reliance Life Insurance Com
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising of Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) directed Reliance Life Insurance Company to pay the claim amount of Rs1 crore with an interest of 9% and Rs 50,000 litigation cost to the nominee of the deceased life assured (DLA). The NCDRC rejected the insurance company’s contention that the deceased policyholder had concealed material evidence in the proposal form. The NCDRC highlighted that hospitalization due to a motor vehicle accident, not reported in the proposal form, and should not be considered a concealment of pre-existing illness or disease.
Case Title: Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr vs Banwari Lal Gupta
Recently, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising of Dr. Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) has directed the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) to compensate Rs. 10 Lakhs to a nominee of the deceased. The heart of the dispute revolved around whether the death was accidental or a suicide. The NCDRC concluded that the death was accidental, taking into account medical reports, police investigations, and other evidence. It observed that there was a positive presence of aluminium phosphide and ethyl alcohol in the deceased's viscera, suggesting the possibility of poisoning by unknown persons.
NCDRC Holds ICICI Bank Liable For Loss Of Original Documents, Awards 25 Lakh Compensation
Case Title: Manoj Madhusudhanan vs. ICICI Bank & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) presided by Hon’ble Mr. Subhash Chandra as the presiding member, partly allowed a consumer complaint and directed the ICICI Bank (Opposite Party no. 1) to pay compensation worth Rs. 25 Lakh for losing the original property documents of a complainant. The case revolves around one Manoj Madhusudhanan (complainant), who had taken a housing loan of Rs. 1.86 Crore from ICICI Bank, to buy a property in Bangalore. To secure the loan, the he had submitted his original property documents, which eventually got lost while being sent to a storage facility by a courier company Bluedart (Opposite Party no. 2).
Case Title: Anshul Aggarwal vs. Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Mr Subhash Chandra allowed a consumer complaint and held that real estate developer (Shreeniwas Cotton Mills Ltd.) is liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in services. It was found that the developer failed to hand over the possession of the flat as per the agreed terms. The residential building project “World One” was promoted without obtaining the necessary statutory approval from the Airport Authority of India (AAI). Despite the considerable passage of time, the developer failed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, directing the developer to refund the complainant's payment of Rs 13,06,59,748/-, along with compensation in the form of simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum and litigation cost of Rs 50,000/-.
Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Anand Kankipati vs. Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre
Recently, the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Additional Bench, Hyderabad) bench comprising V. V. Seshubabu (Member), and R.S. Rajeshree (Member) noted that one cannot be forcibly confined in the rehabilitation centre against one's wishes and subjected to unlawful treatment. It held that Samatha Rehabilitation & Psychiatric Centre’s admission of the complainant without his informed consent was against the Mental Health Act, 1987 and, therefore, amounted to unlawful detention and mistreatment.
Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad vs. Nagender
The Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad consisting of Meena Ramanatha (President) and Sri. K. Ranga Rao (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal and set aside the District Commission's decision. It held that the complainant was aware that the bus was overcrowded and could have waited for the next bus. The appeal was filed by The Depot Manager, Dilsukhnagar, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad (TSRTC) against the Complainant to set aside the District Commission, Ranga Reddy order which had allowed the complaint.
Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Coco Cola India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ms. Deepali Sharma & Ors.
The Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Prasanta Kumar Deka, with Mrs. Soneka Bora and Mr. Tapas Kumar Ghosh as members, ruled in favour of a consumer who found a dead fly in a bottle of sprite and directed Coca Cola India Ltd. to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Valid Ex-Parte Interim Order, Delhi State Commission Dismisses Punjab Housing Finance Ltd.’s Appeal
Case Title: M/S PNB Housing Finance Ltd. vs. Mrs. Menka Sawhney and Anr.
Recently, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms Pinki (Member) and Mr. J.P. Agrawal (Member) dismissed the first appeal of PNB against an ex-parte interim order of the Delhi District Commission-VI, calling the first appeal "premature". It was held that District Commissions have the power to issue and extend ex-parte interim orders, if necessary. Furthermore, since the District Commission was still deciding on the matter, Punjab Housing Finance Ltd. (PNB) could not charge higher EMI rates from the complainants, which formed the core of the complaint, as it could cause unnecessary hardship to the complainants later.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Ford India To Compensate Lawyer For Failed Car Booking Taken 3 Weeks Before Closing Operations In India
Case title: Adv. Manu Nair G V Ford India Pvt. Ltd
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kottayam recently ordered Ford India Pvt. Ltd to pay compensation to a lawyer for failure to deliver an EcoSport Titanium car to him, after taking advance booking just 3 weeks prior to cessation of its operations in India. The booking was taken by Ford's authorized dealer at Kottayam, Kairali Ford, unaware of then forthcoming closure of Ford India.
Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gujarat State Commission Orders Reliance General Insurance To Pay Rs. 1.5 Lakhs To The Insured For Availing Covid-19 Treatment
Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Soneshbhai Vashrambhai Patel
Recently, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. J. Mehta (President) and J. G. Mecwan (Member) directed the Reliance General Insurance to pay the complainant Rs 1.5 Lakhs for rejecting the insurance claim on the ground that the 'Covid-positive' report he furnished along with other claim documents, was not from a certified laboratory. While the State Commission acknowledged that the complainant did not precisely follow the technicalities of the insurance policy but he made reasonable efforts to take requisite steps and furnish all evidence.
Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Recurring Defects In Air Conditioner, Orissa State Commission Holds Godrej, Authorized Service Centre And Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Customer Care, M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs Arjun Kumar and others
Recently, the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Dillip Kumar Mohapatra (Presiding Member) upheld the Bargarh District Commission’s order holding Godrej, its authorized service centre and its dealer jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service for their failure to remedy the defects in the air conditioner which arose just within 1 month of purchase.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dispute Requires Police Investigation, Can’t Entertain, Uttarakhand State Commission Sets Aside District Commission’s Order
Case Title: Oriental Bank of Commerce vs Dev Caterers
Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (Judicial Member-II) and Mr B.S. Manral (Member) set aside a District Commission’s order against Oriental Bank of Commerce. The State Commission held that the impugned order was illegal and irregular as the District Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain a criminal matter which required thorough investigation by the police officials. Moreover, the transaction between the complainant and Oriental Bank of Commerce was commercial, keeping it outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kumari Ivana William and ors. vs M/s Velankanni Matha Hospitals Pvt. Ltd. and others
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by President Justice Sri. K. Surendra Mohan, along with Judicial Member Sri. Ajith Kumar D. and Member Smt. Beena Kumary, recently dismissed a complaint filed by a woman who had undergone a delivery procedure at Velankanni Matha Hospitals. The State Commission rejected her allegations of negligence against the attending doctor, which had resulted in a condition known as brachial plexus in her newborn baby. The bench ruled that such events were unpredictable, and the doctors could not be held responsible for them. Additionally, the woman failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shri Triveni Prasad Thapliyal and Anr.
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Ms Kumkum Rani (Judicial Member II) and Ms B.S. Manral (Member) upheld the Dehradun District Commission’s order against National Insurance Company Limited for wrongfully repudiating the complainant’s claim for his house which was destroyed due to floods. The insurance company failed to prove the alleged address discrepancy in the property’s address written in the proposal form.
District Consumer Commissions
Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Rajinder Singh vs Jatin Sood
Recently, the Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Nova Bakery liable for deficiency in service following discovery of an ant a piece of cake, leading to subsequent illness after consumption. The District Commission also found bakery liable of unfair trade practice for failure to issue a bill, cash memo, or receipt for the cake.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I
Case: A. Sanjeeva Reddy vs M/s. Hindustan Healthmart
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–I bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President), C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) and Narayan Reddy (Member) found Hindustan Health Mart (“HHM”) liable for selling a defective pulse oximeter, which failed to function properly, causing trouble for the complainant during the Covid-19 pandemic. The bench acknowledged HHM's position as a retailer but emphasized that, by selling the product, HHM assumed a responsibility for the quality and functionality of the product sold.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III
Case: Sri. D.V. Manohar vs M/s. Go Airlines (India) Limited
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III bench comprising of M. Ram Gopal Reddy (President), D. Sreedevi (Member) and J. Shyamala (Member) noted that an airline cannot exempt itself from refund of tickets in cases of force majeure events that led to cancellation of flight. The bench directed Go Airlines to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000 and reimburse additional flight charges totalling Rs. 13,956 to a passenger whose flight to the Maldives was abruptly cancelled just a week before the scheduled departure.
Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Harish Goyal vs Rajhans Cinemas & Ors.
Recently, the Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Satpal (President), Sushma Garg (Member) and Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) has directed Rajhans Cinema and Libra Entertainments to reimburse a customer for a parking fee of Rs 20 that was charged despite an advertisement promising free parking. Further, the District Commission held that Goyal had indeed suffered financial loss due to the erroneous parking fee charge and had experienced mental distress and harassment during his interaction with the parking attendants.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II
Case Title: Arvind Kumar vs M/S Eureka Forbes
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) directed the Eureka Forbes Ltd. to refund the full refund of the Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) cost for the complainant’s Classic Eureka Forbes Water Purifier after water purifier broke down multiple times. The District Commission held that Eureka Forbes’ failure to deliver the assured services of complete repair to the water purifier, as specified in the AMC, constituted a deficiency in service.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: R.G. Rammohan vs Hero Lectro
Recently, the III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama K (President) and Chandrashekhar S Noola (Member) held Hero Lectro (Division of Hero Cycles Ltd.) liable of deficiency in service for manufacturing defect in an e-cycle purchased by the complainant. The bench noted that despite raising complaints and efforts at repair by the complainant, the defect still persisted, therefore, the recurring nature of the defect indicated a manufacturing defect.
Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: N.D. Vinaya Kumar and anr. vs PhonePe Private Limited
Recently, the Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama. K (President), Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Rekha Sayannavar (Member) held PhonePe liable of deficiency of service and unfair trade practices. The bench noted that PhonePe being an intermediary platform for transaction between the two customer’s bank holds an important responsibility to exercise due diligence in every transaction. The case pertain to a complainant transferring money to another individual through the PhonePe app and the complainant got a confirmation of the successful transaction but the amount wasn’t debited into the bank account of the receiver.
Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Allwyn Cyrus R vs Dell Technologies
Recently, the Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) dismissed a complaint against Dell Technologies filed for alleged deficiency in service noting that the complainant didn’t accept the discounted prices for service parts given by the company and further the bench noted that Dell Technologies was unable to provide the service because the complainant didn’t register the laptop within seven days of the purchase date on the Dell’s website.
Bangalore Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Jeevan Kulkarni vs BMS Hospital
Recently, the Bangalore Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President) and Sharavathi S.M. (Member) held BMS Hospital liable for collecting registration charges from the patients and rejected the contentions by the hospital that the registration fee served the purpose of uniquely identifying each patient, maintaining comprehensive patient records, and providing personalized healthcare.
Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Pankaj vs Apple India Private Limited
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala bench comprising Mr. Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms. Arti Sood (Member) and Sh. Narayan Thakur (Member) found Apple India Private Limited deficient in service for failing to provide service to the customer who faced network connectivity and camera issues in his newly bought iPhone. The District Commission refuted Apple’s contention that the iPhone could not be fixed as it had some internal damage, rendering the device out of warranty. It was noted that Apple failed to prove that there was any prior unauthorized or authorized modification to the device.
III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: N.B. Sudheendra Rao vs Hotel Harsha
Recently, the III Additional Bengaluru Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprised of President Shivarama K, Members Chandrashekar S Noola, and Rekha Sayannavar held Hotel Harsha, The Fern (Bangalore) liable for providing the complainant with broken bed which cause him severe backaches and for providing a chicken burger in the meal even when the compliant asked for vegetarian food.
Kerala District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Rajeev Kumar M.R. v. M/S Classic Motors
A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has criticised the practice of manufacturers deliberately including conditions of a product's warranty in 'fine print' which ordinary citizens are unable to comprehend. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. said the National Consumer Commission has already held such practice as 'unfair trade practice' and urged the regulatory bodies to take action against manufacturers who engage in such practices to harm consumers.
Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case Title: Naveen James vs Ace Town Planners
Recently, the Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Ace Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. responsible for deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. Further, the bench noted that despite the fact that the Complainant made the regular payments for the plot, there was no progress on the site, and he had not received possession as promised.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Dr Yatish Kumar Bansal vs Lifestyle Wedding Planner
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) ordered Lifestyle Wedding Planner based in Chandigarh to refund the advance amount paid to it for decoration services by the Complainant. The bench noted that despite the cancellation of the marriage following COVID-19 pandemic the wedding planner didn’t refund the advance amount paid by the complainant, thereby, amounting to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: P V Ramesh Kumar And The Officer Concerned & Anr.
A Consumer Court in Bengaluru has held that ICICI Bank indulged in unfair trade practices by excessively charging a senior citizen who had closed his credit card issued by the bank, thus causing mental distress and inconvenienc. The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer District Redressal Commission headed by President Shivrama K, partly allowed the complaint petition filed by P V Ramesh Kumar.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II
Hyderabad Commission Holds Manipal Cigma Insurance Co For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: C. Pratap Reddy vs M/s Manipal Cigma Health Insurance Company Ltd.
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission–II bench comprising of Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), Jawahar Babu (Member) and Madhavi Sasanakota (Member) held Manipal Cigma Health Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service for repudiating the complainant's genuine claim. The Company failed to present the actual proposal form filled by the complainant which was crucial in determining whether the complainant had indeed failed to disclose his medical history, as claimed by the insurance company.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Amit Kumar Tripathi vs. M/S Reliance Retail Ltd.
Recently, a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi presided by Mr. S. S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar as members allowed a consumer complaint which brings light to the contentious issue of charging customers for carry bags in retail stores. While noting that charging for carry bags is against the interest of consumers, the District Commission held Reliance Trends liable for deficiency in service.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Anil Dhamey vs The New India Assurance Company and anr.
Recently, the Chandigarh bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, presided over by Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur (Member), ruled against a vehicle owner who had filed a consumer complaint following a road accident involving the insured vehicle. According to the District Commission, the insurance policy had not been officially transferred into the name of the vehicle owner at the time of the accident. As a result, the vehicle owner was deemed ineligible to receive the insurance amount. The insurance policy had been initially taken out by the previous vehicle owner, and in the absence of a direct contractual relationship with the insurance company, the new owner was regarded as a third party.
Kolkata District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Unit – II Central)
Case Title: Miss Priyal Jain vs. Principal National Academy of Media and Events & Ors.
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kolkata (Unit – II Central) presided by Mrs. Sukla Sengupta along with Mrs. Sahana Ahmed Basu and Mr. Reyazuddin Khan as members allowed a consumer complaint against Principal National Academy of Media and Events. The key issue was that a six-month photography diploma course, scheduled to start in November, did not commence as promised. As a result, the District Commission held that the Academy was highly negligent and failed to provide the expected services. Further observing that the Academy had adopted unfair means of trade, the forum directed the complainant to compensate with Rs. 50,000/-.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II
Case: Meenu Vaid vs. Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital and Ayurvedic Research
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II in New Delhi bench comprising Monika A. Srivastava (President), Kiran Kaushal (Member) and U.K. Tyagi (Member) held Shri Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital liable for negligence in treatment and removal of complainant’s right ovary which subsequently led to permanent disability, hormonal imbalances, and psychological distress. The bench noted that medical professionals are liable if they fail to perform their duty with reasonable skill and competence or if they deviate from the accepted medical standard.
North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Vipin Bharti vs. Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd
Recently, the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) noted that intermediaries like Flipkart and Amazon held a certain responsibility in ensuring product quality within their platform. The bench further held that agents or intermediaries had an obligation to uphold the standard of goods sold through their platforms and could be held liable for defects or losses incurred by purchasers.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II
Case: Mohd. Abdul Yousuf vs Orange Tours & Travels
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II bench comprising Vakkanti Narasimha Rao (President), Jawahar Babu (Member) and Madhavi Sasanakota (Member) held Orange Tours & Travels liable for cancelling a bus service just before the boarding time, causing significant mental anguish to the complainant. The District Commission has ordered Orange Tours & Travels to refund the ticket amount and pay Rs. 10,000 in compensation to the complainant.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: George V.T. v. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Ayappankavu
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam has ordered the Canara Bank to compensate a customer for its failure to provide insurance coverage and certificate to him, despite deducting the premium for the same.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. observed,
"The actions of the opposite party, i.e., their assurance of providing insurance coverage and a certificate, coupled with their subsequent failure to fulfil this promise despite deducting the premium, signify a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. This deficiency in service has led to the complainant's inability to claim cashless benefits for medical expenses incurred, resulting in substantial hardship and emotional distress."
North East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Harassment Of Customer
Case Title: Shanti Sawroop vs Canara Bank
Recently, the North East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency of service for failing to update the deposit made by the 76-year-old complainant in his account following the merger of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Ravinder Pal Singh and Anr. vs The Club Resorto Hospitality Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Chandigarh bench, led by Shri Pawanjit Singh as President and Surjeet Kaur as Member, found Club Resorto Hospitality Limited ("the Club") responsible for inadequate service due to the cancellation of the complainants' anniversary trip, which the Club attributed to adverse weather and road conditions. Furthermore, the Club was held accountable for not reimbursing the service fee paid by the complainants. The Commission ordered the Club to reimburse Rs. 75,000 and compensate the complainants with a total of Rs. 14,000, covering both compensation and legal expenses.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Prabha Pandey vs. Sahara Group
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Sahara Group liable for deficiency in service for not offering possession of the home units within the Sahara City to the complainant. The bench noted that collecting money from prospective buyers without obtaining required approvals and clearances is an unfair trade practice.
North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sarfraz Ali vs. Punjab National Bank
Recently, the North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for deficiency in service and ordered it to pay Rs refund the deposited amount and pay 30,000 as compensation to the complainant. The matter revolved around the complainant who deposited Rs. 40,000 in a cash deposit machine and received no receipt confirming the deposit. The District Commission reiterated that any security lapse within a bank's premises amounts to a deficiency in service, particularly when it leads to the loss of a customer's money within the bank premises.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Shyam Sunder Garg vs. Indian Railway Welfare Organization
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) has directed the Indian Railway Welfare Organization (IRWO) to pay Rs 30,000 to the complainant for charging extra amount after the booking of the flat property. Further, the bench also noted that arbitration clauses in agreements between consumers and builders did not limit the jurisdiction of consumer forums.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Pragati Bhatt vs. OLA Cabs
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held OLA Cabs liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practices for overcharging excess fare of Rs 3,101 from the complainant who booked a ride from Jindal University to Chandigarh.
III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delivery Of Damaged TV, Bangalore District Commission Holds Cloudtail India For Gross Negligence
Case Title: Sri Shiv Nair vs. Amazon Development Centre and others
Recently, the III-Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (Member) held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., the seller, liable for delivering a damaged Panasonic HD Smart LED TV to the Complainant. The District Commission cleared the manufacturer’s liability after assessing that the damage was caused during the delivery of the TV, which was the responsibility of the seller.
Nalgonda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nalgonda District Commission Holds Oriental Insurance Co. Liable For Deficiency Of Service
Case Title: Madla Srinivas Reddy vs. The Manager, Maruthi Suzuki and Anr.
Recently, the Nalgonda District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Mamidi Christopher (President), Smt. S. Sandhya Rani (Female Member) and Sri K. Venkateshwarlu (Male Member) held that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited wrongfully repudiated the valid claim of the owner of an insurance Maruti Suzuki Ertiga car. The District Commission emphasized the importance of the surveyor report as a substantial piece of evidence and relied on it to provide compensation to the car owner.
Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Tarun Chaurasia vs Sunil Wine Shop
Recently, the Kangra District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 on a liquor shop owner in Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh for charging prices exceeding the Maximum Retail Price on the purchase of beer and whiskey bottles. Further, the bench also recommended to the state government that liquor prices should be prominently displayed in shops to prevent overcharging.
Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Diliprao D Mohite vs. M/s Star Health and Allied Insurance co Ltd
The Thane District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising V.C. Premchandani (President) and Poonam V. Maharshi (Member) held Star Health And Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for rejecting the insurance claim filed by the complainant for expenses he incurred during his treatment at Jupiter Lifeline Hospital Ltd. (Thane).
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Ranjot Kaur vs. Chili's Restaurant, Elante Mall
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) ordered Chili's Restaurant to pay Rs 25,852 to a woman who found a live worm in a dish served at one of their outlets in Elante Mall, Chandigarh.
Bangalore-I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Pooja Shankar vs Vinayaka Cake Shop
The Bangalore I Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held a cake shop liable for selling a black forest cake in a rotten state and unsuitable for consumption to the complainant. The bench noted that the poor quality of the cake caused vomiting and diarrhoea among the guests invited by the Complainant on her son’s birthday.
Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Tariq Ahmad Dar vs. Akash Ganga Courier Ltd
The Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Akash Ganga Courier liable for non-delivery of a parcel containing silk Kashmiri carpets worth Rs 6.8 Lakhs. The bench held the courier service liable for deficiency of service and ordered it to pay Rs. 4.8 Lakhs to the complainant for non-delivery of goods.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II
Case Title: Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur vs FCA (Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.
Recently, the Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II bench comprising of Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member) ordered Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) India Automobiles and KAS Cars to refund Rs 61.61 Lakhs and compensation of Rs 65k to the complainant for manufacturing effect in the Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Raj Kumar vs M/s Cholamangalam Investment & Finance Co.Ltd
The Ludhiana District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjeev Batra (President), Jaswinder Singh (Member) and Monika Bhagat (Member) held Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, a finance company based in Chennai, liable of using forceful recovery agents for repossession of complainant’s Maruti Swift Desire Car without giving any prior notice. The bench deprecated the practice of using forceful recovery agents for repossession of vehicles and emphasized the need for proper notice.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Deficiency In Service In Booked Tour Package, Hyderabad Commissions Orders MakeMyTrip To Refund Amount, Pay 25k Compensation
Case Title: Mr. Sriharsha Ks vs M/s MakeMyTrip Private Limited & Another
Lately, the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum-I bench, led by President Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, determined that MakeMyTrip was responsible for insufficiently assisting the complainant and his wife after they encountered an accident while traveling to Manali. The bench observed that MakeMyTrip had a duty to support its customer and ensure the provision of top-notch facilities during the entire trip, which it did not fulfil.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I
Case Title: Smt. Usha Rani Jaiswal vs Union Bank of India
The Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and C. Lakshmi Prasanna (Member) directed the Union Bank of India to pay Rs 1 Lakhs for its failure to return a title deed submitted by complainant as collateral for an educational loan. The bench noted that the complainant had been unable to sell her property for personal needs at a reasonable price due to the non-availability of the original sale deed.
Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: P.V. Ramesh Kumar Son of Late P.V. Jayaram vs The Officer Concerned, ICICI Credit Card Care Officer
Recently, the Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Shivarama. K (President) and Chandrashekar. S. Noola (Member) held ICICI Bank liable for causing undue harassment to a 68-year-old senior customer over a meagre 35 paise credit card debt on his closed account. The bank failed to close the customer’s account despite several requests, causing significant distress to the customer.
III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sri Vaseemuddin. A vs M/s Motherhood Hospital and others
The III-Additional Bengaluru District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri Shivarama K (President), Sri Chandrashekar S Noola (Member) and Smt. Rekha Sayannvar (“Member”) held Motherhood Hospital, Bengaluru liable for providing a twin room service despite the assurance of a single room to the complainant as part of their birthing package. The District Commission opined that there is more privacy in a single room and hence, on failing to provide it, the hospital must compensate the complainants.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ancy K. Alexander v. Parvathy Maya Shaji & Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently ordered an immigration consulting agency to compensate a student for cheating the latter in the name of obtaining permanent residency (PR) visa to Canada.The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N., held the Managing Director and General Manager of Amster Immigration Overseas Pvt. Ltd. liable to refund the 75,000 deposit made by the complainant as well as compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I
Volkswagen’s Dealer Held Liable For Deficiency In Service; Hyderabad-I District Commission
Case Title: Sri Sachin Pohar vs Volkswagen India Private Limited & Others
Recently, the Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I directed PPS Motors Pvt Ltd, a dealer of Volkswagen India Pvt Ltd., to pay the complainant Rs 4.9 Lakhs for continuous delays in the delivery of the car even after the complainant had paid initial booking amount of Rs 5,000 via credit card and subsequently paid Rs 4,94,000 in cash to representatives of PPS Motors Pvt Ltd for the remaining balance of the vehicle cost.
North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sh. Sachin Gupta vs M/s Philips India Ltd. and Anr.
The North-East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Surinder Kumar Sharma (President) and Ms Adarsh Nain (Member), recently dismissed a complaint against Philips India Limited. In the complaint, the buyer had contended that the Philips juicer mixer had multiple defects that were not resolved by Philips, despite numerous follow-ups with their customer care. However, the commission ruled that the responsibility of proving deficiency in service rests with the complainant, and in this instance, the buyer could not provide sufficient evidence to support their allegations against Philips.
Indore District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case Title: Harshvardhan Pande vs Western Union Financial Services
The Indore District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Balraj Kumar Paloda (President), Srimati Sadhna Sharma (Member) and Susri Nidhi Barange (Member) held Western Union liable of deficiency in service for an online money transfer service availed by the complainant for paying his college fees. The complainant contended that the transfer was not completed, and the money was not refunded, despite multiple attempts and communications with the company.
Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Barjinder Singh vs. M/S Advance Technology and Anr.
The Ferozepur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Smt. Kiranjit Kaur Arora (President) and Smt. Suman Khanna (Member) held Nikvision Camera’s Private Limited responsible for manufacturing defective cameras and DRV which caused mental agony and harassment to the buyer. Nikvision was ordered to refund the amount of the cameras and pay Rs. 5k compensation to the buyer.
North-West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ms. Reena vs. Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The North-West Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Sanjay Kumar (President), Nipur Chandna (Member) and Rajesh (Member), found Panasonic India Private Limited liable for manufacturing a faulty air conditioner (AC) that remained dysfunctional despite multiple attempts at repair and replacement. As a remedy, the District Commission directed Panasonic to provide the complainant with a consolidated compensation of Rs. 30,000 to ensure justice was served.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I
Case Title: Anu Garg vs M/s Honda Car Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Honda Cars Limited and its authorized car dealer, Lally Motors, for selling an old car under false pretenses of it being new making the complaintant pay the price of a new one. The bench held Honda Cars Limited and its dealer jointly and severally liable to refund the invoice price of Rs. 8,77,050 to Garg with an interest rate of 9% per annum.
Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: S. Suresh vs. The Manager i/c, Gokulam Cinemas
The Thiruvallur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum bench comprising S.M. Latha Maheswari (President) and P. Murugan (Member) ordered Gokulam Cinemas to pay ₹1 lakh as compensation to the complainant with disability for neither providing elevators nor ramps to the cinema, which violated the Disability Act of 2006. The bench further directed the District Collector (Tiruvallur) to take necessary action against Gokulam Cinemas.
Hyderabad District Consumer Forum-I
Case: Mr. Sriharsha Ks vs M/s MakeMyTrip Private Limited & Another
The Hyderabad District Consumer Forum-I bench, led by President Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi, determined that MakeMyTrip was responsible for insufficiently assisting the complainant and his wife after they encountered an accident while traveling to Manali. The bench observed that MakeMyTrip had a duty to support its customer and ensure the provision of top-notch facilities during the entire trip, which it did not fulfil.
Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mohd. Ayub vs Neera Eye Centre
The Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) rejected a complaint filed against a doctor for medical negligence that resulted in alleged wrongful surgery on the complainant’s right eye. The bench emphasized the complainant's failure to provide sufficient proof of medical negligence and highlighted that the medical reports did not support the allegations made against the doctor.
Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Anita Kumari vs. M/S Himalayan Express Way Ltd.
The Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Satpal (President), Sushma Garg (Member) and Barhm Parkash Yadav (Member) held Himalayan Express Way Limited and ICICI Bank liable for their unfair trade practices and ordered them to pay a total of ₹1 lakh in punitive damages to the complainant. The complaint filed before the District Commission revolved around the deduction of an incorrect toll while the complainant was travelling to Panchkula for work.
Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jitendra Prafull Ladhani vs. Dean, Shushrusha Citizens Co-operative Hospital Limited
The Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising V.C. Premchandani (President) and M.P. Kasar (Member) held Shushrusha Citizens Co-Operative Hospital (Dadar) liable for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice for unjustly levying 15% mark-up charges for cashless hospitalization services availed by the complainant.
