Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: August 2023

Delhi High Court Delhi HC Quashes Summons Issued To H&M Over Alleged Violation Of 2011 Legal Metrology Rules Case Title: H&M Pvt. Ltd. vs Legal Metrology Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi The High Court of Delhi quashed a summoning order against H&M Pvt. Ltd., situated at Select City Walk Mall, Saket for violating Section 13(3)(b) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. Upon being inspected, the Legal Metrology Department wrongfully concluded that H&M Pvt. Ltd. had not followed the mandatory labeling requirements. The High Court held that the 2011 Rules are not applicable to ‘loose garments’. National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Wrongful Rejection Of Claim: NCDRC Directs United India Insurance To Pay Compensation To DCW Ltd. Case Title: DCW Ltd. vs. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. The NCDRC allowed the complaint filed by DCW Ltd. against United India Assurance Co. Ltd. and held it liable for deficiency in service. The Commission set aside the Maharashtra State Commission’s order. It held that the assertion of willful negligence due to mishandling of the DG Set when the lube oil pressure was below the manual's specifications was a mere presumption. The Commission highlighted that there was no ground or reasonable basis for the rejection of the Insurance claim since no commission appears on the part of the Complainant. NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition By IndusInd Bank, Citing Violation Of RBI’s Code Of Bank’s Commitment To Customers Case Title: Manager, IndusInd Bank Ltd & Anr. vs. Sanjay Ghosh The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by IndusInd Bank Ltd. against Sanjay Ghosh and upheld the State Commission order holding that the Bank had acted in total violation of the instructions contained in the Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers formulated by Reserve Bank of India. It observed that the remedies available under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to those under Special Statutes and an Arbitration clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions. NCDRC Orders Ashok Leyland's Dealer To Pay Rs 50k For Unauthorized Transfer Of Vehicle To Financer Without Buyer's Consent Case: Sunil Kumar vs Shimlaauto Zone & Anr The NCDRC clarified that any payment based on the Insured Declared Value (IDV) should be prioritized to repay any outstanding auto loan, with the remaining balance going to the customer. Moreover, the NCDRC also ruled against the authorized dealer of Ashok Leyland Ltd, ordering them to pay the IDV along with Rs. 50,000 in compensation for the wrongful transfer of the vehicle to the financer without the customer’s consent, and Rs 5,000 in litigation costs to the customer. NCDRC Holds HDFC Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd & 3 Ors. vs. Ravi Kumar The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by HDFC Bank against Tamil Nadu’s State Commission order and held it liable for deficiency in service. It was observed that the pre-sale notice was sent to an incorrect address, not matching the address as documented in the Loan Agreement. Moreover, the notice contained an incorrect loan account number. This was seen as a deliberate, arbitrary, and unlawful action on the part of HDFC Bank. NCDRC Rejects Vehicle Insurance Claim Due To Invalid Driver's License During Accident Case Title: Girish vs Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. & 3 Ors The NCDRC rejected a vehicle insurance claim on the grounds of an invalid driving license held by the driver who was operating the car at the time of the accident. This case reached the NCDRC after the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Maharashtra overturned the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Latur, which had previously dismissed the insurance claim. Deficiency In Service: NCDRC Dismisses Indian Railways' Revision Petition, Directs To Compensate Rs. 4.6 Lakhs Case Title: Indian Railway & 2 Ors. vs Uma Agarwal The NCDRC dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Indian Railways holding it liable for deficiency in service. It held that as per the provisions of the Railways Act, it was established that if it is proven that the loss, destruction, or damage occurred due to negligence or misconduct on the part of the Railways or any of its employees, then the Railways would be held responsible. Moreover, it has violated several of its duties which have been prescribed by the Railway Board by not having adequate personnel, not closing the gates at night, allowing intruders in the coach, and not aiding the Complainant in filing the FIR. NCDRC Upholds State Commission Order Against Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Citing Wrongful Repudiation Of Policy Case Title: Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Seven Islands Shipping Ltd. & Anr. The NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by...

Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: August 2023

Sachika Vij

Tags