Consumer Cases Monthly Round-Up: October 2023
Apoorva Pandita
1 Nov 2023 10:40 AM GMT
Supreme Court Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court Case Title: M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos.6500-6501 of 2023, Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902 The Supreme Court recently held that consumer disputes are non-arbitrable disputes and that a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just...
Supreme Court
Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court
Case Title: M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos.6500-6501 of 2023, Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902
The Supreme Court recently held that consumer disputes are non-arbitrable disputes and that a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer.
Case Title: M.A Biviji v. Sunita & Ors.
The Supreme Court, while hearing a set of appeals pertaining to the medical negligence matter, observed that to hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd & Anr v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through Smt. Nirmala Somkuwar, Food Safety Officer
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently refused to quash criminal proceedings lodged against Coca Cola for an allegedly fungal infected ‘Maaza Mango Drink’ displayed for sale by a retailer. While dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC by the Company and its nominee, the court observed that the former was responsible for ensuring that none of the food products deemed as unsafe post expiry period remain in the store of the retailers, even if the product is not directly sold to the end consumer by the Company.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye vs UOI
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has quashed Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State and District Consumer Commissions. The division bench comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi observed the rule was “diluting the involvement of the judiciary” and the “lack of judicial dominance” was in “contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain.”
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Gaganjeet Bhullar vs. M/S Emirates Airlines
A consumer complaint filed by Indian professional Golfer Gaganjeet Bhullar against Emirates Airlines for the loss of his baggage was partially allowed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Bhullar alleged that Emirates Airlines had mishandled his baggage, causing him inconvenience and financial losses. The NCDRC bench presided by Justice Ram Surat Ram Maurya and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as a member, found that Emirates Airlines (Opposite Party) had met the required standards by delivering Bhullar's missing baggage within 24 hours in the first incident. However, in the second incident, where one bag was lost, the airline was directed to compensate Bhullar within the limit of SDRs 1000, provided he could prove the value of the lost items. However, the commission did not approve Bhullar's claims for compensation related to his missed tournaments and mental stress.
Case Title: Sushila Singh vs. Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) dismissed an appeal against Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd. filed by the complainant who was the nominee of her deceased husband. The NCDRC highlighted the importance of good faith in insurance contracts and held that the complainant was not entitled to any refund because the deceased husband failed to convey material facts regarding his health condition to Birla Sun Life Insurance Co.
NCDRC Dismisses LIC’s Appeal And Orders It To Disburse Rs. 47.90 Lakh To Nominees
Case: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Dr. Nilam Hetalkumar Patel & 4 Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) dismissed an appeal by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) against an order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The NCDRC ordered LIC to pay Rs 47.90 lakh to the nominees of the complainant for rejecting the claims on the basis that the complainant had not disclosed material facts at the time of policy issuance.
Case Title: Niraj Kumar Sindhu & Anr. vs. Fortis Hospital & Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sudip Ahlwalia allowed a revision petition with regard to a consumer complaint filed by the family members of a deceased patient, alleging negligence on the part of attending doctor and Fortis Hospital.The Commission held that the hospital's failure to promptly test the patient for H1N1 constituted a case of medical negligence. As a result, the Commission restored the district commission's order, which had directed Fortis Hospital (Opposite Party no. 1) and the attending doctor (Opposite Party no. 2) to pay Rs. 3,64,075/- to the complainants, along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.
Case Title: Director, General State Transport Haryana & Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar Prajapat
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) directed the Haryana State Transport Department to take appropriate measures to stop the menace of smoking inside the public buses by the drivers, conductors and passengers. The NCDRC emphasized that the State Transport Department would be separately liable to compensate each of the complainants who availed its services, however, these complaints will be treated as consumer disputes rather than public interest litigations.
NCDRC Sets Aside State Commission’ Order Directing Mercedes To Replace The Car
Case Title: Mercedes Benz India Private Limited vs. Smt Revathi Giri & Ors.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajindra as a member, recently allowed Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against a State Commission's order. The State Commission had directed Mercedes to replace a defective car with a similar model or refund the purchase price, and pay interest to the consumer who complained about car defects. The State Commission’s decision was based on the consumer’s expectation of comfort and peace when buying a vehicle. However, Mercedes argued that they could only be held liable if an expert proved an inherent manufacturing defect or when the warranty covered these defects. The National Commission allowed the appeal by Mercedes (Appellant), stating that there was no conclusive evidence of “inherent manufacturing defects” because no expert opinion was presented, thereby setting aside the State Commission’s order.
Case Title: Baby Palak Khan and 2 others vs Dr. Amit Upadhyay and 2 others
The NCDRC bench comprising A.P. Sahi (President) and Dr. Sadhna Shaker (Member) cleared all allegations against Dr. Amit Upadhyay of Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College for the alleged failure of Retinopathy or premature screening of a 3-week-old baby. The NCDRC relied on various inquiry and departmental reports and other circumstantial evidence to hold that the doctor and the medical institute followed proper procedures and acted as per medical ethics.
Services Rendered For Commercial Purposes Cannot Be Entertained, NCDRC Allows LG Electronics’ Appeal
Case Title: L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Jaganath Life Care Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), consisting of Sudip Ahluwalia and AVM J. Rajendra, ruled in favor of LG Electronics in their appeal against Shree Jagannath Hospital and Research Centre. The hospital had contracted LG Electronics to install a Multi Power System in their theater, but the installation did not occur as planned. The hospital filed a consumer complaint, which was initially allowed by the Jharkhand State Commission. However, NCDRC decided that the hospital did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act since the installation was for commercial purposes. As a result, they allowed LG Electronics' appeal and set aside the State Commission's order.
Ganjam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sri Gandhi Behera vs. Flipkart Internet Private Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ganjam, Berhampur bench comprising Satish Kumar Panigrahi (President) held Flipkart liable for unfair trade practices for cancelling the order without the consent of the complainant. The bench noted that Flipkart listed the product at a discounted rate, accepted the complainant's order, and later cancelled it without a valid explanation. This behaviour was misleading and unfair to the consumer.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-
“Royal Dhaba”, Chandigarh, Held Liable For Not Refunding Excess Amount Collected
Case Title: Prashant Sethi vs GAZB 26 Royal Dhaba
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, headed by Mr. Pawanjit Singh and Mrs. Surjeet Kaur, allowed a consumer complaint. They held a local eatery in Chandigarh, known as the "Royal Dhaba," accountable for charging an astonishing ten times more than the actual bill. The complainant had a billing dispute with the Dhaba. Instead of a reasonable Rs. 465/-, he was charged Rs. 4,650/-. Despite repeated requests for a refund of the excess amount, the Dhaba refused to refund the excess amount. As a result, the Commission held that the restaurant's actions amounted to both a service deficiency and unfair trade practices. Consequently, the "Royal Dhaba" (Opposite Party) was directed to refund ₹4,185/-, along with interest.
Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Smt. Vasantha P vs Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd
The Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising P.C. Paulachen (President), V. Balakrishnan (Member) and Priya (Member) held Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd liable for deficiency of service for disconnection of the complainant’s digital TV connection even after she paid the annual subscription fee of Rs 2,600 to the company. The District Commission rejected Asianet’s objection on jurisdiction contending that the matter fell within the purview of the Telegraph Act. It noted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are additional remedies available to consumers and not in derogation of any other laws.
Sambalpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Prafulla Kumar Dash vs Propriter, Goyal Printing Zone
The Sambalpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Dr Ramakanta Satapathy (President) and Sadananda Tripathy (Member) held a Xerox shop owner liable for unfair trade practice for not refunding Rs 3 after the complainant handed him Rs 5, expecting a return of three rupees since the standard rate for a photocopy was Rs 2 per copy. The bench ordered the shop owner to refund Rs 3 in addition to Rs 25,000 as compensation to the complainant.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III
Hyderabad District Commission: India Post Directed To Pay Rs. 20,000 For Tampering With Parcel
Case Title: V.K. Singh IPS vs. India Post
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – III, Hyderabad bench led by Mr. M. Ram Gopal Reddy along with Mrs. J. Shyamala and Mr. R. Narayan Reddy as members, partly allowed a consumer complaint filed by an IPS officer against India Post. The complaint alleged that the postal department had tampered with the parcels and valuable contents sent by the complainant from Hyderabad to Haridwar. Specifically, the complainant said that 10 sarees worth Rs. 20,000/- had gone missing from his parcels upon reaching their destination. The District Commission found that there was indeed a deficiency in service on the part of India Post (Opposite Party), leading to these missing items. As a result, the Postal Department was directed to compensate the complainant with Rs. 20,000/- along with an additional Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of the complaint.
Hooghly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Subhrajit Das vs. BYJUS & Ors.
The Hooghly District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Mr. Debasish Bhandyopadhyay and Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya as a member, ruled in favor of a consumer complaint against BYJU’S, the well-known learning app provider. The complaint accused BYJU’S of engaging in dishonest and unfair trade practices. Specifically, the complaint alleged that BYJU’S (Opposite Party) did not fulfil its promise to provide a full refund if the customer was unhappy with the learning app within 15 days. Apart from not keeping this promise, BYJU'S even charged an excessive fee of Rs. 9498/- for cancellation of the registration. As a result, the Commission ordered BYJU’S to reimburse the entire payment made for the learning app along with the cancellation fee. Furthermore, BYJU’S was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for causing distress and mental agony to the complainant.
Bangalore Urban II Additional District Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Sri. Satish T.N vs HDFC Bank
The Bangalore Urban II Additional District Commission Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of B. Devaraju (President) and V. Anuradha (Member) held HDFC Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank liable for inaction following the formal complaint over a hacking incident of the complainant’s bank account that resulted in the loss of Rs 50,000 from his savings account.
Delhi (North-East), District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench
Students Not To Be Considered As Consumers: Delhi District Commission Dismisses Consumer Complaint
Case Title: Sh. Ramveer Goswami vs. Delhi Paramedical & Management Institute
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench in Delhi (North-East), presided over by President Surinder Kumar Sharma and member Anil Kumar Bamba dismissed a consumer complaint filed against the Delhi Paramedical & Management Institute ("Opposite Party") alleging deficiency on their part. While relying on a past decision of the NCDRC, the District Commission re-emphasized that educational institutions, particularly vocational institutes, were not service providers under the Consumer Protection Act, and as a result, students could not be considered consumers. The complaint, filed under the Consumer Protection Act, was regarding the admission process and the subsequent cancellation of enrolment for the complainant's son in a Diploma course
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Krishnaraj S Vs Dwani Hearing Aid Centre
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising D.B Binu (President), Ramachandran (Member), and Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held a hearing aid centre liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices for selling a defective hearing aid piece to the complainant and for not refunding the price of a defective hearing aid even after accepting the equipment returned by the customer for replacement.
Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Smt. Gayathri B G vs Anand Nallapete
The Bangalore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of M. Shobha (President), K Anita Shivakumar (Member) and Suma Anil Kumar (Member) held a photographer liable for not delivering the wedding video even after 15 days following the complainant’s wedding. The bench while noting that the photographer repeatedly assured the complainant that the delay in delivering the wedding CD was due to editing issues, held him liable of deficiency of service.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. G S Arora vs Yatra Online Pvt. Ltd.
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Yatra Online Private Limited and British Airways for their failure to inform the complainant of flight cancellation on time. It noted that on the abrupt cancellation of the scheduled flight, British Airways failed to make alternative arrangements for the complainant and his family members. Additionally, Yatra Online withheld the refund amount with themselves.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East)
Case Title: Sh. Sandeep Bhatia vs. Apple Store & Ors.
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra and members Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar, allowed a consumer complaint against “Apple”. The complaint was regarding a defective iPhone X and deficient services provided by Apple and one of its service providers. This led to financial losses and distress for the complainant. As a result, the Commission held both Apple (Opposite Party no.1) and its service provider (Opposite Party no. 2) responsible for the deficiency in services. They were directed to refund the phone's cost with interest and further compensate the complainant with Rs. 15,000/-.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East)
Case Title: Prashant Sagar Rustogi vs The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), led by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Mr. Ravi Kumar and Ms. Rashmi Bansal as members, allowed a consumer complaint against "The Country Inn & Suites By Radisson." The complaint was related to a venue booking made for the complainant's daughter's marriage in 2020. The customer contended that, due to COVID-19-related issues, the wedding had to be postponed. However, Radisson did not refund the advance payment made for the reserved venue. Additionally, when the customer sought an alternative venue for the rescheduled date, Radisson failed to provide one. Consequently, the Commission found that Radisson was at fault and ordered it to reimburse the customer with Rs. 2,24,000/-, along with 7% annual interest, starting from December 2021.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jayesh & Ors. vs. St. Luke Hospital & Ors.
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Ajith Kumar D. along with Mr. Radhakrishnan K.R. allowed a consumer complaint against St. Luke Hospital alleging medical negligence on their part. The complainants claimed that they were not given proper medical care during pregnancy, which resulted in their child being born without lower limbs and a hip. They argued that the medical professionals failed to detect the foetal abnormality through proper ultrasound scans and that timely information could have led to a different outcome.
Rajarhat, Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Lokesh Rustogi vs C.E.O. Goibibo
The Rajarhat, Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, led by Mr. Sankar Kumar Ghosh and Mrs. Sagarika Sarkar, allowed a consumer complaint against the CEO of Goibibo. The complaint accused Goibibo of deficiency in services and unfair trade practices. The complainant had booked a hotel (Opposite Party no. 2) through Goibibo (Opposite Party no. 1) for the Kumbha Mela festival in Allahabad, only to discover upon arrival that the hotel did not meet the advertised standards. This led the complainant to seek alternative accommodation in Varanasi. Initially, Goibibo offered a 50% refund, but they later withdrew the offer, citing limited responsibility for the hotel's service quality.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI
Case Title: Mr. Devanik Saha vs. M/s Ethiopian Airlines
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, led by Ms. Poonam Chaudhary along with Mr. Bariq Ahmad and Mr. Shekhar Chandra, allowed a consumer complaint against Ethiopian Airlines alleging deficiency in their services. The complaint was regarding a 2011 incident where the complainant (an NGO delegate to a UN conference in Durban), purchased an air ticket from Ethiopian Airlines. He had "on-arrival Visa support" from UN authorities, exempting him from standard visa requirements. However, at the airport, his "on-arrival visa support" was deemed invalid without explanation which caused him to miss his flight, face delays, and incur extra expenses. The Consumer Commission, as a result, found this to be a clear service deficiency and directed the airline to compensate him with Rs. 50,000/- for the losses along with Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs.
Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Bhim Singh vs One Plus Exclusive Service Centre
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Rewari bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held a One Plus Exclusive Service Centre liable for deficiency in service for not returning the mobile phone of the complainant after it was repaired.
Case: Satinder Singh vs HUDA and 2 others
The Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Khanduja (President) and Rajender Parshad (Member) held Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) liable of unfair trade practices for charging additional sum from the complainant for an occupation certificate even though the allotment letter for the plot was issued back in 1999.
Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Anju Ahlawat vs. Nik Bakers
The Panchkula District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. Satpal Singh along with Dr. Sushma Garg and Dr. Barhm Prakash Yadav as members partly allowed a consumer complaint against Nik Bakers. The consumer alleged that the cake she ordered from the bakery for her son’s birthday was of “sub-standard”. She claimed that the cake had unhealthy dye (colours) that left red marks on their hands and made her son sick. Despite her multiple emails informing the bakery of the issue, they did not respond adequately.
Kollam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Nisha vs The Postman
The Kollam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of S.K. Sreela (President), Sandhya Rani (Member) and Stanly Harold (Member) held a Postman, Post Master and Senior Superintendent of Post Office liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the interview call letter for a Co-operative Bank due to Post Man’s ongoing family dispute with the complainant.
Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Jasbir Singh vs Oppo Mobiles
The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Oppo Mobiles and its authorized service center responsible for deficiency in service. This deficiency was linked to an explosion of an Oppo mobile phone purchased by the complainant, resulting in an injury and a burning sensation on his right leg.
Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Sukhjinder Singh vs Lenskart Solutions Ltd.
The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Lenskart liable for unfair trade practices for selling eyeglasses of inferior quality to the complainant which subsequently led to significant discomfort, eye pain, and severe headaches to him.
Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Narendra Rathi vs Regalo Kitchens and 2 others
The Central Delhi District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Inder Jeet Singh (President), Shahina (Member) and Vyas Muni Rai (Member) held Regalo Kitchens Pvt. Ltd. liable of unfair trade practices for not installing the Modular Kitchen at the complainant’s property as promised and the delay in providing electrical and plumbing drawings and repeatedly changing the delivery date without consultation with the complainant.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Ankit Singla vs Regional Passport Office
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Pawanjit Singh (President) and Surjeet Singh (Member) held Chandigarh Regional Passport Office and Passport Seva Kendra liable of deficiency in service for delay delivery of the complainant’s renewed passport which led to significant personal inconveniences to him and his wife, including missing out on planned travel.
Bidar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka)
Case Title: Shaik Miftauddin vs Reliance Retail Ltd. and 2 others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Bidar (Karnataka) bench comprising Mabu Saheb (President) and Kum. Kavita (Member) held Reliance Retail liable for deficiencies in service, negligence, and unfair trade practices for selling a defective LG refrigerator to the complainant. The bench ordered LG Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Reliance Retail Ltd. to compensate the complainant of Rs. 84,000 for supplying the defective product.
Hassan District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Case: Raju BH vs Hyundai Motor India Ltd.
The Hassan District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission bench comprising of Chanchala CM (President), HV Mahadev (Member) and Anupama R (Member) held Hyundai India and its authorised dealer liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for selling a car with manufacturing defect which subsequently led to car catching fire while the complainant was travelling. The bench ordered the manufacturer and dealer to provide the complainant with a new car and Rs 1.4 Lacs to the complainant as compensation.
South Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. Belinda Viegas Mueller and others vs MakeMyTrip India and others
The South Goa Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Sanjay M. Chodankar (President) and Nelly H. Pereira e D’Silva (Member) held MakeMyTrip liable of unfair trade practices for increasing the price of the holiday package by Rs 72k after the complainant had paid one installment of the same. The bench noted that this led to complainant ultimately cancelling the holiday package which subsequently caused mental agony to him.
Hazaribag District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Niraj Kumar vs Crompton Greaves Consumer Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hazaribag bench comprising of Kumar Shukla (President), Anita Bala (Member) and Prem Kumar Singh (Member) held Crompton Greaves Consumer Electrical Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for selling and delivering a defective and non-functional cooler to the complainant who ordered the cooler online.
Bengaluru-IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Rajitha Kalprdha vs VIBES Healthcare Ltd.
The Bengaluru-IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Rarnachandra (President), H.N. Shrinidi (Member) and Nandini H Kumbhar (Member) held VIBES Healthcare Ltd. liable for not refunding the security deposit of Rs 40,000 after the complainant experienced severe pain due to health issues post Bariatric Sleeve Surgery sessions. The bench ordered Vibes to refund the security deposit and an additional compensation of Rs 1.1 Lacs for the pain and suffering she had experienced due to the services offered by Vibes.
Namakkal District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M. Rajasekaran vs Sub-Postmaster, Department of Post, P. Velur
Recently, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Namakkal bench comprising of Dr Thiru v. Ramaraj (President) and Thiru A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) imposed Rs. 20,000/- fine on the complainant for filing a vexatious complaint against the Sub-Post Master, Namakkal. The bench emphasized that such misuse could hinder the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, which is to safeguard the interests of consumers and protect them from exploitation.
Hisar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Kapil Mittal vs M/s. Havells India Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar bench comprising of Jagdeep Singh (President), Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr. Amita Agarwal (Member) held Havells India liable of deficiency in service for not adequately responding to the complainant’s numerous attempts to seeking resolution to the defective Air Oven even though the product was under warranty period. The bench ordered Havells to replace the Air Oven and give compensation of Rs 4,000 to the complainant.
Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bangalore District Commission Holds Axis Bank Liable For Releasing Funds Without Proper Verification
Case: Tarun Agarwal vs Axis Bank
The Bangalore Urban-II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sri B. Devaraju (President) and Smt. V. Anuradha (Member) held Axis Bank liable for transferring the complainant’s loan amount without his explicit instruction to do so. The loan, totaling Rs. 38 Lakhs, pertained to two residential flats for which Axis Bank transferred Rs. 3.82 lakhs to the property developer from the complainant’s advance without proper verification.
South Delhi-II District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: GM Gupta vs OnePlus India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Delhi-II bench comprising of Monika Aggarwal Srivastava (President), Dr. Rajender Dhar (Member) and Ritu Garodia (Member) held OnePlus India culpable for selling a defective mobile phone which exploded and caught fire while it was charging and even after multiple over heating complainants by the complainant the OnePlus did not respond promptly. Further, the bench noted the OnePlus India should be held culpable for selling a defective product that had the potential to cause significant harm to the user.
South Chennai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: V Vasanthkumar vs M/s Apple India Ltd & others
The South Chennai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench is comprised of TMT. B. Jijaa (President), T.R. Sivakumhar (Member) and S Nandagopalan (Member) held Apple India Private Limited, B2X Service Solution India Pvt Ltd, and iCare Apple Authorized Service Centre jointly and severally liable for deficiency of service for refusing to repair an iPhone which was under warranty period. The bench noted that the complainant had valid grounds to expect the rectification of the iPhone's defects within the warranty period, as provided by the terms of the purchase.
South Chennai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: A. Rajagopalan vs IDFC First Bank
The South Chennai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising TMT B. Jijaa (President) and TR Shivakumar (Member) held IDFC FIRST Bank liable for deficiency in service for deducting the EMI instalments during the COVID-19 pandemic when the government through a notification announced moratorium for six months. The bench noted that service was deficient on the part of the IDFC FIRST Bank due to their actions in deducting EMIs during the moratorium period, causing financial hardship and mental agony to the complainant.
Chandigarh-I District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chandigarh-I District Commission Holds Jakara International For Unfair Trade Practices
Case Title: Rohan Rana vs Jakra International Pvt. Ltd.
The Chandigarh-I District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held one visa consultant firm, Jakara International Pvt. Ltd, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by presenting a rosy picture of a bright future for the complainant studying abroad. The bench noted that the firm had failed to deliver on their commitments and they did not secure the visa as promised.
Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Johny Milton v Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.
A Consumer Commission in Kerala has ordered an insurance company to reimburse the medical expenses borne by a policyholder for treatment of his mother (included in the policy) even though she was not hospitalized for 24 hours, upon noting that as per IRDAI guidelines, the treatment given to her should not be excluded in health insurance policies. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N also observed that the procedure should be viewed as "day care treatment" which includes a medical procedure that would require hospitalization of more than 24 hours but was undertaken in less than 24 hours due to technological advancement.
Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case title: Jijo John K v M/S Make My Trip India Pvt. Ltd.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam has recently ordered travel booking company MakeMyTrip to refund the money paid by a couple for a travel package and to compensate them for trip cancellation due to rejection of VISA application. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N observed that VISA application was rejected due to the deficiency in service of MakeMyTrip.
Sirsa District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case: Bhupender Singh vs Indigo Airways Limited
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sirsa bench comprising Padam Singh Thakur (President) and O.P. Tuteja (Member) held Indio Airlines liable for the luggage of the complainant’s son which went missing when they were asked to take the next available flight. The bench noted that airlines must exercise reasonable care in handling passengers and their baggage. This includes ensuring that passengers are not unfairly denied boarding and that their baggage is properly handled and accounted for. Any failure to exercise this duty of care can result in liability.
Bangalore I Additional Districts Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sangeetha Bohra v Ikea India Private Limited
A consumer court in Bengaluru has directed Ikea India Private Limited to refund a sum of Rs 20 charged for providing a carry bag to its customer along with interest and pay a compensation of Rs 1000 for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant. The bench headed by President B Narayanappa expressed shock at the level of service provided by the large malls and showrooms by not allowing customers to use their own bags to carry their purchases from the store.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Karthik Mohan v. Ministry of Indian Railways & Ors.
The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently ordered the Southern Railway to compensate a passenger for the inconvenience caused to him by the 13-hour delay of the Chennai-Alleppey Express. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members Ramachandran V and Sreevidhia T.N observed that despite being a significant Public Sector Undertaking, the Indian Railways often fails to provide efficient services, and issues such as late trains and unavailability of reserved seats still persist.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III
Case: Yeshwant Phatak vs LG Electronics Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III Hyderabad bench comprising Ram Gopal Reddy (President), J Shyamala (Member) and R Narayan Reddy (Member) held LG Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling a refrigerator which malfunctioned shortly after the Complainant bought it. The problem persisted even after technicians supposedly repaired it on three separate occasions.
