Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 22nd To 28th July 2024

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa Insurer Not Liable For Unreasonable Delay In Claim Intimation, Goa State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Oriental Insurance Company The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Goa bench comprising Mrs Varsha R. Bale (Officiating President) and Ms Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves (Member) dismissed an appeal against Oriental Insurance Company, based on an unreasonable delay on the Complainant's part while intimating the Insurance Company and submitting a repair-estimate report. Case Title: Mr Paul Colaco vs Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Case No.: First Appeal 31 of 2023 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh Alcohol As Contributing Factor In Deceased's Illness, Madhya Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh bench of Shri AK Tiwari (Acting President) and Dr Monika Malik (Member) dismissed an appeal against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, based on the deceased's medical reports which confirmed alcohol as a contributing factor in his illness. It was held that the repudiation was valid as the illness of the deceased was not specified to be covered under the policy. Case Title: Smt. Komesh Singh vs P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr. Case No.: Appeal No. 1100/2023 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh No Expert Report To Substantiate Manufacturing Defect, Himachal Pradesh State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Toyota, Its Dealer The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh bench of Justice Inder Singh Mehta (President) and Mr RK Verma (Member) dismissed a complaint against Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and its dealer, Anand Toyota. It was held that the Complainant failed to substantiate the manufacturing defects with expert reports and affidavits. He also continued to extensively drive the car despite the alleged defects. Case Title: Amit Rana vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 06/2018 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand District Commission Must Refer Points Of Difference To Third Member If Two Presiding Members Don't Agree: Uttarakhand State Commission The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand bench Ms Kumkum Rani (President) and Mr BS Manral (Member) allowed an appeal based on the District Commission's failure to follow the proper procedure under Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sh. Kailash Chand Joshi Case No.: First Appeal No. 111 of 2019 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana Repeated Repairs Do Not Automatically Imply Manufacturing Defect, Expert Evidence Needed: Haryana State Commission Allows Hero MotoCorp's Appeal The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana bench of Mr Naresh Katyal (Judicial Member) and Mrs Manjula Sharma (Member) held that in order to prove a manufacturing defect in a vehicle, an expert report is mandatorily required. Repeated repairs and recurring defects do not automatically prove the presence of a manufacturing defect. Case Title: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and Anr. vs Rajender Singh Case No.: First Appeal No. 1060 of 2019 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar Educational Institutions Are Not Covered Under Consumer Protection Act, Bihar State Commission Dismisses Appeal Against Bihar School Examination Board The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar (President), Mr Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) and Mr Ram Prawesh Das (Member) reiterated the settled position that education institutions rendering education are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It dismissed an appeal filed against the Bihar School Examination Board for an attendance-related issue. Case Title: Biresh Manjhi vs The Headmaster-cum-Centre Superintendent and Others Case No.: Appeal No. 325 of 2023 State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh Muscle Injury Due To Excessive Training, Chandigarh State Commission Holds Raw House Fitness, Its Gym Trainer Liable The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Justice Raj Shekhar Attri (President) and Mr Preetinder Singh (Member) held Raw House Fitness, a gym in Chandigarh and its trainer liable for instructing a strenuous workout to a new joinee which caused him a medical problem named 'Rhabdomyolysis'. The gym was also held liable for imposing one-sided terms and conditions via its membership agreement. Case Title: Sh. Simranjeet Singh Sindhu vs Manager, Raw House Fitness and Anr. Case No.: Appeal No. 161 of 2024 State Consumer Disputes...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 22nd To 28th July 2024

Apoorva Pandita

Tags