Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11th to 17th December 2023

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh Railways Not Liable For Theft Incidents, Passengers Must Be Vigilant, M.P. State Commission Allows Western-Central Railways' Appeal Case Title: Western Central Railway Division Vs Rajendra Kumar Agrawal & Another The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh allowed an appeal filed by the Western Central Railway Division, Jabalpur against a passenger who alleged theft of his belongings while travelling on the train. The State Commission held that the Railways cannot be held responsible for the stolen luggage when the Complainant himself wasn't vigilant. West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mere Error In Quoting Section Of Appeal Does Not Invalidate Substance Of Matter, West Bengal State Commission Remands Matter Back To District Commission Case Title: The Divisional Railway Manager, Sealdah and Anr. vs Arindam Goswami The Siliguri Circuit bench of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission comprising Mr Kundan Kumar Kumai (Presiding Member) and Mr Swapan Kumar Das (Member) allowed an appeal filed by the Railway Managers of Eastern Railway. Originally, their written version was not accepted by the District Commission because they failed to file it within 45 days. While extending the period of limitation, the State Commission noted that even though the Railway Managers had quoted the wrong section of appeal under the old Consumer Protection Act, the same cannot invalidate the substance of the matter. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Deficiency In Hair Treatment Service, An Health Care Service Still Covered Under Amended Consumer Protection Act., Delhi State Commission Case Title: Dr. Monica Gogia vs. Mr. Goldy Sahni The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) dismissed an appeal challenging the validity of 'healthcare' services being included in the ambit of 'services' under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Deficiency In The Builder's Service Is Established If Possession Is Not Provided Within 42 Or 48 Months, Delhi State Commission Case Title: Mr. Arvinder Singh Aneja & Anr. Vs M/S Agrante Reality Ltd. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) stated that when dealing with builder services lacking a defined timeframe, a reasonable duration for fulfilling the contract under the Indian Contract Act 1872 falls within 24 to 48 months. The bench further argues that the complainants cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to get the benefits of the hard-earned money they have spent to purchase the property in question. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Holds Postal Department Liable For Deficiency Of Service Case Title: Daya Ram Vs. Karol Bagh Post Office The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) rejected the arguments of respondent based on Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 in light of allegations of negligence. The bench further highlighted that if an addressee of the letter can reasonably demonstrate the likelihood of intentional negligence by a Postal Department employee, the responsibility shifts to the department to substantiate its denial. Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Delhi State Commission Holds BPTP Builders Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Mr. Aurangzeb Khan Vs. M/S Bptp Ltd. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member) held the Opposite Party as deficient in providing its services to the Complainant for failing to hand over the possession of the flat within a reasonable time period. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, Punjab Jalandhar District Commission Upholds Nominee's Rights In The Event Of FD Depositor's Death, Directs Yes Bank To Disburse Amount, Pay Compensation Case Title: Bhanu Kaushal vs Yes Bank Ltd. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalandhar, Punjab bench comprising Harveen Bhardwaj (President) and Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member) held Yes Bank liable for repudiating the valid claim made by the nominee son of the FD depositor who had died. The District Commission cited provisions of the Banking Regulation Act and the Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules to hold that as long as the nomination is cancelled or varied, the nominee is entitled to receive the deposit amount, and the nominee's rights prevail over...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11th to 17th December 2023

Apoorva Pandita

Tags