Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 11th to 17th December 2023
Apoorva Pandita
19 Dec 2023 8:30 AM GMT
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...
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh
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
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
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
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
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
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 others.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: K.K. Joy vs. J.S Cube Metals
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Mr. D.B. Binu (President), Mr. Ramachandran (Member) and Mrs. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member), ruled that the failure to issue a proper bill or cash memo, as mandated by Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the Consumer Protection (General) Rules, 2020, is considered an unfair trade practice and deprives consumers of crucial transaction details needed for protection in the event of disputes.
Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ramadas K.K. vs. Assistant Engineer, KSEB Thalikkulam & Ors.
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu along with Smt. Sreeja S. and Sri. Ram Mohan R. (Members) partly allowed a consumer complaint against Kerala State Electricity Board for issues related to disconnection of power supply to an agricultural connection. The commission found that despite the complainant clearing arrears and following instructions for repairs, the power supply was not reinstated. While allowing the complaint, the Commission held KSEB liable for deficiency in their service, as the board failed to provide clear instructions and proper communication regarding reconnection. Consequently, the Board was directed to compensate the complainant for financial losses.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Daljeet Kaur Vs Apollo Munich Health Ins.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Sukhvir Singh Malhotra (President), Ravi Kumar (Member) and Ms Rashmi Bansal (Member) held HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. liable for denying a valid insurance claim, citing reasons which were not informed to the Complainant at the time of availing the policy. Further, the District Commission held that the Complainant was not under an obligation to reveal immaterial facts, unconnected to the ailment, at the time of availing the policy.
Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - I
Case Title: Vikram Singh vs Air India
The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - I presided by Shri Pawanjeet Singh along with Mrs. Surjeet Kaur and Mr. Suresh Kumar Sardana has allowed a consumer complaint against Vistara Airlines and IRCTC (India Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation) for not refunding the cancellation charges deducted from a booking made during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complainant had booked air tickets through IRCTC for a family trip to Port Blair, but due to the pandemic, the journey was canceled. Despite this, Vistara Airlines and IRCTC deducted cancellation charges totaling Rs. 22,500/- from the paid amount of Rs. 72,524/-. Ultimately, the commission found both Vistara Airlines and IRCTC responsible for not refunding the deducted amounts to the complainant. As a result, they ordered IRCTC to refund Rs. 10,500/- and directed Vistara Airlines and IRCTC together to refund Rs. 12,000/- along with interest. Additionally, they were asked to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Delhi
Case Title: Rajiv Raizada vs Shri Harit Nagpal, Chief Executive, TATA Play Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) dismissed a complaint against TATA Play on account of disputed facts which could not be deciphered in the summary proceedings undertaken under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The District Commission reiterated that cases involving highly disputed questions of facts, criminality and tortuous conduct are not fit to be dealt with by the Consumer Commissions. The Complainant was given the freedom to approach any Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction to seek resolution.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi
Case Title: Anupama Kasana and others vs OYO Rooms Ltd. and others
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-East Delhi bench comprising Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held OYO Rooms Ltd. and Goibibo Web Pvt Ltd. liable for deficiency in service for failure to ensure allocation of rooms to the Complainant and her family upon reaching the selected hotel, despite confirmation and payment. The District Commission directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the Complainant as compensation.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani (Haryana)
Case Title: Deepak Soni vs The Manager, National Highway Authority of India and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani (Haryana) bench comprising Mrs Saroj Bala Bohra (Presiding Member) and Ms Shashi Kiran Panwar (Member) dismissed a complaint filed by the Complainant who claimed that the NHAI cannot charge for toll if the waiting time of the vehicle at the toll plaza exceeds 2.5 minutes. The District Commission held that the basis of the Complainant's claim was an RTI. However, the letter issued by the NHAI in this regard held more significance and thus, it was established that there exists no such exemption rule w.r.t. time.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra
Case Title: Kshitij Korla vs Shopsizo.com and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Mr Hemanshu Mishra (President), Ms Arti Sood (Member) and Shri Narayan Thakur (Member) held an online shopping site, Shopsizo.com and its facilitator, Nimbus Post liable for failure to display mandatory information, as required under the E-Commerce Rules, 2020. Both were directed to file an affidavit indicating compliance with the said rules and compensate the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha)
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Pattanaik and others and Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack (Odisha) bench comprising Sri Debashish Nayak (President) and Sri Sibananda Mohanty (Member) held Apollo Hospitals Enterprise Ltd. liable for non-disclosure of estimate costs to the family members of the patient. The District Commission reiterated the duty of medical institutions to maintain transparency in providing estimated treatment expenses to the patients and their families, in line with the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Abdul Jalil vs Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Punjab National Bank liable for its failure to reverse the amount in the Complainant's bank account which had been debited in an unauthorised manner. The District Commission held that the Bank violated the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India which mandate the banks to credit the amount involved in the unauthorized transaction to the customer's account within 10 working days from the date of notification by the customer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana)
Case Title: Vijay Kumar Mittal vs Lloyd and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (Haryana) bench comprising Shri Jagdeep Singh (President), Mrs Rajni Goyat (Member) and Dr Amita Aggarwal (Member) held Lloyd Electric and Eng. Ltd. and its seller, Deendayal Electronics liable for deficiency in service for selling an AC with a manufacturing defect and subsequently failing to resolve the same. They were directed to either replace the AC or pay Rs. 30,000 to the Complainant with compensation of Rs. 4,000/-.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi)
Case Title: Himanshu vs Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi (Delhi) bench comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member) held Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. for failure to provide service to the Complainant at his location during the Covid-19 pandemic. The District Commission remarked that Lenovo should have considered the circumstances of that period and the Complainant could not have been expected to visit the service centre himself during the pandemic.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Aam Aan Kay Gases Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs Audi Gurugram and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Shri Pawanjit Singh (President) and Mrs Surjeet Kaur (Member) held Audi, Gurugram and Kanish Motor Private Limited for charging for replaced parts covered under the warranty scheme, while servicing the car. The District Commission ordered them to refund the extra amount, and pay Rs. 7,000 compensation and Rs. 5,000 litigation costs to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala)
Case Title: Jayan P. Ramachandran vs M/s TCL and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) bench comprising Shri D.B. Binu (President), Shri V. Ramachandran (Member) and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. (Member) held TCL and M/s MyG Paravur (Seller) liable for unfair trade practice for failure to resolve the issues with the 32-inch television within the warranty period. The District Commission ordered them to either replace the television or refund the purchase amount. They were also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh)
Case Title: GLN Prasad vs Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur (Andhra Pradesh) bench comprising Smt T. Suneetha (President), Smt K. Vijaya Lakshmi (Member) and G. Punna Reddy (Member) held Superintendent of Post Offices, Tenali (Guntur District) liable for refusing withdrawal of amount from the savings account of the Complainant and refusing to register his complaint in the branch office's register. The District Commission emphasized that it was the duty of postal officials to ensure that manually registered post facilities were available in all post offices, and the failure to provide such a facility amounted to a deficiency of service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Chennai (Tamil Nadu)
Case Title: T. Saravanan vs St. Isabel Hospital and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Chennai (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising Thiru G. Vinobha (President), TMT Kavitha Kannan (Member) and Thiru V. Ramamurthy (Member) dismissed a complaint against St. Isabel Hospital and its doctor based on the principle that medical practitioners cannot be held responsible for the consequences arising from the pre-existing condition. The District Commission referred to legal precedents on the subject matter and reiterated that a medical practitioner is only liable when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amroha (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Prashant Kumar vs Reliance Retail Limited and Anr.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amroha (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Shri Nisamuddin (President) and Smt. Anju Rani Dixit (Member) held Reliance Retail Limited liable for unfair trade practice for delivering Apple AirPods pro with a different IMEI number than the one written on the receipt. The District Commission noted that despite several attempts made by the Complainant, Reliance Retail failed to resolve his grievances.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Lallan Sharma vs Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pratapgarh (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Yashwant Kumar Mishra (President) and Smt. Mamta Gupta (Member) held United India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. liable for wrongfully repudiating the insurance claim for the insured cow which died due to illness. The claim was repudiated only based on a different identification number written in the surveyor report. The District Commission, based on the evidence presented, established that it was a mere typing error which led to the confusion.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi
Case Title: Lallian Singh vs Branch Manager, State Bank of India
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, North Delhi bench, comprising Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar (President), Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member), and Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member), held State Bank of India liable for being unable to investigate a series of fraudulent and unauthorized ATM transactions. Further, SBI failed to determine the Complainant's liability as per RBI's instructions and thus engaged in a deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana)
Case Title: Anirudh Rathi vs Xiaomi Technology India Pvt Ltd and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Hyderabad (Telangana) bench comprising of B. Uma Venkata Subba Lakshmi (President) and B. Rajareddy (Member) held Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and its service centre liable for deficiency in service for selling earphones with a manufacturing defect and subsequently refusing to issue a refund and offering replacement of an inferior quality.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaushambi (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Satish Kumar vs Branch Head, Aditya Birla Health Insurance Co. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kaushambi (Uttar Pradesh) bench comprising Lal Chandra (President) and Sanchita Shrivastava (Member) held Aditya Birla Health Insurance Company liable for repudiating the valid claim of the Complainant who was diagnosed with a non-hearing ulcer and was treated at Medanta Hospital, Lucknow. The District Commission noted that the Insurance Co. failed to communicate all T&Cs to the Complainant when he was availing of the policy. Further, the Complainant did not sign any document which mentioned the T&C based on which the Insurance Co. was repudiating the claim. Thus, at a later stage, it could not bind the Complainant with such conditions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi
Case Title: Pawan Kumar Mehra vs Thomas Cook India Ltd. and others.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VI, New Delhi bench comprising Ms Poonam Chaudhry (President), Mr Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Mr Shekhar Chandra (Member) held Thomas Cook India Ltd. liable for failure to present the T&C regarding cancellation of tour package to the Complainant and subsequently forfeiting the purchase amount on the pretext of those T&C. The District Commission reinforced the importance of serving T&C to the customers, asserting that if not served, an entity cannot claim the benefits of having such T&C on paper.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)
Case Title: Narinder Kumar vs Apple India Private Ltd and another.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising Dr. Baldev Singh (President), Ms Yogita Dutta (Member) and Mr Jagdev Singh Raitka (Member) held Amazon and M/s Arhum IT, a listed mobile phone reseller liable for unfair trade practices for delivering a differently coloured iPhone and charging for it at par with a new iPhone, even when it was a refurbished and second-hand iPhone.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: X vs Dr Deepak Kalia and Anr. (Patient name redated)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held a doctor operating a cosmetic clinic in Chandigarh liable for conducting an unsuccessful enhancement surgery on the Complainant, which led to the development of lymph on his chest. The District Commission held that there was a clear deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor as the surgery didn't show the desired results for which the Complainant spent a substantial amount of money.
