Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up :6th November 2023 - 12th November 2023

1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Fresh Period Of Limitation Runs At Every Moment During A Continuing Breach, NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition Filed By Taneja Developers Case Title: Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Shilpa Mehtani The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed by M/s Taneja Developers and Infrastructure Limited on preliminary grounds of pecuniary jurisdiction and period of limitation. The NCDRC noted that 7 years had passed after the State Commission’s order and remanding the matter back due to a technical error would not serve the ends of justice. Further, the NCDRC held that in case of a “continuing breach”, the period of limitation runs at every moment. Hence, the complaint was held to be filed within the period of limitation as even though the last payment was made 5 years ago by the Complainant, the allotment was not done till the date of the complaint. 2. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (Kerala) Manufacturers Intentionally Withholding Necessary Spare Parts Of Products Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Forum Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same. The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. termed such tactics, which pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them, as 'restricted trade practice', 3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Jodhpur District Commission Orders Zomato To Pay Rs. 1 Lakh Compensation For Delivering Non-Veg Food Instead Of Prescribed Veg Food Items Case Title: Shekhar Detha vs Zomato Ltd. Co. and Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench comprising Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member) held Zomato liable for the incorrect delivery of non-vegetarian food items to the complainant while he ordered vegetarian food items, causing him and his family mental and physical distress and hurting their religious sentiments. The bench noted that Zomato, as a commercial entity and facilitator, cannot escape its responsibilities and ordered it to pay Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant as compensation. 4. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) SC/ST/Backward And Minority Employees House Building Co-Operative Society Held Liable For Failure To Allot Residential Site For 9 Yrs, Bangalore District Commission Awards Compensation Case Title: Sri C. Achuth vs The Secretary Chief Executive Office State Government and others The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held the Secretary of State Government SC/ST/Backward & Minority Employees House Building Co-operative Society Ltd. liable of deficiency in service for not delivering the residential site even after 9 years of the payment to the complainant. 5. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, East Delhi (Delhi) “Delay In Providing Information To The Insurance Company Is Not Fatal To Seeking A Claim”: East Delhi District Commission Orders Insurance Company to Pay compensation Case Title: Adwait Haldar vs. M/S Magma HDI Gen Insurance Co. Ltd. The East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. S.S. Malhotra along with Ms. Rashmi Bansal and Mr. Ravi Kumar allowed a consumer complaint against an insurance company. The consumer’s claim was based on the allegation that his E-Rickshaw was stolen, and his insurance claim was wrongly rejected by the insurance company (Opposite Party). According to the complainant, he had a valid insurance policy and the theft occurred under distressing circumstances, where he was left unconscious by thieves after being intoxicated. He faced delays in reporting the incident to the insurance company and in filing a police report due to circumstances beyond his control. 6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi (Himachal Pradesh) Misleading Car Mileage Claims, Mandi District Commission Holds TATA Motors And Its Authorized Dealer Liable For Unfair Trade Practices Case Title: Hira Lal vs Tata Motors Limited and Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh bench comprising Shri Purender Vaidya (President), Shri Yashwant Singh (Member) and Ms. Manchali (Member), ...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up :6th November 2023 - 12th November 2023

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up :6th November 2023 - 12th November 2023

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers