Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up: 16th October to 22nd October
Apoorva Pandita
24 Oct 2023 12:00 PM 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.
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
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.
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.
Rewari District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
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.
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.
