Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-III

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA Handover Possession Of Flats Or Refund 22.6 Lakhs With Interest: Maharashtra State Commission Holds Someshwar Builders Liable For Deficiency In Service Case Title: Mr. Ravindra Bajirao Galande vs. Shri Someshwar Construction Companys and Developers The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint filed against Shri Someshwar Builders and Developers and held it liable for deficiency in service as in spite of receiving the entire amount of consideration, the Construction Company failed to complete the project as assured and hand over possession of the flats. Further, the Construction Company started the construction but the quality of the construction is very low as it used substandard materials. Delayed Flat Possession: Maharashtra State Consumer Commission orders Shanklesha Constructions and Mutha Constructions to Pay Interest and Rs. 2.5 Lakhs Compensation Case Title: Mr.Naresh Ambratlal Sahita vs. Shanklesha Constructions The Maharashtra State Consumer Commission allowed the complaint against Shanklesha Constructions and Mutha Constructions and found them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. Despite having received the complete payment, the Construction companies did not provide possession of the flat until 2018. It held that the complainants have the right to obtain possession of the reserved flat, along with interest for the delayed delivery of possession, compensation for the mental and physical distress endured, and the costs incurred due to legal action. Deficiency Of Service: State Consumer Commission Directs DHL To Pay Compensation For Lost iPhone Case Title: DHL Express Pvt. Ltd. vs Vinod Rao The State Consumer Commission in Maharashtra dismissed an appeal filed by filed by DHL Express I Pvt. Ltd. and held it guilty of deficiency in service. The State Commission upheld the District Commission's order and awarded to pay Rs. 25,000 towards the loss of the iPhone and mental agony with an interest rate of 9% per annum, costs of Rs. 8,000 with an additional cost of Rs. 3,000 to the Complainant. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TELANGANA Telangana State Commission Orders Kamineni Hospitals To Pay Rs. 6 Lakh Compensation For Delaying Operation And Tampering Evidence Case Title: M. Sainath vs Kamineni Hospitals Ltd The Telangana State Consumer Commission ordered Kamineni Hospitals in Hyderabad to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to Sai Nath, the complainant. The Commission found the hospital liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Commission took into account the complainant's physical and mental condition and noted that the delay in performing the operation amounted to a deficiency in service. Consequently, the hospital was directed to pay the awarded compensation as a redressal measure for the harm caused to the complainant. Barred By Limitation, Telangana State Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Real Estate Firm Case Title: Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd. vs B.Ramchander Reddy The Telangana State Consumer Commission presided by Meena Ramanathan (President) and K. Ranga Rao (Member) allowed an appeal and set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission in Hyderabad. The Complaint was filed by an Agriculturalist against Janaharsha Estates “N” Constructions Pvt., Ltd., a real estate business, for deficiency of service. The State Commission ruled that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 9 of the Limitation Act. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNATAKA Gold Heist: Karnataka State Commission Orders Insurance Company To Compensate 80 Lakhs To A Jewelry Store Case Title: Chemmanur Jewellery vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Karnataka State Consumer Commission directed the New India Assurance Company to provide compensation of over Rs. 80.2 lakh to a jewelry company. The order comes as restitution for losses suffered by the jewelry company during a robbery incident that occurred back in 2011. The Commission held it liable for deficiency of service for the actual loss suffered due to the burglary at their showroom as well as for the inordinate delay in settling the claim. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND No Compensation For Mountain Accidents Without Hill Endorsement On Driving License, Uttarakhand Commission Clears National Insurance Company's Liability Case Title: Regional Branch Manager, National Insurane Company Ltd. vs Kunwar Singh Dev The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench ruled that vehicle owner will not be entitled to compensation for the vehicle damaged in a road accident in the mountains in absence of hill endorsement in the driver's driving licence. Further, the bench noted that this endorsement was crucial...

Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-III

Smita Singh

Tags