Consumer Law - Supreme Court Quarterly Digest July - September 2026

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64UM – Fire Insurance – Repudiation of claim on grounds of false declaration, manipulated accounts, and suspected arson – Scope and effect of policy forfeiture clauses - Held, when an insured willfully makes false declarations or relies on manipulated books of account and inflated inventory to buttress an insurance claim in violation of policy conditions (specifically Policy Conditions No. 6 and 8), the insurer is lawfully entitled to reject and repudiate such claim in its entirety without further ado - The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) erred in casually brushing aside findings recorded in multiple detailed surveyor reports and the report of an investigative agency which demonstrated that unusable dead scrap was lying in the affected shed rather than usable raw material, the books showed an imaginary yield and arbitrary consumption to create non-existent book stock, and the fire-fighting and loss-minimization efforts were non-genuine - the order of the NCDRC awarding compensation was set aside and the repudiation was sustained. [Paras 31-35] New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 969 : 2026 INSC 1023

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64UM(1-A), Section 64UM(2) Proviso – Surveyors and Loss Assessors – Evidentiary value of surveyor reports – Requirement of recording reasons for appointing a second surveyor / investigative agency - Held, although the assessment of loss by an approved surveyor under Section 64UM(2) is a prerequisite for settling a claim exceeding the statutory threshold, the surveyor's report is neither sacrosanct nor conclusive and is not the last word binding either the insurer or the insured - While an insurer cannot appoint a second surveyor as a matter of course without recording cogent reasons, appointment of subsequent surveyors/investigators is fully permissible where the preliminary surveyor expressly observes serious abnormalities requiring meticulous investigation to rule out arson and hypothetical loss - consumer fora cannot ignore joint/final surveyor reports containing detailed empirical data; doing so causes a serious miscarriage of justice. [Paras 18-25] New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 969 : 2026 INSC 1023

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Fire Insurance – Presumption of accidental fire – Limits – Where reasonable suspicion exists of instigation by insured - Held, the legal principle that the precise origin or cause of a fire is immaterial so long as the claimant is not the instigator does not apply where there is reasonable cause to suspect arson, deliberate staging, or gross lack of bonafide fire-minimization efforts by the insured - Where physical verification contradicts the very occurrence of massive structural fire damage, material has been pre-demolished, and the insured willfully engages in delaying tactics in informing authorities, the claim cannot be allowed merely by presuming the fire to be accidental. [Relied on New India Assurance Company Limited v. Pradeep Kumar, (2009) 7 SCC 787; Khatema Fibres Limited v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, (2023) 15 SCC 327; Sri Venkateswara Syndicate v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2009) 8 SCC 507; Paras 26-30] New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Hemkund Duplex and Board Pvt. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 969 : 2026 INSC 1023

Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 — Front-of-Package Labelling Proposal — Ambiguities in FSSAI's Phased Hexagonal Warning Model - Examining an affidavit filed by the FSSAI proposing a red-coloured hexagonal warning label ("HIGH FAT", "HIGH SUGAR", "HIGH SALT", "HIGHLY SWEETENED BEVERAGE"), the Supreme Court observed that several practical aspects remain ambiguous and require scientific justification: i. Phased Implementation & Timelines: The proposal lacked fixed and binding timelines separating Phase I (triggering labels only when products are high in two or more nutrients of concern) from Phase II (triggering labels for any one nutrient) - Indefinite timelines based on commercial reformulation cannot be accepted; ii. Nutrient Threshold Criteria ("Total" vs. "Added" Nutrients): FSSAI must clarify why the proposal assesses "Added Sugar" and "Added Fat" rather than "Total Sugar" and "Saturated Fat / Trans Fat", which was the consensus reached in earlier stakeholder consultations; iii. Food Categorization & Degree of Processing: Threshold calculations must account for the distinction between moderately processed foods without additives (Group B) and excessively processed/ultra-processed foods with additives (Group C) as classified under the ICMR-NIN Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024; iv. Visual Accessibility, Font Size & Packaging Dimensions: A strictly text-heavy label assumes literacy across diverse demographics; FSSAI must evaluate combining words with distinct pictorial icons - font sizes (proposed as merely one point larger than the back nutrition table) and logo dimensions must be assessed in proportion to the principal display panel to prevent consumer misinterpretation, including potential confusion between the colour red and non-vegetarian dietary indicators; v. Mandatory vs. Voluntary Compliance: The Supreme Court directed the FSSAI to specify whether the FoPL regime will be enforceable mandatorily from inception or incorporate a strictly defined transitional period; vi. Nutritional Literacy in Schools: The Union of India was directed to formulate structured initiatives and curriculum integration to foster nutritional literacy among schoolchildren. [Paras 6-12, 28–32, 37, 38 – 43, 48-50] 3S and Our Health Society v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 926 : 2026 INSC 988

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(3) — Reference on Difference of Opinion — Scope of Jurisdiction of Third Member / Referee Bench — High Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution - Scope of Referee Member's Jurisdiction under Section 58(3) - the course to be adopted by a referee Bench/Member is to return the reference with answers to the points referred to the referring Bench to enable it to dispose of the matter based on the majority opinion - where the referring Bench did not delineate the specific point(s) of difference but formulated broad questions requiring examination of the entire evidence on merits, the referee member taking a common-sense approach to answer the reference and decide the appeal along the lines of the concurring companion member is not a jurisdictional illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution - The objection as to the strict scope of reference in such circumstances is merely technical - When questions referred go to the very root of the complaint and are inseparable from the evidence on record, requiring a survey of the entire gamut of material and rival contentions, the referee member deciding the appeal on merits based on the majority opinion reflects a permissible common-sense approach. [Relied on State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok, (2013) 5 SCC 1; Paras 14-23]. Askari Hussain v. Dinesh Kumar, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 871 : 2026 INSC 929

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Apportionment of Liability Among Joint Tortfeasers - The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) correctly apportioned the overall liability as 70% on the Lift Maintenance Contractor/Manufacturer (OTIS) (primary operational & maintenance failure), 25% on the Maintenance/Facility Management Agency (MES) (failure of oversight, non-maintenance of registers, and leaving the machine room accessible), and 5% on the Premises Occupier (RAW) (residual administrative oversight failure). [Relied on Khenyei v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 27; Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574, 22 Pac. 266 (1889); Paras 33–34] Otis Elevator v. Rashmi Handa, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734 : 2026 INSC 756

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Comprehensive Maintenance Duty & Negligence - The elevator manufacturer and maintenance contractor (OTIS), having exclusive technical knowledge and contractually undertaking comprehensive maintenance to keep lifts in sound condition, owes a heightened duty of care - Where the contractor was repeatedly put on notice regarding persistent breakdowns, knew that voltage fluctuations necessitated a voltage stabilizer for safe operation, but failed to follow up, halt lift operations, or impart emergency rescue training to site personnel, it cannot evade primary liability - Failure to produce contractually mandated maintenance/attendance registers also invites an adverse inference. [Paras 26-34] Otis Elevator v. Rashmi Handa, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734 : 2026 INSC 756

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Distinction Between 'Cause of Action' and 'Cause of Accident' - Held, while a technical investigation report may pin human error (e.g., manual release of mechanical brakes via a Brake Release Key during an emergency rescue) as the immediate cause of an accident, the Supreme Court must look at the broader chain of events establishing the cause of action when determining deficiency in service - A persistent, unrectified mechanical/electrical breakdown that sets off the rescue operation cannot be treated as an isolated or standalone event to absolve the maintenance contractor of liability. [Paras 24–28, 30-32] Otis Elevator v. Rashmi Handa, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734 : 2026 INSC 756

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) / Section 21 — Deficiency in Service — Elevator Maintenance and Public Safety — Heightened Duty of Care & Liability of Joint Tortfeasors - Public Law Rationale & Nature of Passenger Elevators: Elevators, as modes of vertical transportation, function as common carriers in urban spaces - Since passengers exert no control over the conveyance and rely entirely on automation or operators, a heightened duty of care akin to common carriers is legally required to safeguard vulnerable users - In cases of accidents caused by lift malfunctions in public spaces, the manufacturer, operator, and owner/occupier are joint tortfeasors jointly and severally liable to compensate the victim at the first instance - Inter se contractual liabilities are to be apportioned separately without delaying relief to consumers. Otis Elevator v. Rashmi Handa, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734 : 2026 INSC 756