Supreme Court Not 'Consumer' Without Privity Of Contract : Supreme Court Rejects Flat Seller's Consumer Complaint Against Financier Of Buyer Case Title: M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS SNEHASIS NANDA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332 The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 20) ruled that to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a...
Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS SNEHASIS NANDA
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332
The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 20) ruled that to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the parties. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that a party having no privity of contract with the service provider cannot be regarded as a consumer as per the Act.
Supreme Court
Consumer Can Approach Consumer Forum Even If Agreement Provides For Arbitration : Supreme Court
Case Title: M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS SNEHASIS NANDA
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the arbitration clauses in an agreement would not override the consumer's choice to approach the consumer forum for adjudication of the dispute. The Court said that a consumer cannot be forced to get the dispute adjudicated through Arbitration just because an arbitration clause is mentioned in an agreement. It added that the consumer has the exclusive right to decide whether to pursue arbitration or approach the Consumer Forum.
Supreme Court
Case Title – In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case no. – WP(C) No. 1144/2021
The Supreme Court has directed all state governments to immediately pay the salary and perquisites of the Chairpersons and Members of the State and District Consumer Dispute Resolution Commissions as per existing Rules. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh passed this order while hearing a batch of cases related to the salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members. The Court noted the grievance of some petitioners that in some states, the salary and perquisites of Consumer Forum members were not being paid even as per the prevailing Rules.
Supreme Court
Case Title: THE CHIEF OFFICER, NAGPUR HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A MHADA UNIT) AND OTHERS VERSUS MANOHAR BURDE
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 360
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that homebuyers cannot be forced to accept possession of a property after an undue delay and are entitled to a refund if the unit is not delivered within the agreed timeframe. The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard the case which revolves around a homebuyer's right to refund when a developer fails to deliver possession of a flat within a reasonable time.
Supreme Court
Insurance Claim Cannot Be Denied For Breach Of Impossible Condition : Supreme Court
Case Title: SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 403
The Supreme Court held that an insurance company cannot reject a claim on the grounds of breach of a condition in the contract that was impossible to fulfill. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the insured's marine claim, which New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had rejected on the grounds that the insured breached a condition requiring the voyage to start and finish before the monsoon despite it being evident that the entire voyage was scheduled during the monsoon season.
Competition Commission of India
CCI Directs Detailed Investigation To Examine Alleged Anti-Competitive Conduct By Google
Case Title: Winzo Games Private Limited Vs. Google LLC & Ors.
Case No: 42 of 2022
Decision: The Competition Commission of India presided by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag held that selective onboarding denies market access to excluded developers, distorts competition and imposes unfair conditions.
Competition Commission of India
Case Title: Mr. Rajesh George Versus Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: Case No. 16 of 2024
The Competition Commission of India (Commission) bench, comprising Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr. Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Mr. Deepak Anurag (Member) has closed the complaint filed against Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India by its former dealer. The bench found that the facts of the complaint pertain to commercial disputes arising from the agreement and are not related to anti-competitive practices.
Calcutta High Courts
Consumer Forums Not Legally Authorised To Issue Arrest Warrants: Calcutta High Court
Case: Abdul Manim Mollah v/s. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: C.R.R. 1499 of 2024
The Calcutta High Court has held that consumer forums, in exercise of their powers under the Consumer Protection Act, are not authorised to issue arrest warrants while imposing penalties under Sections 71 or 72 of the act. Justice Suvra Ghosh held: Section 72 of the Act envisages penalty for non-compliance of the order of the District Commission, State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, meaning thereby, that the Commission is empowered to initiate proceeding under section 72 of the Act for penalty for non-compliance of the order. The decree holder may take recourse to section 71 or section 72 of the Act for execution of the order passed by the Consumer Forum. The law does not authorize the Forum to issue warrant of arrest for enforcement of its order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Allahabad High Court
Allahabad HC Stays Consumer Complaint Proceedings Against WhatsApp On Its Plea Against SCDRC's Order
The Allahabad High Court on Monday issued notice on the plea moved by Meta-owned instant messaging app WhatsApp challenging a recent order of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (UPSCDRC) wherein it held that since WhatsApp provides 'services' to its 'users' in India, a consumer complaint against it would be maintainable. A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia issued notice to respondent (Amitabh Thakur) and granted him four weeks to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Directs United India Insurance To Pay Rs. 2.35 Crores For Cancelled Cricket Match
Case Title: The Andhra Cricket Association (Regd.) vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No. NC/CC/1676/2016
The National Consumer Commission has held United India Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service and directed them to pay Rs. 2,35,81,470/- to the Andhra Cricket Association. The Insurance Company had wrongfully repudiated an insurance claim, related to the cancellation of a 'One Day International' cricket match scheduled for 14.10.2014, due to cyclone Hudhud.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Saxena
NC/DN/2/2025
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while dismissing a revision petition arising out of an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has held that a revision arising from a revision before the SCDRC is not maintainable. This decision follows the NCDRC's earlier judgement in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Ors. decided in January 2025.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Royal Enfield, Dealer Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Mr.Ravindra Annappa Bindre Vs. M/s. Royal Enfield A Unit of Eicher Motors Ltd.
Case Number: R.P. No. 1976 of 2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, held Royal Enfield and its dealer liable for deficiency in service over the sale of a vehicle with a defective engine.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
10% Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Reasonable In Default Of Payment Cases: NCDRC
Case Title: Vishal Saxena Vs. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Limited
Case Number: F.A. No. 683 of 2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, dismissed a deficiency complaint against Taneja Developers and held that forfeiture of 10% of the earnest money in default of payment cases is a reasonable amount. Furthermore, it was held that forfeiture beyond the reasonable amount becomes a penalty.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Ltd. Vs. Uttam Rao Pawade & Anr.
Case No: Revision Petition No. 3169 OF 2016
Decision: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Justice A. P. Sahi (President) and DR. Inder Jit Singh (Member) held that a Consumer Complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party without whom an effective order can be passed.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: General Manager, Eastern Railways vs Puspendu Dutta Chowdhury
Case Number: NC/RP/1573/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Justice Saroj Yadav (Member) held that the filing or pendency of a criminal complaint cannot be used as a ground to condone delay in initiating proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The bench held that allowing such a justification would defeat the legislative intent behind the limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jai Prakash Yadav and Ors. vs Ravi Gas Agency and Ors.
Case Number: Revision Petition No. 3453 of 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Mr. Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) has directed 'Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited' to pay Rs. 5 Lakh to the Complainants for the medical treatment of their daughter and the damage to their property caused by a gas leakage induced fire.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Van Mandaladhikari vs National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
Case Number: NC/RP/1902/2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr Sadhna Shanker (Member) held that an insurance claim can be lawfully denied if the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The bench held that the absence of a valid license amounts to a breach of policy terms.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd vs Khushboo
Case Number: NC/RA/64/2024
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench of Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Justice Saroj Yadav (Member) held that interest rates in insurance-related consumer disputes generally range between 6-9% per annum and an interest rate of 10% cannot be imposed with justification.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case : Jaita Mitra Basu and another v. Dr.Anirben Chatterjee and another
CC NO. 2644 OF 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed a surgeon and a hospital to jointly and severally pay a compensation of Rs 75 lakhs to a patient who lost her right leg due to negligence in surgery.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Members Can File Consumer Complaint Against Their Co-operative Society: NCDRC
Case Title: Anil Khemchand Advani and Anr. vs Sunmist Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 25 of 2025
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Justice Saroj Yadav (Member) directed the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Karnataka) to decide a case on merits after considering their landmark decision in the case of Smt. Kalawati and Ors. vs M/s United Vaish Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. (2001). In this case, the NCDRC held that members of a co-operative society are distinct from the co-operative society itself and can be considered as 'consumers' in a dispute against the co-operative society.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Lt vs Anuj Gupta and Anr.
Case Number: FIRST APPEAL NO. NC/FA/258/2022
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) held that frequent repairs or visits to a workshop alone do not establish an inherent manufacturing defect in a vehicle.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Settling Insurance Claim: NCDRC Holds Oriental Insurance Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S. Hind Metals & Industries (P) Ltd
Case Number: F.A. No. 1196/2018
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and Dr. Sadhna Shanker held Oriental Insurance liable for deficiency in service over wrongful repudiation and delay in settling the insurance claim amount.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Experion Developers Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: Mitesh Bhalla & Anr. Vs. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 326/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia held Experion Developers liable for deficiency in service and stated that forfeiture of more than 10% of the basic sale price by the developer is unreasonable.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Could Not Prove Any Manufacturing Defect, NCDRC Dismisses Complaint Against BMW
Case Title: M/S. STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LTD. & ANR versus M/S. BMW INDIA PVT. LTD. & ORS.
A bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)comprising Mr.Subhash Chandra as the presiding member and Dr.Sadhna Shanker as member dismissed a complaint against BMW stating that the Complainants were not able to prove the alleged manufacturing defects. . Moreover, it was held that since the technical report of 'SYMEO' produced by the Complainants was not acknowledged by the State Commission or the Opposite Parties, it could not be produced before the Commission due to the lack of involvement by the Opposite Parties.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sri Radha Skygarden Homebuyers Association vs M/s SJP Infracon Ltd.
Case No.: C.C. No. NC/CC/884/2020
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench of Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs Saroj Yadav (Member) held 'M/s SJP Infracon Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver possession of flats within the stipulated deadline and for issuing possession letters on the basis of Temporary Occupancy Certificates (TOCs) obtained by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shamsher Singh Malik vs Huda
Case Number: NC/RP/3154/2012
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench of Justice AP Sahi (President) and Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) held that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) was not liable for delay in delivering possession of an allotted plot, as it had offered the same twice, and the initial delay was caused due to shifting of a road and approval of a revised plan.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Vikesh Kumar and Anr. vs M/s Roselyn Square
Case No.: First Appeal No. NC/FA/390/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (New Delhi) bench of Mr Subhash Chandra (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) held that services availed for a commercial purpose fall outside the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A buyer must prove the purchased property was either not for commercial use or if it was, that it served self-employment to earn a livelihood, which requires evidence of active personal engagement.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Vaibhav Garg and Anr. vs Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. NC/CC/496/2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench of Justice Sudip Ahluwalia (Presiding Member) and Justice Saroj Yadav (Member) held 'Hamilton Heights Pvt. Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for offering the possession of a flat without obtaining the occupation certificate. The NCDRC also held that Hamilton Heights failed to fulfil the requirements of a valid possession offer and attempted to introduce the alleged offer at a highly belated stage of the proceedings.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Takam James vs Dr. Navanil Barua & Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint 581/2014
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and AVM J. Rajendra, Member has held GNRC Medical Hospital, Guwahati liable for medical negligence and has awarded a compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs to the complainant.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delay In Furnishing Insurance Coverage Documents Without Reasons Is 'Deficiency In Service': NCDRC
Case Title: New India Assurance Co. ltd vs M/S Abhishek Cold storage pvt ltd
Case Number: First Appeal No. 1167 Of 2014
The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra, Presiding member and AVM J. Rajendra AVSM, Member has held that delay in providing the complete policy contract details including primary insurance coverage documents without any reasons constitutes 'deficiency in service'. It was held that it exposes the policyholder to uncertainty with respect to risk cover.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Atul Kulshreshtha vs EMAAR India Ltd.
Case Number: First Appeal No.1126 OF 2023
The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench comprising Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and AVM J. Rajendra, Member has enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by Delhi State Commission from 8% to 9% per annum for delayed possession of flat by Emaar India Ltd. However, the commission held that multiple compensations cannot be granted for a single deficiency and therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,00,000 for mental agony and harassment as granted by the State Commission was set aside.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Denial Of Insurance Claim Justified In Case Death Occurs Before Commencement Of Risk Cover: NCDRC
Case Title: Sophia & Anr. vs State Bank of Travancore & Anr.
Case Number: First Appeal No. 43/2012
The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member and AVM J. Rajendra, Member has held that repudiation of an insurance claim by State Bank of India Life Insurance where the insured person died before the commencement of risk cover cannot be termed as 'Deficiency in Service'.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Commander's Gateway Homebuyers Welfare Association vs M/s Jupiter Infrastructure (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 450 of 2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi bench of Mr Binoy Kumar (Presiding Member) and Justice Saroj Yadav (Member) held M/s Jupiter Infrastructure, M/s Valji Gokuldas & Sons, M/s Laxmi Enterprises and M/s Thakkar Realties liable for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, and breach of contractual obligations for their failure to deliver possession of the booked units in their project 'Commanders' Gateway' and for failure to refund collected consideration to the buyers, despite repeated requests.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Kingston Properties pvt ltd & Anr vs Narayan Prasad Goenka & Anr.
Case Number: First Appeal 252/2019
The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member and Saroj Yadav, Member has held Kingston Properties Pvt. Ltd. liable for failure to execute an agreement for sale after receiving advance amount as per Section 4 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963. Further, the bench held that the imposition of cancellation charges imposed by the builder without any agreement was an unfair trade practice.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Case Number: R.P. No. 2966 of 2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Dr. Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain, dismissed a revision petition by Cholamandalam Insurance and held that delay in informing the insurer about the theft does not invalidate the claim if the insured promptly reports the incident to the police.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs K. Subbulakshmi
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 599 of 2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench of AVM J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) and Mr Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta (Member) held 'Bharti Axa General Insurance Company' liable for wrongfully repudiating the full claim amount based on overloading of the insured van at the time of the accident. The NCDRC held that overloading of the vehicle does not amount to a fundamental breach and the insurer would still be liable to pay 75% of the assessed amount on a non-standard basis (an extra-contractual method of partial settlement awarded in proportion to the breach).
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Smt. Mohinder Kaur vs Fortis Hospital and Ors.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 698 of 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) bench of Dr Inder Jit Singh (Presiding Member) and Dr Sadhna Shanker (Member) allowed an appeal filed by 'Fortis Hospital' challenging the order of the State Commission which directed the Hospital to pay Rs. 15 Lakh for medical negligence. The NCDRC held that the Complainant failed to establish a breach of duty, injury and causation against the Hospital and the doctors.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: National Bulk Handling Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 3687 of 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Dr. Inder Jit Singh and Dr. Sadhna Shanker Jain, held that the repudiation of claim after expiry of four years from the date of filing amounts to deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Strict Enforcement Of Insurance Terms: NCDRC Dismisses Complaint Against National Insurance Company
Case Title: Roland Exports Vs. National Insurance Company
Case Number: C.C. No. 218 of 2014
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra, held that insurance terms must be strictly enforced. It also stressed the importance of a surveyor's report in insurance claim cases.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Agarwal
Case Number: R.P. No. 3725 of 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Dr. Inder Jit Singh and Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain, held that the insurance compensation should match the real value of the goods on the date of the loss, not assumptions.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Smt. Reeta Srivastava
Case Number: NC/FA/13/2023
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice A.P. Sahi and Mr. Bharatkumar, held that in case of material information in insurance contracts, the burden of proof is on the insured to disclose the same.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. P Yashodhara vs K. Sreelatha
Case Number: First Appeal 628 of 2019
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member and Saroj Yadav, Member has held a doctor liable for medical negligence for causing scalp injuries to a new born child at the time of delivery. The bench upheld the order of the state commission and granted a compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for medical negligence.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
NCDRC Holds Barnala Builder Liable For Deficiency In Service
Case Title: M/S. Barnala Builders & Property Consultants Vs. Ritika Gill & Anr.
Case Number: NC/FA/120/2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Sudip Ahluwalia and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held Barnala Builders liable for deficiency in service. The Commission modified the State Commission's order of excessive compensation, based on precedents.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title:New India Insurance Company Vs. N.S. Industries
Case Number: F.A. No. 418 of 2016
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajendra, held New India Insurance Company liable for deficiency in service. The Commission, however, modified the state commission's order against the insurance company, calling it excessive, while complying with the amount mentioned in the surveyor's report.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Tajinder Kumar Taneja Vs. M/S Unique Investments
Case Number: F.A. No. 1089 of 2014
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by AVM J. Rajendra and Justice Mrs. Saroj Yadav, held that share trading and portfolio services are commercial in nature and not consumer services. Hence, they do not fall under the scope of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Disputes Involving Fraud, Other Complex Matters Can't Be Discussed By Consumer Fora: NCDRC
Case Title: Mrs. Rajni Suryakant Gujar Vs. Shree Vinayaka Developers
Case Number: F.A. No. 89 of 2017
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Mr. Inder Jit Singh and Dr. Sadhna Shanker, held that complex matters like civil and criminal disputes doe not fall under the ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Decisions by the State Consumer Commissions
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Veena Devi vs Scandia Motorcars Private Limited
Case Number: Complaint Case 50/2022
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki, Judicial member has dismissed a complaint against Volvo Auto India and its dealer for a manufacturing defect in the car in the absence of any expert report on record. It was held that the number of times a vehicle is taken to the workshop for repair does not decide whether there is a manufacturing defect.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Phonepe Private Limited vs S. B. Tripathi
Case Number: Revision Petition No. 58/2024
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member) held that Google navigation history and Rapido travel history do not conclusively establish a counsel's physical presence before a consumer forum. It further noted that merely reaching the District Commission does not prove actual appearance before it unless supported by documentary evidence.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case - Ms. Manpreet Sharma Versus WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd & Anr
Citation – Complaint Case No.- 191/2022
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (General Member) directed WTC Noida (Builder) to refund Rs. 82.27 and Pay 9.70 Lakhs as Assured Returns to Complainant.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Manpreet Sharma vs WTC Noida Development Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 191/2022
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (General Member) held 'WTC Noida Development Company' liable for deficiency in service for its failure to deliver possession of a booked unit within the contractually stipulated timeline, along with the failure to pay the assured returns under a 100% down payment plan opted by the buyer.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar vs Rockland Hospital & Ors.
Case Number: Complaint Case No. 807/2017
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('State Commission') bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki, Judicial Member has dismissed the claims of medical negligence by the complainant against Rockland Hospital and its doctors relying on the expert opinion which stated that the complainant was treated as per standard medical protocol.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi State Commission Holds Spicejet Liable For Failure To Safely Deliver Checked-In Baggage
Case Title: SpiceJet Ltd. vs Kapil Singh Pal
Case Number: First Appeal 59/2024
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki, Judicial Member has held Spicejet liable for failure in safely delivering the missing checked-in baggage of the complainant. The commission has affirmed the findings of the Delhi district commission granting a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 for mental agony and Rs.50,000 as litigation costs.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Akshat Bansal vs DLF Gayatri Developers
Case Number: CC No. 897/2019
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Bimla Kumari, Presiding Member has held DLF Gayatri Developers liable for delay in completion of a housing project and sitting over the hard-earned money of the complainant for a prolonged period of time. A refund of Rs.15 lakhs was ordered by the bench along with costs for mental agony and litigation amounting to Rs. 1.5 lakhs.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi State Commission Holds Parsvanath Developers Liable For Delay In Delivery Of Flat
Case Title: Nitin Bansal vs Pasvanath Developers
Case Number: Complaint No. 782 /2016
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki, Judicial Member has held Parsvanath Developers liable for deficiency in service for delay in delivery of flat to the complainants. The builders agreed to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 and hand over the delayed possession.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: SQN LDR Pushpendra Kumar vs Air Force Naval Housing Board
Case Number: Complaint Case 1195/2015
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Pinki, Judicial Member and Bimla Kumari, Member has held Air Force Naval Housing Board liable for deficiency in service for delay in handing over possession of housing flat to an Indian Air Force officer and sitting over his hard-earned money for an indefinite period.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. Lal Path Labs vs Mr. Inder Prakash Wadhwa
Case Number: First Appeal 984 of 2014
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President and Pinki, Judicial Member has held Dr. Lal Pathlabs liable for giving wrong and defective test reports indicating life-threatening conditions of the complainant and triggering the need for hospitalisation. A compensation of Rs. 3,50,000 was granted. The bench observed the crucial role played by these report bases which doctors give medical treatment to patients and accordingly prescribe medicines.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Amit Bharana vs Mobulous Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: CC 891/2015
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Bimla Kumari, Presiding Member has held Mobulous Technologies Pvt. Ltd. , a Mobile Application Developer Company, liable for deficiency in service for failure to deliver the final version of mobile apps to the complainant despite taking all payments.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mrs. Kaushalya Devi Bansal
Case No.: First Appeal No. 608/2017
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench of Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Mr J.P. Agrawal (General Member) dismissed an appeal filed by 'Oriental Insurance Company' and held it liable for wrongful repudiation of valid medical claims based on an invalid exclusion clause.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi State Commission Holds FIITJEE Liable For Holding Entire Course Fee Collected In Advance
Case Title: FIITJEE vs Rajeev Luthra
Case Number: First Appeal 249/2014
The Delhi State Commission bench presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, Judicial Member Pinki and General Member J.P Agrawal has held that coaching institutes collecting fees for the entire course in advance can use the said fees only for the particular semester and the balance amount to be kept deposited in a bank account.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Nirmal Satwant Singh vs VSR Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
Case Number: Complaint Case 105/2021
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held VSR Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. liable for giving false assurances with respect to possession of flat units to the complainant. The bench presided by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Judicial Member Pinki observed that failure to hand over possession even after 11 years from date of agreement amounts to 'deficiency in service' and held the developer liable for keeping the hard-earned money of the complaint for such a long time.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
No Principal-Agent Relationship: Delhi State Commission Says No Deficiency By Canara Bank
Case Title: Canara Bank ( e-Syndicate Bank) Vs MS. Sulakshna Bhattacharya & Ors
Case No. FIRST APPEAL NO.-737/2014
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided over by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Judicial Member), has allowed the appeal filled by Canara Bank and exonerated the bank of allegations of service deficiency.
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. C.D. Joy
Case No: Revision Petition No. SC/32/RP/14/2025
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bench has recently held that a Consumer Commission can entertain a complaint filed by an individual relating to a claim under the MEDISEP Scheme especially in absence of a statutory authority to deal exclusively with such claims under the Scheme. The decision was rendered by the bench of Justice B. Sudheendra Kumar (President) and Ajith Kumar D. (judicial member) said: “Consumer Commission is having jurisdiction to entertain a complaint relating to claims under the Medisep scheme, particularly when there is no statutory authority to exclusively deal with the matters relating to the claims under the Medisep scheme. For the said reason, the Consumer Commission is having jurisdiction to entertain the present consumer complaint.”
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Smt. Sudeshna Devi
Case Number: SC/5/A/5/2019
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, dismissed the complaint against Uttarakhand Power Corporation for deficiency in service and overruled the District Commission's order.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Sh. Rajender Singh
Case Number: SC/5/A/13/310
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, affirmed the District Commission's decision and held New India Assurance liable for deficiency in service.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Sandeep Garg
Case Number: C/5/A/231/2018
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, overturned the District Commission's decision and dismissed a deficiency in service complaint against National Insurance Company owing to the misrepresentation by the complainant.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Dr. Manoj Singh Vs. Smt. Renu
Case Number: SC/5/A/180/2018
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, dismissed a complaint for negligence and deficiency in service against a doctor and held that to prove negligence, expert opinion must be provided, as ultrasound is not conclusive proof.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Sh. Shivnath Chaturvedi
Case Number: SC/5/A/13/246
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. C.M. Singh, set aside the District Commission's order against Oriental Insurance since the insurance claim by the complainant was outside the scope of the insurance policy.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Escorts Kubota Ltd. (Formerly Escorts Ltd.) Vs. Sh. Jawahar Singh Parihar and another
Case Number: SC/5/A/5/2024
The Uttarakhand State Commission, presided by Ms. Kumkum Rani and Mr. B.S. Manral, in an appeal by Escorts Kubota, held that denial of a fair hearing is a violation of the principle of natural justice and remanded the matter back to the District Commission.
Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Meera Srivastava vs Branch Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance
Case Number: SC/5/A/15/21
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun bench comprising Kumkum Rani, President and C.M. Singh, Member has held IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd for wrongfully repudiating the claim of the complainant on the ground that the reason of death of the insured was not covered under the insurance policy.
UP Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently observed that since WhatsApp provides 'services' to its users in India, a consumer complaint against it would be maintainable. The Commission, comprising Mr. Sushil Kumar (Presiding Member) and Mrs. Sudha Upadhyay (Member), categorically observed that it can't be said that a consumer complaint against WhatsApp won't be maintainable on the grounds that it is a foreign entity.
Decisions by the District Consumer Commissions
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Lone Poultry & Anr. vs Maha Feeds Agrotech & Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint 12/2023
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Peerzada Hussain, President and Nyla Yaseen, Member has held Maha Feeds Agrotech, a manufacturer of poultry feed, and Bhat Poultries, seller of the feed, liable for supplying sub-standard feed without display of nutritional charts. The bench granted a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 to the poultry farms which experienced reduced growth in their chickens and suffered financial losses.
Ernakulum District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Seeja K.M vs M/s Broun Hall International India & Ors.
Case Number: CC No. 306/2016
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulum bench comprising President D.B Binu, V Ramachandran, Member and Sreevidhia T.N, Member has held that misrepresentation and false assurances regarding IVF success is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The bench also shed light on the exploitative practices in the medical sector and a grave breach of trust and ethics by medical institutions.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai
Case Title: Inderpreet Kaur Dhillon vs Britannia Industries Ltd.
Case number: Consumer Complaint 112/2019
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Mumbai bench comprising Sadikali B. Sayyad, President and G.M Kapse, Member has held Britannia Industries Ltd. and its retailer liable for selling defective and contaminated biscuits. The bench granted a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the complainant along with Rs.25,000 as litigation costs.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Augstine K.A vs. Water Purifier Eureka Forbes, Aquaguard Crest & Ors.
CC.No. 927 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held Eureka Forbes & service provider liable for faulty installation of the Aquaguard water purifier and non-functioning of the same.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Vivek Kumar vs DHI Asian Roots
Case Number: Case No. CC 1090/2013 (New Delhi)
The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry, President, Bariq Ahmad, Member and Shekhar Chandra, Member has held DHI Asian Roots liable for conducting modern scientific hair transplant procedures without necessary license and government approval. The bench also held the clinic liable for negligence for failure to deliver satisfactory results despite payment of fees.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore
Case Title: Mohan Hegde vs Hyundai Motors India Limited
Case Number: Complaint No. 125/2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore bench comprising K. Anita, President and Suma Anil Kumar, Member have imposed costs of Rs. 40,000 on the complainant seeking repair / replacement of his damaged car free of cost from Hyundai Motors despite having sold the car to a third party. The bench observed that the complaint was filed in bad faith with suppression of material facts.
Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Gargi Prakash Joshi vs Wow Momos Foods Private Limited
CC/16/2021
If a person is "strictly" vegetarian and non-vegetarian food "hurts" their religious sentiments, then why should s/he order food from a restaurant offering both veg and non-veg food, questioned a consumer court in Mumbai, while rejecting a claim by two persons, that their religious sentiments were hurt after the popular eatery "Wow Momo" sent chicken Momos.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Shibu S. Vayalakath v. Manager, The Persian Table Restaurant
Case No: CC No. 549 of 2025
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Ernakulam recently passed an order dismissing a complaint filed by a journalist against a restaurant (Persian Table) for not providing gravy when he ordered porotta and beef fry.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: V.V.Sureshkumar vs. M/s SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd
CC.No. 502 of 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held M/s SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for their failure to issue the policy after accepting the premium and subsequently denying the claim on the basis of non-issuance of the policy .
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dead Worms,Webbing Inside Muesli Packet; Ernakulam District Commission Holds Manufacturer Liable
Case Title: Sree Raj Pradeep Kumar vs. Authorized Officer, M/s Pagariya Food Hroducts (P) Ltd
CC.No. 1011 of 2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held M/s. Pagariya Food Products (Pvt) Ltd liable . It added that the presence of dead worms and webbing in a sealed food product clearly points to a gross deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Habibullah Sheikh vs. Manager HDFC Bank, Branch Baramulla & Ors.
Consumer Complainant No: 58/2024
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Jammu & Kashmir) presided by President Peerzada Quosar Hussain and Member Nyla Yaseen has held HDFC Bank liable for denying encashment of the Cash certificates bearing the seal and signature of the Bank.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Delhi District Commission Holds Chhabra Farms Liable For Non-Refund Of Advance Booking Amount
Cast Title: Mnaish Khandelwal vs Chhabra farms & Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. DC/84/CC/19/8
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta, President and Harshali Kaur, Member has held that refusing to refund the advance booking amount by Chhabra Farms where they failed to answer the queries raised by the complainant client regarding their function amounts to 'deficiency in service'.
Hyderabad District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: K. Ravi Kumar vs M/s Vitality Health Services & Ors.
Case No. : C.C No. 347/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad bench comprising B Uma Venkata Subba, President and C. Lakshmi Prasanna, Member has held Vitality Health Services liable for medical negligence and deficiency in service which led to the death of the complainant's wife. A compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs along with Rs. 50,000 as legal expenses was awarded to the complainant and his two children.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Surendra Singh & Ors. vs Vistara Airlines
Case Number: CC-289/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission , New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President) and Bariq Ahmed (Member) held 'Vistara Airlines' liable for deficiency in service for a sudden cancellation of flight tickets of complainants without assigning any reasons and without arranging for any alternate flight.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)
Case Title: Amrutlal T. Thakkar vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 1624 of 2021
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) bench of K. J. Dasondi (President) and M. B. Chauhan (Member) held 'Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.' liable for wrongfully repudiating a valid claim based on 'Ayushman Maharashtra' circulars. It was held that the circulars did not override policy terms but served as guidance to ensure affordable treatment for the uninsured poor.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: V.A. Sunny vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: CC 255/09
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held 'Oriental Insurance Company' liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating the valid claim of the Complainant, merely based on his endorsement 'with protest' on the discharge voucher.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Anuj Mahajan and Anr. vs Make My Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd and Anr
Case Number: CC/98/2018
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta, President and Harshali Kaur, Member has held Make My Trip and Clark Hotels, Amer,Jaipur liable for charging a room tariff higher than what was reflected on the Make My Trip website. The commission further held that forcing the complainants to attend gala dinner at the hotel also amounts to unfair trade practice.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi
Delhi District Commission Holds TDI Infracorp Liable For Delayed Possession Of Flat
Case Title: Sunita Goel vs TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd.
Case No.: CC/305/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi bench comprising Poonam Chaudhry (President), Bariq Ahmad (Member) and Shekhar Chandra (Member) has held TDI Infracorp (India) Ltd. liable for inordinate delay in handing over the possession of flat to the complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: Geo Johnson vs Proprietor, Ideal Agencies
Case No.: CC 570/10
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held 'Ideal Agencies', a tile seller, liable for deficiency in service for its failure to inform the Complainant about the proper use and risks associated with the tiles at the time of the sale.
Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Thomas Jimmy vs. Manager, C Fines Gents & Ladies Tailoring
CC.No. 877 of 2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held C Fines Gents & Ladies Tailoring is failed to stitch the shirt to the agreed measurements and it amounts to both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice. The Tailoring shop is liable for refusal to alter the shirt or refund the amount paid .
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
Lucknow District Commission Holds Vishal Mega Mart Liable For Charging Rs. 18 For Carry Bag
Case Title: Shashi Kant Shukla vs Vishal Mega Mart
Case Number: 354/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – I, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) bench of Neelkanth Sahay (President), Sonia Singh (Member) and Kumar Raghvendra Singh (Member) held 'Vishal Mega Mart' liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service for compelling a consumer to pay for a carry bag without obtaining prior consent. The bench noted that such conduct was contrary to established retail norms, which expect essential packaging to be provided free of charge unless explicitly declined or separately opted for by the customer.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Dilip Kumar vs Chairman/Director, M/s Karbonn Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: 687/2017
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) bench of Amarjeet Tripathi (President) and Pratibha Singh (Member) held 'Karbonn Mobile India', its Service Centre and its authorized Seller liable for deficiency in service for failing to repair or replace a defective mobile handset and instead returning an old, non-functional phone that did not belong to the Complainant.
Baramulla/Bandipora District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Ali Mohammad Ganie vs. KC Marbles
Consumer Complainant No: 67/2024
The Baramulla/Bandipora District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission presided by Peerzada Qousar Hussian (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) held Marble Dealer Liable for selling defective material . The Commission observed that selling defective material and failure to respond to consumer compliant or to redress the grievances amounts to unfair trade practice .
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Baramulla District Commission Holds Supplier Liable For Supplying Substandard Materials
Case Title: M/S Royal Builders vs. Rahis Mirza & Anr.
Case No: Complaint Case No. 45/2023
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench of Peerzada Qousar Hussian (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) holds supplier liable for deficiency in service for supplying materials that were not of acceptable quality.
Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Jammu & Kashmir)
Case Title: Amit Pandita vs Aman Kumar (Manager), Religare Broking ltd.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint 32/2024
The Baramulla District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (Jammu & Kashmir) has held Religare Broking Ltd. liable for non-closure of an inoperative demat and trading account despite payment of requisite fee by the complainant. The bench presided by President Peerzada Quosar Hussain and Member Nyla Yaseen observed that the company was under an obligation to close the said account of the complainant after receiving all charges and fee.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (West)
Case Title: Astha Gupta vs Country Holidays Inn & Suites
Case Number: Complaint Case 127/2022 [ Delhi district commission, West]
The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (West) has held Country Holidays Inn & Suites liable for withholding the holiday membership amount of the complainant even when no holiday stays were booked by him under the package. The bench presided by President Sonica Mehrotra, Member Richa Jindal and Member Anil Kumar Koushal has observed that forfeiting such hard earned money of the complainant amounts to undue enrichment to the hotel and is an unfair trade practice.
Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South)
Case Title: Kamini Kapoor & Anr versus M/s Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Case No:181/2020
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II (South) held M/s Adinath Properties Pvt. Ltd. liable for unfair trade practices and deficiency in service for making an offer of possession without providing the Occupancy Certificate and Completion Certificate to the Complainants. The Bench presided by Mrs. Monica A. Srivastava (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member) held that absence of an Occupancy Certificate and the failure to abide by the contractual obligations amounted to deficiency in service.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ernakulam
Case Title: Hariraj M.R versus One Plus Technology India Private Limited & Anr
Case No: CC No. 661 0F 2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ernakulam comprising Shri. D.B. Binu (President), V. Ramachandran (Member) and Sreevidhia T.N (Member) held the seller and the manufacturer of a mobile phone liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as the mobile phone displayed defects and the grievances of the Complainant remained unaddressed for a long time. The Bench held that the failure to respond to legal notices strengthened the liability of both the Opposite Parties.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ernakulam
Case Title: K. Asokan versus Indian Overseas Bank
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ernakulam, Kerala dismissed a complaint against the Indian Overseas Bank filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A Bench of Shri.D.B.Binu (President), Shri.V.Ramachandran (Member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N (Member) held that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as the evidence suggested that the amount was credited to the Complainant's account belatedly and the delay in crediting the prize money was due to the late submission of the documents by the Complainant.
Kupwara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Abdul Khaliq Mir versus Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors & Anr
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) held Cyclops Techno Med Pharmaceutical Distributors and Philips India Pvt Ltd for selling a defective Ultrasound Sonography Machine to the Complainant. The Bench held that it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to ensure that the machine sold was free from any defects and if at all any defects were reflected at a later stage, they were bound to cure such defects or provide due resolution.
New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC)
Case title: Rakhi Mitta & Anr. vs. Imperia Structures Limited
Case No. 187/21
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), New Delhi has recently found Imperia Structures Limited guilty of deficiency in service for not providing possession of a plot booked by a homebuyer within the stipulated time.
Ernakulam District Consumer District Redressal Commission
Case Title: Stalin. N. Gomaz versus Byju's Learning App
The District Consumer District Redressal Commission Ernakulam held Byju's Learning App liable for deficiency in service for coercing the Complainant into purchasing their services. The Bench presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President), Shri.V.Ramachandran (Member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N (Member) held that refusing to refund the amount as per promise and harassing the consumer by making persistent calls amounted to unfair trade practices.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh
Case Title: Raman Sikka vs LG Electronics India Ltd. and Ors.
Case No.: 276 of 2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh bench of Surjeet Kaur (Presiding Member) and Brij Mohan Sharma (Member) held 'LG Electronics India Ltd.' and 'Juneja's Circuit Mall' liable for deficiency in service for failing to provide a three-month free Netflix subscription as part of a Diwali Festival Offer.
Bangalore District Consumer Commission
Case Title: Mr. Abhishek M. R versus PVR Cinemas & Ors
Not starting the screening of a movie at the announced time and showing commercial advertisements for about 25 minutes before the actual start of the movie constitutes an unfair trade practice, held the Bangalore District Consumer Commission in a case against PVR Cinemas.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala)
Case Title: T.M. Lorence vs Proprietor, Sree Guruvayoor Indane Service and Ors.
Case No.: CC 620/15
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur (Kerala) bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member) held 'Indian Oil Corporation' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for manufacturing defects in a gas cylinder, which blasted due to an internal gas leakage.
District Consumer District Redressal Commission Ernakulam
Case Title: Daisy versus The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd
The District Consumer District Redressal Commission Ernakulam held National Insurance Company Ltd liable for deficiency in service. The Bench presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President), Shri.V.Ramachandran (Member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N (Member) observed that since the Opposite Party had not filed their version against the contentions raised by the Complainant, the evidence produced by the Complainant stood unchallenged. Accordingly, it was held that the Opposite Party was not liable to compensate the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara
Case Title: Daisy versus The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd
Consumer Complainant No: 14/2015
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kupwara held Dost Gas Agency liable for deficiency in service for providing a defective gas cylinder to the Complainant which led to a massive fire damaging the Complainant's residential house. The Bench presided by Peerzada Qousar Hussian (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) reiterated that the Complainants being registered consumers were entitled to compensation as the fire was caused due to the leakage in the gas cylinder.
Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Sunil Kumar Versus Nokia Mobile Company Ltd & anr
Citation: CC 545/18
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission), Thrissur, Kerala bench of Sri C.T. Sabu (President), Smt. Sreeja S. (Member) and Sri Ram Mohan R. (Member), held Nokia Mobile and Kannan's Digital Trends (dealer) liable for selling phone with manufacturing defect to the complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Baramulla/Bandipora
Case Title: Fayaz Ahmed Mir vs. TATA AIG General Insurance C. Ltd.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Baramulla/Bandipora presided by Peerzada Qousar Hussian (President) and Ms Nyla Yaseen (Member) held Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd liable for non-settling the claim of the complainant within the timeframe. The Commission held that the insurer is duty bound to comply with the provisions of Consumer Protection Act and ensure fair and transparent claim settlement practices.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh)
Case Title: Aashish Sharma vs Zomato Private Limited and Anr.
Case No.: CC/137/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) bench of Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma (President), Shrimati Suman Gaur Pandey (Member) and Shri Revati Raman Mishra (Member) held Zomato and 'Burger Buddy' restaurant liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for sending a non-veg burger instead of a veg burger to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
District Commission Holds Travel Company Liable For Denying Refund & Discriminatory Treatment
Case Title: Retd Colonel Raju vs. Bastin Joseph & Ors.
CC No.: 389/2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu ( President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran ( member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held Fortune Destination Management Pvt. Ltd. liable for unilaterally denying refunds to the complaiant . It was further held that opposite parties are liable for discriminatory treatment and unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur
Case Title: Astra Bio Science Ltd versus M/s Rita Pad Printing Systems
CC 30/23 filed on 25/01/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thrissur presided by Sri. C.T. Sabu, Smt. Sreeja. S, (Member) and Sri. Ram Mohan R.(Member) dismissed a complaint filed by Astra Bio Science Ltd seeking refund from M/s Rita Pad Printing Systems for a machine that was not delivered even though the terms and conditions specified the delivery time as 70 days. The Bench held that the Consumer Protection Act was meant to deal with 'business to consumer' disputes, however, in the case of the Complainant, it was of a “business to business” nature and thus the Complainant could not fall under the definition of a 'consumer'.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Malappuram
Case Title: Dr.N.M Mujeeb Rahman versus Kuwait airways
CC.No.48312024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Malappuram presided by Sri. Mohandasan, Smt. Preethi Sivaraman(Member) and Sri. Mohamed lsmayil.C.V(Member) held Kuwait Airways liable for deficiency in service for having chosen a different route without assigning any proper reasons and for failing to provide the food and other amenities that came along the tickets in Business class as purchased by the Complainants.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Uma Maheshwari vs Zonal Manager, LIC of India and Anr.
Case Number: 164/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President), M.K. Lalitha (Member) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held that when an insured person obtains multiple insurance policies within a short span and uses different name variations and involving different agents, it suggests that he was aware of a pre-existing illness. The bench held that insurance contracts are based on 'utmost good faith' and that a failure to disclose material facts would vitiate the entire policy.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Lucknow
Case Title: Yogendra Kumar Dubey vs Liberty Shoes Ltd.
Case Number: 266/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – II, Lucknow bench of Amarjeet Tripathi (President) and Pratibha Singh (Member) held 'Liberty Shoes' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for its failure to honour its warranty commitment. Liberty Shoes also failed to initiate a replacement or refund the cost of defective shoes purchased by the consumer, despite repeated requests and reminders.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Chawla vs The Post Master, Post Office, Rajinder Nagar
Case Number: Complaint Case No. 258/2016
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Delhi bench of Inder Jeet Singh (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) held 'India Post' liable for deficiency in service for failure to pay the maturity amounts and interest on 'Monthly Income Scheme' accounts despite multiple requests.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Loss Of Title Deed Amounts To Deficiency In Service, District Commission Holds Federal Bank Liable
Case Title: Jolly Mathew vs M/s Federal Bank
CC No. 382/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held Federal Bank liable for the loss of the original title deed due to negligence.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram
Case Title: T.T.Subramaniyan vs. Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited & Ors.
CC No. 361/2023
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram presided by Sri. Mohandasan K( President) , Smt.Preethi Sivaraman C ( Member ) Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V( Member) held Star Health & Allied Insurance Company Limited, liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for denying the insurance claim. It was held that the bleeding issue during menstrual period is a natural biological process of a woman.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana)
Charging Rs. 7 For Carry Bag, Gurgaon District Commission Holds Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Liable
Case Title: Deepak vs Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd.
Case Number: CC/588 of 2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurgaon (Haryana) bench of Sanjeev Jindal (President), Jyoti Siwach (Member) and Khushwinder Kaur (Member) held 'Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging a customer an additional amount for a paper carry bag after a purchase.
Pathanamthitta District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Jayakumary C L vs. Fathima Hanna & Ors.
CC 154/2024 (Filed on 21-05-2024)
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pathanamthitta presided by Sri. George Baby (President) & Sri. Nishad Thankappan (Member)held the dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd liable for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Commission held that the dealer is liable for refusing the complainant, who was a woman ,to use the toilet which is not at all justifiable.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban
Case Title: John Jacob vs Niva Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: Consumer Complaint No. 297/2024
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore Urban bench of Vijaykumar M. Pawale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Kum. Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held 'Niva Bupa Health Insurance Co. Ltd.' liable for deficiency in service for wrongfully repudiating a health insurance claim by erroneously linking the treatment for 'acute exacerbation of reactive airway disease' to a pre-existing condition of “diabetes” without any valid medical justification.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka)
Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs The Office Head One Plus Technology India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Case Number: 287/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mysore (Karnataka) bench of A.K. Naveen Kumari (President) and Maruthi Vaddar (Member) held 'OnePlus' and its service centre liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to adequately address persistent software and hardware issues in a defective mobile phone. It was observed that OnePlus failed to meet the legitimate expectations of the consumer, despite being a reputable brand.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West, Delhi
Failure To Deliver Bed & Mattresses, South-West Delhi Commission Holds 'Homstyl Furniture' Liable
Case Title: Gyanendra Srivastava vs Homstyl Furniture
Case Number: DC/84/CC/91/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West, Delhi bench of Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), Harshali Kaur (Member) and Ramesh Chand Yadav (Member) held 'Homstyl Furniture' liable for liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, for its failure to deliver bed and mattresses despite receiving an advance payment. Homstyl Furniture was directed to refund the advance payment and pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh)
Case Title: Manoj Kumar vs Shine.com
Case Number: Complaint No. 204/2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gautam Buddha Nagar (Uttar Pradesh) bench of Anil Kumar Pundir (President) and Anju Sharma (Member) held 'Shine.com' liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for failing to provide the promised job assistance services to a consumer and for demanding multiple payments without rendering any meaningful service.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore
Case Title: Kemath Anthony vs M/s Lenskart and Anr.
Case Number: 269/2024
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Bangalore bench of Vijaykumar M. Pavale (President), V. Anuradha (Member) and Renukadevi Deshpande (Member) held 'Lenskart' liable for deficiency in service for providing defective bifocal spectacles and for failing to honour its warranty commitment.
Kupwara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Khoja vs. TATA Motors and Workshop
Consumer Complainant No: 131/2024
The Kupwara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Peerzada Qousar Hussain, President and Nyla Yaseen, Member has held Fairdeal Motors liable for indulging in unfair trade practice and putting additional financial burden on the complainant by providing fake temporary Registration No to the vehicle he purchased.
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam
Case Title: Mr. Joseph Niclavose vs. IHA Designs Pvt. Ltd & Ors.
CC.No. 415 of 2024
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam presided by Shri.D.B.Binu (President) , Shri. V.Ramachandran (member) and Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N ( member ) held IHA Designs and its manager , Nooha Sajeev liable for selling defective saree .The Complainant's wife faced humiliation due to the discoloration of the saree, worn with anticipation and pride on the day of her sister's engagement.
Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Case Title: Rahul vs Bajaj Auto Ltd.
Case Number: CC 226/ 2018
The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising C.T Sabu, President, Sreeja S, Member and Ram Mohan R, Member has held Bajaj Auto Ltd liable for selling its vehicle with an innate manufacturing defect leading to an accident. The commission has granted a compensation of Rs. 7.5 lakhs to the complainant considering his young age and the permanent disability caused due to the accident impacting his career prospects.