Order Name: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES
In a significant ruling on consumer protection, the Supreme Court clarified that the responsibility of proving whether a service was availed for commercial purposes lies with the service provider. This decision aims to protect consumers from unjust technical objections raised by service providers.
Order Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. M/S. Khadi Udhyog
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by Subhash Chandra, decreed that an insurance surveyor’s report can only be rejected if it is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Order Name: Central Bank of India vs. M/S. Abhay Kumar Jain
The NCDRC ruled that banks are responsible for the safety and security of locker contents. They cannot evade liability for any issues concerning the contents of the lockers.
Order Name: Pinaki Bhattacharjee vs. M/S. Unique Construction
The NCDRC stated that if a party performs additional construction work not intended to be free, and the other party benefits, the latter must compensate the former.
Order Name: Parsvnath Developers Limited vs. Abhinav Sharma
The NCDRC ruled that delays cannot be excused without a satisfactory explanation. The commission cannot condone delays without sufficient cause.
Order Name: M/S. Exact Developers & Promoters Pvt. Ltd vs. Rajesh Sethi
The NCDRC held that multiple compensations for a single default are unjustified. While the developer was found deficient in service, the order for multiple compensations was set aside.
Order Name: Honda Cars India Ltd. vs. Ushat Gulgule
The NCDRC ruled that to establish a defect in a product, an expert report from a recognized organization is necessary.
Order Name: Royal Sundaram General Insurance vs. Ishwar Singh Mehra
The NCDRC clarified that an authorized dealer’s assessment of insured amounts will take precedence over a surveyor’s report when there is a discrepancy.
Order Name: Sher Singh vs. Manager, The New India Assurance Company
The NCDRC emphasized that delays cannot be excused without sufficient cause. Other cases’ relief does not justify similar delays.
Order Name: M/S. Gautam Construction Company & Anr. vs. Mubarak Masih
The NCDRC held that transparency in construction details is mandatory, even if not explicitly stated in the contract.
Order Name: Parth M. Soneji vs. Shree Sainath Enterprises Construction And Developers Pvt. Ltd
The NCDRC ruled that 6% interest on deposits is appropriate compensation for delays in handing over property possession.
Order Name: Muthoot Finance Limited vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
The NCDRC stated that insurance contracts should be interpreted plainly unless ambiguous terms require further interpretation.
Order Name: VGN Projects Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. M.P. Nagendran
The NCDRC ruled that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for property possession, holding VGN Projects liable for delays.
Order Name: Vikas Garg vs. Estate Officer (Housing)
The NCDRC decreed that forfeiting earnest money is not allowed if possession is not offered within the stipulated time.
Order Name: Central Bank of India vs. Somir Kumar Bagchi
The NCDRC held that a bank cannot unilaterally change the agreed EMI amount. Furthermore, issues not raised initially cannot be brought up later in higher courts.
Order Name: Mohan Shyam Dubey vs. M/S Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
The NCDRC held Emaar MGF Land liable for delays in handing over property possession, constituting a deficiency in service.
Order Name: Bank Manager, Syndicate Bank vs. Ishwar Dayal
The NCDRC ruled that it is the bank’s responsibility to renew insurance policies or ensure they are renewed by the insurer.
Order Name: Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance vs. Om Prakash Dubey
The NCDRC ruled that evidence cannot be accepted without a written statement filed within 45 days. Parties cannot rely on judgments pronounced after the original complaint filing.
Order Name: Mohd Siddique Khan vs. Forest Division Officer
The NCDRC stated that transactions from public auctions do not establish a consumer-service provider relationship.
Order Name: Babu Ram vs. Sartaj Ali
The NCDRC clarified that it can only intervene in state commission orders if there is a significant jurisdictional error.
Order Name: M/S. Kalindi Enterprises vs. Suresh G Kumar
The NCDRC clarified that consumer and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different standards of proof and jurisdiction.
Order Name: Parulben Shailesbhai Chunara vs. Dr. Vinaykumar C. Sinh
The NCDRC ruled that doctors are not negligent if they choose one acceptable medical procedure over another, even if the outcome is unfavorable.
Order Name: IDBI Federal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krishna Bera
The NCDRC held that delays in processing policy revival after receiving the premium amount are the insurer’s fault.
Order Name: Canon Properties Pvt Ltd. vs. Dum Dum Club Town Residents Association
The NCDRC held Canon Properties liable for withholding maintenance charges from flat owners, constituting a deficiency in service.
Order Name: M/S. Shah Vadilal Jethalal vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd
The NCDRC ruled that insurers can reject surveyor reports if they are arbitrary or unreasonable.
Order Name: Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs. Shubhalaxmi Shankar Shetty
The NCDRC held Life Insurance Corporation liable for invalidating an insurance claim due to non-disclosure of non-life-threatening conditions.
Order Name: Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr vs. Sunil Kumar
The NCDRC emphasized that insurance contracts must be strictly interpreted according to their terms.
Order Name: United India Insurance Co Ltd. vs. Sukh Lal Soni
The NCDRC clarified that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and can only be exercised in cases of substantial jurisdictional errors.
Order Name: Subhash Kumar vs. Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The NCDRC ruled that life insurance contracts require the insured to disclose all pre-existing ailments.
Order Name: United India Insurance vs. Manjula & 2 Ors.
The NCDRC held that insurance policies should be broadly interpreted to align with the insured’s reasonable expectations.
Order Name: Asish Kumar Paul vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways
The NCDRC held Eastern Railways liable for treating a passenger as ticketless due to ambiguity in their guidelines.
Order Name: Primary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. Anantharamegowda
The NCDRC reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and can only intervene if the state commission has acted unlawfully or with material irregularity.
Order Name: M/s Shah Vadilala Jethalal vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
The NCDRC ruled that policyholders must take reasonable steps to safeguard insured property against accidents and damage.
Order Name: Z. Ahmed vs M/s. Coca Cola India
The NCDRC upheld Coca-Cola’s promotional scheme as genuine but awarded compensation to a consumer who genuinely believed they won a Honda City car.
Order Name: Subhash Kumar vs Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The NCDRC ruled that suppression of material facts makes an insurance policy voidable at the insurer’s option.
Order Name: Sunita Kumar vs. St. Stephen’s Hospital
The NCDRC emphasized that Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act ensures the law’s effectiveness by preventing prolonged litigation.
Order Name: Shalini Srivastava vs Aviva Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The NCDRC ruled that failure to disclose material facts in an insurance proposal form can lead to claim repudiation, regardless of the cause of death.
Order Name: Mohan Shyam Dubey vs. MS Emmar MGF Land Ltd.
The NCDRC held that buyers should not wait indefinitely for possession when projects are delayed.
Order Name: National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Timeless Jewels
The NCDRC ruled that insurance companies cannot indiscriminately appoint surveyors to get favorable reports, as it violates IRDA regulations.
Order Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Giri Raj Prasad
The NCDRC held that genuine insurance claims cannot be repudiated based on delayed intimation.
Order Name: East India Transport Agency vs Dhariwal Industries Ltd. and Anr.
The NCDRC ruled that commercial entities engaged in profit-making activities do not qualify as consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
Order Name: Eldeco Infrastructure & Properties Ltd vs. Rajinder Sharma
The NCDRC held that compensation for delays should consider market conditions.
Order Name: MS. Premium Acres Infratech Pvt Ltd vs. Devinder Singh Cheema
The NCDRC ruled that arbitrary cancellation of allotments constitutes a service deficiency.
Order Name: Akash Hospital & Diagnostics vs. Attam Chand Mandhotra
The NCDRC stated that it can only intervene in cases if the state commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction.
Order Name: Somnath Banerjee vs Apex Lab and Others
The Competition Commission of India (CCI) dismissed a complaint against pharmaceutical entities, citing the absence of anti-competitive behavior.
Order Name: Mr. Praveen Chauhan vs TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that delays of over 15 years in handing over property possession constitute a deficiency in service.
Order Name: Ms. Anita Gupta vs. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited
The Delhi State Commission held HDFC Insurance liable for rejecting a health insurance claim based solely on an assumed pre-existing condition.
Order Name: Col. Jeetendra Gulati vs. Max Super Speciality Hospital
The Delhi State Commission ruled that the burden of proving medical negligence lies with the claimant, and mere allegations are insufficient.
Order Name: Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ms. Suman Rana & Anr.
The Delhi State Commission held that insurance claims can be resolved even if policy terms are violated, though with modified conditions.
Order Name: Ms. Sapna Khemani vs. M/S Parsvnath Dev. Ltd
The Delhi State Commission ruled that mere allegations of commercial intent are insufficient to reject a consumer complaint.
Order Name: Mr. Sushil Rastogi vs. M/S Regal Emporio Infratech Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi State Commission held that companies must complete projects within agreed timeframes to avoid service deficiencies.
Order Name: Meena Devi vs The Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others
The Bihar State Commission held National Insurance Co. liable for denying a valid accidental claim despite receiving all necessary documents.
Order Name: Brij Bhushan vs Manager, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
The Himachal Pradesh State Commission ruled that late intimation to the insurer is insignificant if the incident was reported to the police promptly.
Order Name: The Branch Manager, State Bank of India and Others vs Shiv Chandra Kumar
The Bihar State Commission set aside an order against SBI, citing discrepancies in the complainant’s version of unauthorized transactions.
Order Name: Deputy Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs Sh, Hasim
The Uttarakhand State Commission ruled that insurance policy transfers must occur within 14 days of vehicle ownership transfers.
Order Name: Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Kumar
The Bihar State Commission ruled that owners cannot claim insurance under personal vehicle policies for vehicles registered as commercial.
Order Name: Mr. D.P. Dhankar vs. MS Belgravia Projects Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi State Commission held Belgravia Projects liable for delays in property possession.
Order Name: Dhananjay Yadav vs IDBI
The Chandigarh District Commission held IDBI liable for failing to refund a bond buyer’s nominee.
Order Name: Vikas Bansal vs BYJU’s Tuition Centre
The Chandigarh District Commission held Byju’s liable for failing to provide a refund despite acknowledging it.
Order Name: Sh. Rajender Singh Raja vs Vikas Travels and Others
The North-East Delhi District Commission held Vikas Travels liable for not stopping at the designated stop, awarding the complainant Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as litigation costs.
Order Name: George Thattil vs The Proprietor, Chukkiri Royal Bakery and Anr.
The Thrissur District Commission held Britania and Chukkiri Royal Bakery liable for selling underweight biscuit packets.
Order Name: S. Sridevi and Anr. vs The Manager, Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The Karur District Commission held Star Health and Allied Insurance liable for denying a genuine insurance claim by citing pre-existing illness.
Order Name: Abbas M. vs Manager/Authorized Person, Doc & Mark and Anr.
The Thrissur District Commission held Doc & Mark and its dealer liable for destroying evidence by spoiling shoes during an audit.
Order Name: Le Meridian Jaipur
The Lucknow District Commission ordered Le Meridian Jaipur to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as a refund for a canceled wedding booking.
Takeaway:
These judgments underscore the importance of consumer rights and the necessity for service providers to adhere to fair practices. Consumers should be aware of their rights and service providers must ensure transparency and fairness in their dealings.
