Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. R.R. Energy Ltd. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.
Case No.: F. A. No.272/2012
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that insurance companies cannot shorten the limitation period for filing complaints through policy clauses. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 provides a two-year window for filing such complaints, making any attempt to reduce this period through a policy clause void and unenforceable. Oriental Insurance was held liable for deficiency in service for attempting to impose a shorter limitation period.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Meghana (Bio-Tech) Tissue Culture Nursery
Case No.: F.A. No. 39/2018
The NCDRC emphasized that in the insurance sector, quantifying losses is mandatory, even for claims that are ultimately deemed inadmissible. Surveyors must assess and report the loss for every claim, regardless of its validity.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S Anant Raj Limited Vs. Happy Yadav
Case No.: R.P. No. 1112/2020
The NCDRC ruled that multiple compensations for a single deficiency in service are unjustifiable. While M/S Anant Raj Limited was found liable for service deficiencies, the Commission adjusted the compensation amount, stating that duplicative compensations cannot be granted.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs. Brijendra Kumar Tyagi
Case No.: F. A. No. 888/2021
The NCDRC held that insurance policies should be interpreted holistically and in favor of the insured. The Commission dismissed an appeal by Life Insurance Corporation, stressing that policies should be read broadly to benefit the policyholder and beneficiaries.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Bombay Traders
Case No.: F.A. No. 90/2017
The NCDRC determined that a lack of a medical test to prove alcohol consumption is insufficient evidence for denying an insurance claim. Oriental Insurance was held accountable for deficiency in service due to the wrongful denial of a claim based on alleged drunk driving.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Kundan Palace Vs. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra
Case No.: R.P. No. 548/2021
The NCDRC decided that venue owners are not obligated to refund advance payments in case of late cancellations, even if the reasons are genuine. The rationale is that securing a booking prevents new bookings, leading to a loss for the venue owner.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Emaar India Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Gaurav Singh Khurana
Case No.: F.A. No. 923/2021
The NCDRC ruled that clauses in builder-buyer agreements cannot override the jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions. Emaar India was held liable for deficiency in service, affirming that arbitration clauses do not bar consumer forum jurisdiction.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Govind Narain Gupta Vs. Sudhakar Nath
Case No.: F.A. No. 612/2021
The NCDRC clarified that the Consumer Protection Act coexists with other statutes, allowing multiple legal remedies. The Act is complementary to other laws and provides additional avenues for redressal.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Vaibhavi Dredging Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: F.A. No. 862/2013
The NCDRC held that an insurance premium remains unpaid if the cheque is not encashed. National Insurance Company was found not liable as the cheque provided was not processed, equating to a non-payment of the premium.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Aviva Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Vs. Kariyappa
Case No.: F.A. No. 355/2017
The NCDRC ruled that the insured must accurately report all details, regardless of their perceived importance. Aviva Life Insurance was allowed to appeal, stressing the necessity for full disclosure by the insured.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Kailash Kumari Vs. M/S. Omaxe Ltd. & Anr
Case No.: F. A. No. 66/2018
The NCDRC found Omaxe Ltd liable for service deficiencies due to enforcing one-sided clauses in builder-buyer agreements. The Commission emphasized that buyers should not be coerced into accepting unfair terms.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Telco Construction Equipment Co. Ltd Vs. Stone International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors
Case No.: F.A. No. 396/2011
The NCDRC overruled a state commission’s order, stating that a warranty on commercial purchases does not make it a consumer transaction. The complainant was not considered a consumer merely due to the warranty.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Dr. Vinod Kumar Bhalla
Case No.: R. P. No. 2388/2019
The NCDRC ruled that compensation for mental pain and agony cannot be separated from the deficiency in service. Both are considered part of the same issue, and separate compensation categories for them are not permissible.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sanjay Foods India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: F.A. No. 834/2015
The NCDRC held that delays by surveyors or insurers are not sufficient grounds to reject an insurance claim. United India Insurance was found not liable for the alleged delay.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd. & Anr Vs. Irappa Hanamappa Shebannavar
Case No.: R. P. No. 1115/2022
The NCDRC dismissed an appeal by Hubli Electricity Company, ruling that bureaucratic delays and procedural red tape are not valid reasons for condoning delays in filing appeals or petitions.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shyam Singh
Case No.: F.A. No. 886/2015
The NCDRC held that allotments in a buyer’s name, irrespective of the buyer being an NRI, are legal as long as the funds are properly accounted for. The source of funds is deemed irrelevant.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: United India Insurance Co Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar G. Patel
Case No.: F.A. No. 1737/2018
The NCDRC stated that delay condonation is not a matter of right and must be justified by sufficient cause. Applicants must demonstrate valid reasons for not adhering to the limitation period.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. RHC Ventures Limited Vs. Kitchannagari Sarveshwara Reddy
Case No.: C.C. No. 95/2020
The NCDRC ruled that a buyer is entitled to cancel an agreement and seek a refund if the builder delays possession. Such delays are considered continuing breaches, allowing ongoing legal action.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Bikram Singh Vs. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority
Case No.: F.A. No. 704/2020
The NCDRC emphasized that the law of limitation must be strictly followed as prescribed, even if it causes hardship. The limitation period cannot be extended on equitable grounds.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sunita Kumar Vs. St. Stephen’s Hospital
Case No.: F.A. No. 336/2020
The NCDRC dismissed an appeal against St. Stephen’s Hospital, affirming that delay condonation is not a right. The applicant must show sufficient reasons for any delay in filing.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: B.K. Malhotra Vs. Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited
Case No.: C.C. No. 2916/2017
The NCDRC held that forfeiture of amounts in case of contract breaches must be reasonable. In builder-buyer agreements, the forfeiture amount was capped at 10% of the basic sale price.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Ekkori Das Vs. Sodipto Chatterjee & Ors.
Case No.: F.A. No. 293/2019
The NCDRC ruled that property disputes between owners and developers do not justify avoiding contractual commitments towards buyers. Both parties must fulfill their obligations.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. Bharath Earth Movers Limited Vs. Thiru R Sekar & Anr.
Case No.: F.A. No. 157/2019
The NCDRC stated that under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, an expert’s report is mandatory to prove inherent defects in goods. The burden of proof lies with the complainant.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Nari Gulabani Vs. Niraj Kakad Constructions
Case No.: C.C. No. 511/2017
The NCDRC held that co-promoters are liable to refund amounts under real estate laws. Shareholders are considered co-promoters under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Real Estate Act.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sonia Vs. Life Insurance Corporation Of India
Case No.: R.P. No. 698/2017
The NCDRC decided that pleading ignorance is no defense for false statements in signed insurance proposals. The insured cannot escape liability by claiming they signed without reading or understanding.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Care Health Insurance Limited Vs. Harjinder Singh Sohal
Case No.: R.P. No. 563/2022
The NCDRC ruled that insurers cannot repudiate claims based on non-disclosure after issuing a policy. Insurers must assess risks before policy issuance and cannot later claim non-disclosure if the policy was issued with disclosed conditions.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Punjab National Bank Vs. Rohit Malhotra
Case No.: R.P. No. 3588/2017
The NCDRC held that government employees cannot dispute retirement benefits in consumer forums. Such benefits are governed by service conditions and statutory rules, not consumer protection laws.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. M/S Madhav Automotive Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: F.A. No. 1791/2018
The NCDRC ruled that directly remitting insurance claim amounts without mutual consent is an unfair trade practice. New India Assurance was found liable for making arbitrary deductions and depositing claim amounts without the insured’s agreement.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Amandeep Singh
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC held that not having a valid fitness certificate for a vehicle provides a valid ground for insurance claim repudiation. A transport vehicle without such a certificate is not legally registered.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Gurudarshan Singh & Anr
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC ruled that builders cannot demand interest on delayed projects. Puri Construction was held liable for deficiency in service for charging interest on an already delayed project.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Max Super Speciality Hospital Vs. Sham Singh
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC held Max Super Speciality Hospital liable for medical negligence resulting in a patient’s death. The hospital failed to meet the standard of care expected from competent medical professionals.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. Emaar MGF Land Ltd Vs. Surinder Kumar Punchhi
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC ruled that delays in delivering possession of a flat constitute a continuing cause of action, allowing buyers to pursue legal remedies until possession is handed over. Emaar MGF Land was held liable for such delays.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Bank of India Vs. Dr. Mahesh Kumar
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC allowed the introduction of additional documents during the revision stage if they are material in nature. This decision was made in an appeal involving Bank of India.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Jai Dev Vs. M/S Aryan Travel Point
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC ruled that the State Commission cannot unilaterally alter a District Forum’s well-reasoned order without the complainant’s consent. Such actions constitute a material irregularity.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd vs Amit Chhokra
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC held that collecting transfer charges from a subsequent purchaser constitutes a deficiency in service. Developers cannot charge buyers for properties where they no longer have any interest.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Hoshiarpur Improvement Trust Vs. Mohan Lal
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC ruled that entitlement to plot allotment under government policies does not constitute a consumer transaction. Such entitlements are outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. Nandi Builders & Developers Vs. Saraswathamma
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC held that an arbitration clause in a buyer’s agreement does not bar the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The Consumer Protection Act supplements existing legislations.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sevantilal J. Parekh Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC ruled that non-disclosure of material illness constitutes a violation of utmost good faith. The insurer is not liable if the insured fails to disclose relevant facts for risk assessment.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Abhoy Kumar Bandyopadhyay Vs. M/S Elita Garden Vista Project Ltd.
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC held that no interest can accrue on compensation if it was offered within the stipulated time frame and subsequently refused by the other party.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S. W.M.W. Metal Metal Fabrics Ltd.& Anr. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: Not Available
The NCDRC dismissed a complaint against Oriental Insurance, ruling that proper procedures must be followed for policy transfers. The complainant lacked insurable interest at the time of the accident due to improper transfer.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mahesh Gugnani Vs. M/S. Sushma Buildtech Limited
Case No.: F.A. No. 347/2021
The NCDRC held that builders cannot force buyers to accept possession after significant delays. Buyers have the right to either accept delayed possession or seek compensation.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs. Pawan Kapoor
Case No.: F.A. No. 1845/2018
The NCDRC ruled that in a builder-buyer case, compensation should be calculated from the scheduled possession date to the actual possession date. Legal obstacles or delays in obtaining occupancy certificates must be considered. Omaxe Chandigarh was held liable for deficiencies due to possession delays.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: The Punjab State Federation Of Cooperativehouse Building Societies Ltd. Vs. Hari Singh
Case No.: F.A. No. 4/2019
The NCDRC held that consumer forums cannot arbitrate pricing disputes as contractual property prices are binding. Such disputes fall under contractual agreements, not deficiencies in service.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Shree Vinayak Co-Op HSG. Society Ltd. Vs. M/S. Karwa Developers
Case No.: F.A. No. 521/2017
The NCDRC ruled that dissatisfaction with the relief granted does not imply an error in the lower forum’s order. Orders cannot be deemed erroneous solely based on dissatisfaction with the amount of relief.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Ms. Anita Dahiya
Case No.: R.P. No. 2691/2023
The NCDRC held that insurers cannot impose pension plans on the insured if the plan wasn’t opted for at the maturity of the insurance policy. Aditya Birla Sun Life Insurance was found liable for deficiency in service.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Ruchika Sharma Vs. Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital & Anr
Case No.: R.P. No. 1837/2019
The NCDRC ruled that doctors cannot be held negligent if an accepted medical procedure fails, provided the procedure was reasonable at the time. The complaint against Dr. Dorwal And Dental Hospital was dismissed.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: TDI Infrastructure Vs. Bipin Gupta
Case No.: F.A. No. 1117/2023
The NCDRC held that forfeiture of earnest money in case of default should be reasonable. Forfeiture can only go up to 10% of the basic sale price. TDI Infrastructure was found liable for deficiency in service.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Randhir Singh Vs. M/S. Maharaja Auto Wheels (P) Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: R.P. No. 3149-3150/2017
The NCDRC ruled that the burden of proof to establish a manufacturing defect lies with the complainant. An expert report is required to substantiate such claims.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Anirudh Kumar Gupta Vs. Junior Engineer, C.G. State Electricity Distribution Co. & Anr.
Case No.: R.P. No. 2965/2017
The NCDRC held that compensation should cover actual and expected losses, along with physical and emotional suffering. Chattisgarh State Electricity Board was found liable for deficiency in service.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rabi Narayan Naik
Case No.: R.P. No. 1907/2016
The NCDRC ruled that an insurer cannot avoid liability solely because the driver was unlicensed. United India Insurance was held liable for deficiency in service, as the insurer could not prove intentional policy violations by the driver.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: ATS Infrastructure Limited Vs. Ashwani Gautam
Case No.: F.A. No. 755/2023
The NCDRC held that subsequent allottees inherit the rights of previous allotte
