—
### Order Date: Not Mentioned
### Order Name: M/S Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.
### Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 447
The Supreme Court upheld the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) orders favoring two companies that purchased Mercedes-Benz cars for their directors. The cars had heating issues, and in another case, the airbags did not deploy during an accident. Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that consumers do not buy luxury cars to face such discomfort.
#### Takeaway
Luxury car manufacturers must ensure their vehicles are free from defects, as consumers expect premium quality.
—
### Order Name: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Santha Kumari
### Case No.: F.A. No. 204/2022
The NCDRC, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, ruled that any ambiguous terms in an insurance policy should be interpreted in favor of the insured. Bajaj Allianz Insurance was held liable for service deficiencies.
#### Takeaway
Insurance companies must provide clear terms in their contracts to avoid disputes and ensure fair treatment of policyholders.
—
### Order Name: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. S. P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd
### Case No.: F.A.No. 943/2016
Dr. Sadhna Shanker of the NCDRC held that filing two claims for the same occurrence is unsustainable. Oriental Insurance was found liable for service deficiencies.
#### Takeaway
Insurance claims should be straightforward and not duplicated to avoid complications and ensure timely settlements.
—
### Order Name: Kuljit Kaur Vs. Cholamandlam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd
### Case No.: R.P. No. 925/2019
The NCDRC, under AVM J. Rajendra, justified non-standard insurance claims when breaches occurred from both parties.
#### Takeaway
Both parties in an insurance contract must uphold their duties to ensure fair claim settlements.
—
### Order Name: Vijay Kumar vs Executive Engineer, Electricity and Anr.
### Case No.: Appeal No. 218 of 2018
The Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that complaints related to electricity bills under the Electricity Act, 2003, cannot be entertained by consumer forums.
#### Takeaway
For electricity bill disputes, consumers should approach the appropriate electricity regulatory authorities.
—
### Order Name: L.I.C. vs Smt. Shanti Singh
### Case No.: First Appeal No. A/2005/177
The Uttar Pradesh State Commission held Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) liable for wrongfully rejecting a genuine insurance claim.
#### Takeaway
Insurance companies must honor valid claims promptly to maintain trust and avoid legal ramifications.
—
### Order Name: M/S Dialmaz Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
### Case No.: C.C. No. 295/2016
The Delhi State Commission, led by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, stated that consumer complaints must be filed within two years from the cause of action unless justified reasons are provided.
#### Takeaway
Timeliness is crucial in filing consumer complaints to ensure they are heard and addressed.
—
### Order Name: Ganapati Bramha vs The Authorized Signatory, Aditya Birla Finance Ltd.
### Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 234/2023
The Bangalore District Commission held Aditya Birla Finance liable for not closing a loan account after full payment and charging a late fee.
#### Takeaway
Financial institutions should promptly close accounts and stop charging fees once payments are settled.
—
### Order Name: Master Naman and Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr.
### Case No.: CC/565/2023
The Chandigarh District Commission held LIC responsible for not settling a claim even a year after the insured’s death.
#### Takeaway
Timely processing of insurance claims is essential to avoid causing undue distress to beneficiaries.
—
### Order Name: Muhammad Musharaf K vs Apple Inc.
### Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 301/2023
The Bangalore District Commission dismissed a complaint against Apple Inc. due to a lack of evidence, such as a tax invoice and warranty information.
#### Takeaway
Consumers must keep all purchase documents to support their claims in case of disputes.
—
### Order Name: Sri. G. Puttaswamy vs The Manager, Union Bank of India
### Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 347/2023
The Bangalore District Commission held Union Bank of India liable for not refunding money wrongfully debited from a customer’s account.
#### Takeaway
Banks must ensure accurate transactions and promptly address wrongful debits to maintain customer trust.
—
### Order Name: Diksha Negi vs Nykaa E-Retail Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
### Case No.: CC/474/2023
The Chandigarh District Commission found Nykaa liable for not delivering an ordered product and delaying the refund.
#### Takeaway
E-commerce platforms should ensure timely delivery and prompt refunds to provide satisfactory service.
—
### Order Name: Nidhi Singh vs The Authorized Signatory, Make O Toothsi Skin
### Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 90/2024
The Bangalore District Commission held Make O Toothsi Skin Centre liable for not providing adequate laser services despite full payment.
#### Takeaway
Service providers must deliver the promised services promptly to avoid legal issues and maintain customer satisfaction.
—
### Order Name: Sri. R. Ramesh Babu vs M/s Nishitha’s Developers and Anr.
### Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 77/2023
The Bangalore District Commission held Nishitha’s Developers liable for not delivering a flat possession and registering the sale deed.
#### Takeaway
Real estate developers must adhere to their commitments to avoid legal actions and ensure customer trust.
—
### Order Name: Raviprasad P.V. Vs. Whirlpool India Ltd.
### Case No.: C.C. No. 22/80
The Ernakulam District Commission held Whirlpool India responsible for selling a defective product and not addressing the complaint, while the dealer was not held liable.
#### Takeaway
Manufacturers must ensure product quality and promptly address defects to provide reliable service.
—
### Order Name: Mr Mukesh M. vs The General Manager, Street 1522
### Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 32 1/2023
The Bangalore District Commission held a restaurant liable for damaging a customer’s car during valet parking.
#### Takeaway
Businesses offering valet services must ensure their staff handle vehicles with care to avoid liability for damages.
—
### Order Name: Aneesh T.U. vs Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
### Case No.: C.C No. 510/2018
The Ernakulam District Commission held Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and Amazon liable for not replacing a defective television or providing a refund.
#### Takeaway
Online retailers must ensure product quality and efficient resolution of customer complaints to maintain credibility.
—
