Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/S Controls & Switchgear Company Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 447
The Supreme Court has ruled that luxury car manufacturer Mercedes-Benz is liable for defects in their vehicles. This decision supports the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s (NCDRC) earlier ruling, which granted relief to two companies. These companies had purchased Mercedes-Benz cars for their directors’ use but faced significant issues—one car experienced heating problems, and in another instance, the airbags failed to deploy during an accident. Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal emphasized that consumers do not buy high-end cars to endure discomfort.
Case Title: The Chief Manager-cum-Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India, Jharsuguda v. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal & Anr.
The Orissa High Court has clarified that Consumer Commissions cannot handle cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). These matters should be directed to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Appellate Tribunal.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Satish Baishya
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 57 of 2024
The NCDRC has held HDFC Bank accountable for failing to provide SMS alerts for unauthorized transactions in a customer’s account. The bank was found negligent in addressing the customer’s grievances and ensuring the SMS alert service for each transaction.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Vineet Kumar Dixit vs Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and Anr.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 3383 of 2017
The NCDRC ruled that Consumer Forums cannot entertain complaints involving allegations of embezzlement, as such issues require detailed examination of evidence that falls outside their jurisdiction.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P. Santha Kumari
Case No.: F.A. No. 204/2022
The NCDRC has decided that ambiguous terms in insurance policies should be interpreted in favor of the insured. Bajaj Allianz was held liable for service deficiencies, emphasizing that unclear contract terms should benefit the consumer.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. M/S. S. P. Singla Construction Pvt. Ltd
Case No.: F.A.No. 943/2016
The NCDRC has ruled that two separate claims for the same incident are unsustainable. Oriental Insurance was found liable for service deficiencies, reaffirming that the nature of the occurrence does not change with multiple claims.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Kuljit Kaur Vs. Cholamandlam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd
Case No.: R.P. No. 925/2019
The NCDRC ruled that justifying an insurance claim on a non-standard basis is fair when breaches have occurred from both parties. This decision impacts how claims are assessed in situations with mutual faults.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: New Delhi Institute of Management Studies vs Shamaneshwaram and 2 Ors.
Case No.: Revision Petition No. 346-347 of 2019
The NCDRC found New Delhi Institute of Management Studies guilty of misleading a student to join an MBA course by falsely claiming an association with Madhuraj Kamraj University.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Kuldeep Singh and Anr. vs DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: C.C. No. 1937 of 2017
The NCDRC held DLF Homes Panchkula liable for failure to execute a plot-buyer’s agreement and subsequently canceling the booking after charging an excessive forfeiture amount. This was deemed a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Hariram Singh Kushwaha vs Life Insurance Corporation of India
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1442 of 2019
The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission ruled that insurance contracts are based on ‘utmost good faith.’ Suppression of material facts by the insured can lead to repudiation of the claim. In this case, LIC was justified in its decision due to non-disclosure of the insured’s health condition.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Alok Khandelwal vs Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Others
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1303 of 2017
The Madhya Pradesh State Commission emphasized that a surveyor’s report holds significant evidentiary value and cannot be disregarded without valid reasons. Iffco Tokio General Insurance’s payment based on the surveyor’s assessment was upheld.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: ADAMA India Pvt. Vs Jitender and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1267 of 2018
The Haryana State Commission held ADAMA India Pvt. Ltd. and its seller liable for delivering defective pesticides that caused substantial damage to the complainant’s crops. This decision underscores the accountability of manufacturers and sellers for product quality.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs Kanchan Paliyal and Anr.
Case No.: 19.07.2024
The Uttarakhand State Commission ruled that two minors in a vehicle should be considered as one unit for accident claims. This decision led to the dismissal of National Insurance Company’s appeal, making them liable for wrongful repudiation based on an alleged seating capacity violation.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran and Anr. vs Smt. Renu Sikarwar
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1643 of 2023
The Madhya Pradesh State Commission held that unauthorized use of electricity does not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Such matters should be dealt with under the Electricity Act, 2003.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Vijay Kumar vs Executive Engineer, Electricity and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 218 of 2018
The Bihar State Commission ruled that consumer forums cannot entertain complaints related to pending electricity bills under the Electricity Act, 2003. This jurisdiction belongs to specialized forums under the Act.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: L.I.C. vs Smt. Shanti Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. A/2005/177
The Uttar Pradesh State Commission held LIC liable for wrongful repudiation of a valid claim. The policyholder died before the next premium instalment was due, making the repudiation unjustified.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/S Dialmaz Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
Case No.: C.C. No. 295/2016
The Delhi State Commission emphasized that consumer complaints must be lodged within two years from the date of cause of action unless there are sufficient reasons for the delay. Complaints filed after this period are considered time-barred.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mr Vikas Jain and Anr. vs Ansal Housing Ltd.
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 146/2022
The Delhi State Commission held Ansal Housing Ltd. liable for failing to deliver a flat within the stipulated contractual period. Reasons like ‘demonetization’ and court orders were deemed insufficient to justify the delay.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Anr. vs Smt. Umesh
Case No.: First Appeal No. 113/2022
The Uttarakhand State Commission ruled that deciding a time-barred complaint on merits is illegal. The Haridwar District Commission’s order was set aside for overlooking the limitation period.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mr Paul Colaco vs Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case No.: First Appeal 31 of 2023
The Goa State Commission dismissed an appeal against Oriental Insurance Company due to an unreasonable delay by the complainant in notifying the insurer and submitting a repair estimate report.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Smt. Komesh Singh vs P.N.B. Housing Finance Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 1100/2023
The Madhya Pradesh State Commission dismissed an appeal against ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., citing valid repudiation based on the deceased’s medical reports indicating alcohol as a contributing factor to his illness.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Amit Rana vs Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 06/2018
The Himachal Pradesh State Commission dismissed a complaint against Toyota due to the lack of expert reports to substantiate the alleged manufacturing defects. The complainant continued to drive the car despite the claimed issues.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Life Insurance Corporation of India vs Sh. Kailash Chand Joshi
Case No.: First Appeal No. 111 of 2019
The Uttarakhand State Commission ruled that if two presiding members of a District Commission do not agree on a decision, they must refer the points of difference to a third member under Section 14(2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Hero MotoCorp Ltd. and Anr. vs Rajender Singh
Case No.: First Appeal No. 1060 of 2019
The Haryana State Commission ruled that repeated repairs and recurring defects do not automatically prove a manufacturing defect. Expert evidence is required to substantiate such claims.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Biresh Manjhi vs The Headmaster-cum-Centre Superintendent and Others
Case No.: Appeal No. 325 of 2023
The Bihar State Commission reiterated that educational institutions are not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal against the Bihar School Examination Board for an attendance-related issue was dismissed.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sh. Simranjeet Singh Sindhu vs Manager, Raw House Fitness and Anr.
Case No.: Appeal No. 161 of 2024
The Chandigarh State Commission held Raw House Fitness and its trainer liable for instructing a strenuous workout that caused medical issues. The gym was also found liable for imposing one-sided terms and conditions through its membership agreement.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Rajesh Sahu vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company and Anr.
Case No.: First Appeal No. 558/2023
The Madhya Pradesh State Commission stated that if there is no fundamental breach of an insurance policy, the insured can claim up to 75% of expenses on a non-standard basis. Non-standard claims cater to situations where all terms and conditions are not fully complied with.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Santanu Roy Chowdhury Vs. M/S Canon India Pvt Ltd.
Case No.: F.A. No. A/285/2019
The West Bengal State Commission held Canon India liable for not providing free repair service within the warranty period. The Commission overturned the District Commission’s decision, which had erred in drawing conclusions contrary to the evidence.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mrs Jakkidi Lakshmi Reddy and Anr. vs Emaar MGF Land Limited
Case No.: Complaint Case No. 145/2020
The Delhi State Commission held Emaar MGF Land Ltd. liable for failing to deliver possession of a flat within the stipulated time and for arbitrarily canceling the flat and forfeiting the buyers’ payments.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs Rateshwari Devi and Others
Case No.: First Appeal No. 13/2022
The Himachal Pradesh State Commission held Shriram General Insurance Co. liable for wrongfully repudiating a personal accidental claim. The insured owner was within his rights to appoint another person as the driver at the time of the accident.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sh. Vishal Gupta vs Swiggy and Others
Case No.: Appeal No. 2 of 2024
The Chandigarh State Commission held Swiggy liable for the unilateral deduction of half the amount for undelivered products during the COVID-19 pandemic. This deduction was deemed an unfair trade practice.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance vs Abhay Kumar
Case No.: First Appeal No. A/58/2021
The Bihar State Commission held Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance liable for the wrongful repudiation of a valid claim based on the non-disclosure of a pre-existing illness. The insurer failed to prove that the deceased had knowingly concealed the illness.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Dr. Prasenjit Das Vs. Smt. Aditi Sarkar(Minor)
The West Bengal State Commission found a doctor liable for medical negligence for not obtaining written consent from a patient before treatment. This was determined to be a deficiency in service.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Ganesh Dass Nagpal and Anr. vs Air India and Anr.
The Ambala District Commission held Air India liable for not refunding the booking amount for a flight canceled due to COVID-19. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Vikram vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
The Hisar District Commission held New India Assurance Company liable for wrongfully repudiating a genuine claim under a government insurance scheme due to a clerical error.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mr. Agam R vs M/s. Myntra Designs Private Limited
The Udupi District Commission held Myntra and Titan liable for delivering the wrong watch brand and failing to refund the money. This was considered a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: K. Sigamani vs The Tahsildar, Taluk Office and Anr.
The Vellore District Commission held the Tahsildar and District Collector liable for failing to measure the complainant’s property despite receiving the necessary fees on multiple occasions. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mutchakarla Naidu vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and Anr.
The Visakhapatnam District Commission held ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company liable for wrongful repudiation of a death claim and taking an inconsistent stance throughout the proceedings. This was considered a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sumit Pannu vs Xiaomi Technology India Private Limited and Ors.
The Hisar District Commission held Xiaomi India and its authorized service center liable for failing to rectify manufacturing defects in a smartphone. This was deemed negligence and an unfair trade practice.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Ajesh Kumar V.V. vs Adithya Birla Health Insurance Company Ltd.
The Kannur District Commission held Aditya Birla Health Insurance liable for wrongful repudiation of a claim without providing substantiating medical reports on alleged pre-existing conditions. This was considered a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Kiran Malhotra vs AEGON & Religare Life Insurance Company Limited
The Gurgaon District Commission held AEGON & Religare Life Insurance liable for repudiating a genuine medical claim despite receiving all necessary documents. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Umed Kumar vs Flipkart Internet Private Limited and Anr.
The Hisar District Commission held Flipkart liable for not displaying the name, address, and contact details of sellers and failing to return a defective product. This was considered a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Melwin D’Mello vs Bank of Baroda
The Udupi District Commission held Bank of Baroda liable for prematurely closing an NRI customer’s fixed deposit and erroneously adjusting it against another customer’s loan account. This was deemed a deficiency in service.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Nandini C.S. vs The Manager (Legal), M/s ICICI Lombard Gen
The Mysore District Commission dismissed a complaint against ICICI Lombard General Insurance for a personal accident cover, as the deceased driver was driving a borrowed vehicle, lacking a consumer-service provider relationship.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Jamana Vinay Kumar vs Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
The Visakhapatnam District Commission held Amazon and its seller liable for failing to facilitate the return of a product despite promising to do so. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: M/s. Sumit Tours & Travels vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.
The South Mumbai District Commission held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance liable for wrongful repudiation of a theft claim. The driver took reasonable care in safeguarding the vehicle, absolving the complainant of negligence.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Mr. S. Diwakar vs Zoomcar India Private Ltd.
The Tiruvannamalai District Commission held Zoom Car liable for providing a malfunctioning car and failing to offer timely assistance. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: P. Shantharamu vs M/s. Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance Company Ltd.
The Mysore District Commission held Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance liable for not honoring policy terms, which stipulated a 20% refund of the premium amount on withdrawal after three years.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sri. Sreejith vs The Manager, Royal Enfield Global and Ors.
The Mysore District Commission held Royal Enfield and its dealer liable for not replacing or refunding a bike with defects. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: Sangamnath Murgeppa Kardeguddi vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
The Belagavi District Commission held Oriental Insurance Company liable for repudiating a valid medical claim without providing valid reasons. This was considered a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: K. Venkatasubbaiah vs Manager, State Bank of India
The Bangalore District Commission held SBI liable for not preventing unauthorized transactions in a customer’s FD account. This was deemed a deficiency in services.
Order Date: Not Specified
Order Name: B.S. Sathya Kumar and Ors. vs HDFC Ergo Health Insurance Ltd and Ors.
The Bangalore District Commission held HDFC Ergo Health Insurance liable for rejecting a valid claim based on an unsubstantiated pre-existing condition. This was considered a deficiency in services.
