ive
User not Logged..
Latest Cases

(1) M/S. HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THROUGH ITS COMPANY SECRETARY Vs. PREM LATA BANSAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019— A complaint may be considered within the limitation period if the State Commission finds a continuous cause of action — A complainant's petition is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, even if the original complaint was barred by limitation, if the State Commission finds a continuous cause of action.
India Law Library Docid # 2422864

(2) DIRECTOR STATE INSURANCE AND PROVIDENT FUND DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER Vs. MURARI LAL AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — NCDRC may only interfere with the State Commission's order in cases of jurisdictional errors, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or material irregularity — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) may only interfere with the State Commission's order if it exercises jurisdiction not vested in it by law, fails to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acts with material irregularity.
India Law Library Docid # 2422865

(3) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS Vs. IQBAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-01-2025
Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 64 UM — IRDA Regulations — An insurance company cannot repudiate a claim for a loss excluded in the policy if the policy terms and conditions were not provided to the insured — The State Commission's order holding the insurance company liable for the loss of a machine due to explosion, despite the policy excluding damage caused by own explosion, is affirmed, as the policy terms and conditions were not provided to the insured, and the claim was not settled within thr
India Law Library Docid # 2422866

(4) M/S. SAMTA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY Vs. NARENDER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower fora without jurisdictional errors or material irregularities — Revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is limited to cases with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or miscarriages of justice, and cannot be used to upset concurrent findings of fact by lower fora.
India Law Library Docid # 2422863

(5) ASHOK AGARWAL AND ANOTHER Vs. ARUN KUMAR PAREEK AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 17(1)(b), 21(b) — A second revision petition against a state commission's order in revision is not maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Second revision petitions against state commission orders in revision are not maintainable.
India Law Library Docid # 2422862

(6) VIRUPAMMA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Insurance companies cannot deny claims for non-disclosure of pre-existing conditions if the insured was unaware of them — A life insurance company cannot repudiate a claim based on non-disclosure of a pre-existing condition if the insured had no knowledge of it at the time of policy issuance.
India Law Library Docid # 2422860

(7) INTERNATIONAL CARS AND MOTORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. MALINI SHAJU AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13(1)(c) — Sale of Goods Act, 1930 — Section 3 — A manufacturing defect requires evidence of a deviation from design specifications during production — A manufacturing defect is a deviation from design specifications during production, and an expert's opinion is necessary to prove it.
India Law Library Docid # 2422861

(8) M/S. C.B. GRANITE THROUGH SHRI BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025
Electricity Act, 2003 — Section 135 — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Complaints related to theft of electricity fall under the Electricity Act, 2003, and not the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — The District Forum erred in entertaining a complaint related to theft of electricity, which is a criminal offense under the Electricity Act, 2003, and not a grievance of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2422857

(9) M/S. SAVITRI FILLING STATION Vs. SANDEEP YADAV[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Absence of an estimate in the contract or agreement — A contractor is entitled to payment for work executed, even without a detailed estimate, if the work is admitted to have been done — The contractor is entitled to payment for executing the work, as admitted by the petitioner, despite the absence of an estimate in the contract or agreement.
India Law Library Docid # 2422858

(10) CTR MANUFACTURING IND. LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. MRUTYUNJAY PRASAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction is limited to cases with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or miscarriages of justice — A Commission can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower fora only if there is a jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice.
India Law Library Docid # 2422859

(11) M/S OM SHRIM DEVELOPERS THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHERS Vs. BALVINDER SINGH NEEL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025
Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Delay condonation is not warranted when the applicant fails to provide a genuine explanation for the delay, especially when material facts are suppressed — The appellants' failure to disclose material facts about their knowledge of the proceedings and the execution of a vakalatnama while in judicial custody disentitles them from seeking delay condonation.
India Law Library Docid # 2422852

(12) PURAB D. SHAH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025
Insurance Act, 1938 — Section 64 UM — A surveyor's report is not the last word in assessing loss; the insured can contest its findings, and the insurer must consider such contentions — A surveyor's report, while statutorily recognized, must be objective and fair, and its findings can be challenged if the insured points out deficiencies, which the insurer must consider.
India Law Library Docid # 2422853

(13) VIKAS CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is limited to cases with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or miscarriages of justice — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice.
India Law Library Docid # 2422854

(14) DR. A.K. RAI Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is limited to cases with jurisdictional errors, material irregularities, or miscarriages of justice — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the District Forum and State Commission unless there is a jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice.
India Law Library Docid # 2422855

(15) KARAN AHUJA Vs. BANK OF BARODA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — A bank's negligence in handling matured deposits linked to an active savings account warrants compensation including interest at the original agreed rate — A bank's failure to properly handle and credit matured deposits, especially when linked to an active savings account, constitutes a deficiency in service, warranting compensation with interest at the original agreed rate.
India Law Library Docid # 2422856

(16) SHO, GOVT. RAILWAY POLICE Vs. G. SAI KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(c), (d), (i), (o), (f), (g) — Law enforcement agencies are not liable under the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service — The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not cover law enforcement agencies like Police Departments, who perform sovereign functions, as service providers under the Act.
India Law Library Docid # 2422850

(17) ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. TUHIN KANTI CHOWDHURY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — A consumer complaint filed beyond the statutory limitation period (two years from the cause of action) is time-barred — The limitation period for filing a consumer complaint begins from the date the cause of action arises, and the Consumer Fora must ensure compliance with the statutory limitation before considering complaints on their merits.
India Law Library Docid # 2422851

(18) ROHIT MITTAL AND OTHERS Vs. ANNA CHILD CARE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Medical Negligence — Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) — Standard of Care — Compensation — The NCDRC addressed appeals challenging an order by the State Commission of Punjab regarding allegations of medical negligence — The case involves a premature baby who developed Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) due to alleged lack of care during his admission at hospital — The parents claimed the hospital failed to ensure the standard of care required for screeni
India Law Library Docid # 2422595

(19) JANKI SAHU Vs. POONARAM SAHU[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2025
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practices — Construction Agreement — Burden of Proof — Requirement of Evidence — The NCDRC addressed a revision petition regarding a dispute over a construction agreement, where the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices — The complainant contracted with the Opposite Party (OP) to demolish and reconstruct her house, but alleged poor workmanship, wastage of materials, and other defec
India Law Library Docid # 2422596

(20) UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2025
Railways Act, 1989 — Section 100 — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Railways Negligence/Deficiency in Service — Theft of Luggage — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed a revision petition filed by the Union of India, setting aside the orders of the State Commission and District Forum and dismissing the original complaint, which concerned the theft of a passenger's luggage on a train — The initial complaint alleged negligence and deficiency in service by the
India Law Library Docid # 2422597