(21) SURENDRA HINDU SINGH BHATI AND ANOTHER Vs. AJAY CHANGANI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practice — Credit Co-operative — Misappropriation of Deposits — Liability of Office Bearers — The NCDRC is reviewing five revision petitions related to complaints against Sai Kripa Credit Co-operative Limited concerning the alleged misappropriation of deposits — Depositors claimed unfair trade practices due to the society's failure to secure their payments — The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission initially favored India Law Library Docid # 2422593
(22) AIR AMBULANCE AVIATION AND ANOTHER Vs. GULNAZ BANO AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Air Ambulance — Compensation — The NCDRC addressed a revision petition regarding a deficiency in air ambulance service — A complainant booked an air ambulance to transport her husband, who had a severe heart attack, from Lucknow to Delhi — The air ambulance company failed to provide the promised service despite receiving full payment — The company offered a commercial flight instead, which was unsuitable given the patient's critical conditi India Law Library Docid # 2422594
(23) AMAN HOSPITAL Vs. AMARJIT KAUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Medical negligence — Medical Negligence — Revisional Jurisdiction — This For a dismissed a revision petition, affirming the concurrent findings of lower fora regarding medical negligence — The case originated from a complaint of negligence against a hospital (OP-1) for inserting an improperly sized shaft during a surgery, performed by a doctor who was not a qualified orthopedic surgeon, leading to the need for a corrective surgery — The India Law Library Docid # 2422588
(24) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S. AGARWAL STORES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Insurance Claim — Surveyor Report — Average Clause — The NCDRC dismissed a revision petition filed by an insurance company, affirming the order of the State Commission, which had partly allowed the complainant's appeal and granted a lump sum for a fire-related loss at their store — The case concerned the rejection of an insurance claim for damage to stocks — The insurance company appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss, but the State Commission India Law Library Docid # 2422589
(25) AMIT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Railways Negligence/Deficiency in Service — Theft of Passenger Ornaments — The NCDRC dismissed a revision petition filed by a complainant, upholding the order of the State Commission, which had set aside the District Forum's order — The initial complaint concerned the theft of ornaments from a passenger's handbag while deboarding a train — The District Forum had initially ruled in favor of the complainant, but the State Commission reversed this dec India Law Library Docid # 2422590
(26) MS VKG ASSOCIATES Vs. SMT. B.M. MALA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Covid-19 Restrictions — Refund of Booking Amount — Postponement of a wedding — NCDRC modified an order of the State Commission regarding the refund of a booking amount for a conventional hall due to the postponement of a wedding because of Covid-19 restrictions — The complainant had booked the hall and paid an advance, but the wedding was postponed due to the pandemic and the inability of the bridegroom to travel from the India Law Library Docid # 2422591
(27) DR. ABHAY YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. TRANCON-SHETH CREATORS PVT. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act (MOFA), 1963 — Section 4 — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practices — Real Estate/Flat Booking — Refund with Deduction for Administrative Costs — NCDRC addressed a consumer complaint concerning a flat booking in Mumbai, where the buyer alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices — The complainant paid 5% of the total consideration for the flat, but the builder did not execute a registered Agreement fo India Law Library Docid # 2422592
(28) M/S. DHEERAJ ASSOCIATES HAVING PLACE OF OFFICE AT, NEHRU MARG, PUNE- MAHARASHTRA Vs. DR. DEEPAK SITARAM DESAI SITARAM DESAI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — The complainant booked a flat with the appellant, paid the full amount, but received a smaller area than agreed — The State Commission ordered the appellant to compensate the complainant — Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Act, and whether the State Commission's order was justified — The complainant concealed facts, used the property commercially, and the State Commission violated natural justice by not considering the appellant's written submissions — The India Law Library Docid # 2420420
(29) M/S. NITESH COLOUR LAB Vs. M/S. JINDAL PHOTO FILM LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Law — Printing and Scanning Machines — Manufacturing Defects — Appellant purchased two digital mini lab frontier machines from respondent — The machines became defective shortly after purchase, leading to frequent complaints and financial losses — Whether the complainant qualifies as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act and whether there was a manufacturing defect in the machines — The machines were defective, causing business losses — The complainant sought compensation and r India Law Library Docid # 2420421
(30) UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. DAYA SHANKER TIWAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Law — Theft — Luggage — Train Journey — The complainant's suitcase was stolen during a train journey — The District Forum directed the Railways to compensate 75% of the claimed amount — The State Commission upheld this decision — Whether the Railways are liable for the theft of unbooked luggage and if there was a deficiency in service — The Railways argued they are not responsible for unbooked luggage under Section 100 of the Railways Act and that the complainant was negligent — The com India Law Library Docid # 2420422
(31) HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NOW, HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. RADHA THAKUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — Allotment — The complainants were allotted plots by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) but faced issues with possession due to disputes and undeveloped plots — The main issue was the failure of HUDA to provide possession of the allotted plots, leading to claims of deficiency in service — HUDA argued that the alternative plots were ready for possession and that the complainants were avoiding taking possession — They also cited legal precedents and procedural o India Law Library Docid # 2420423
(32) NORTHERN RAILWAY RAILWAY STATION Vs. BALBIR SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Law — Theft — Luggage — Train Journey — The complainant's luggage was stolen during a train journey — Despite reporting the theft, the complainant received no redress from the railway authorities — Whether the railway was negligent and responsible for the theft of unbooked luggage, and whether the District Forum had jurisdiction — The railway argued that they were not responsible for unbooked luggage, the complaint was filed in the wrong jurisdiction, and there was no evidence of neglig India Law Library Docid # 2420424
(33) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. SATWINDER KAUR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Life Insurance Policy — The insured had a life insurance policy with a sum assured of Rs. 8,00,000 — He died of a heart attack on 01.02.2015 — The respondent, his nominee, filed a claim which was not responded to by the petitioners — Whether the insurance policy had lapsed on the date of the insured's death and if it was within the grace period for revival — The policy had lapsed due to non-payment of the premium by 24.01.2015, and the ECS was dishonored due to insufficient funds — The grace per India Law Library Docid # 2420425
(34) RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. (RIICO) Vs. DWARKA PRASAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Consumer Law — Transfer Fees — The complainant purchased a plot and production unit — The OP (RIICO) demanded additional fees due to a discrepancy in the firm's name — Whether the complainant should pay the transfer fees and if the production unit was operational at the time of transfer — RIICO argued that the complainant did not obtain a No Objection Certificate and that the unit was inactive due to the name discrepancy — The complainant contended that the fees were unwarranted as the unit was India Law Library Docid # 2420383
(35) TAPAS KANTI SENGUPTA Vs. TATA MOTORS LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Consumer Law — Motor Vehicle — Manufacturing Defect — The petitioner purchased a Tata Nano car which had unsatisfactory mileage — Despite multiple attempts to resolve the issue, the problem persisted — Whether the car had a manufacturing defect and whether there was a deficiency in service by Tata Motors — The petitioner argued that the car's mileage was significantly lower than advertised and that this constituted a manufacturing defect and misrepresentation — Tata Motors argued that the car me India Law Library Docid # 2420414
(36) BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER Vs. SIKANDER ALI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Consumer Law — Banking — Term Deposit — Complainant deposited funds in term deposits with Bank of Baroda, which were not renewed or paid out upon maturity — He alleged deficiency in service — Whether the bank was liable for non-renewal and non-payment of the term deposits and if the complainant was entitled to interest and compensation — The bank argued that there was no auto-renewal provision at the time, and the complainant did not submit the original receipts or renewal requests — The complai India Law Library Docid # 2420415
(37) KRISHNA KUMAR KUSHWAHA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Consumer Law — Vehicle — Theft — The complainant's car, insured by United India Insurance, was allegedly stolen and later recovered — The insurance claim was denied, leading to a consumer complaint — Whether the denial of the insurance claim constitutes a deficiency in service and if the theft and accident claims were fabricated — The complainant argued that the car was stolen, the insurance claim was unjustly denied, and sought compensation for damages — The insurance company claimed the theft India Law Library Docid # 2420416
(38) ONE SCHOOL GOA Vs. VIBHA SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — The main issue is whether the delay of 325 days in filing the appeal should be condoned, considering the circumstances and the Supreme Court's extension of limitation periods due to the Covid-19 pandemic — The petitioner argued that the delay was not intentional and was caused by administrative duties and the Covid-19 lockdown — They claimed to have a strong case on merit and sought condonation of the delay — The respondent supported the India Law Library Docid # 2420417
(39) BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MOOL CHAND LALWANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Consumer Law — Vehicle — Theft — The complainant's vehicle was insured with Bharti Axa General Insurance and was stolen on 23.01.2014 — The insurance claim was repudiated on the grounds that the vehicle was left unattended with the key in it — Whether leaving the key in the vehicle constituted a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, justifying the repudiation of the claim — The insurance company argued that the complainant's negligence in leaving the key in the vehicle breached the policy India Law Library Docid # 2420418
(40) MUKESH KUMAR KAUSHAL Vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-11-2024 Consumer Law — Critical illness claim — The petitioner filed a complaint against ICICI Lombard General Insurance for denying his critical illness claim — He had a policy covering critical illness and was diagnosed with CAD (Single Vessel Disease) — Whether the petitioner's condition qualifies as a critical illness under the insurance policy terms and if the claim was settled as per the policy — The petitioner argued that his condition qualifies as a critical illness and that the insurer wrongly India Law Library Docid # 2420419