(201) AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. Vs. ABDULAZIZ AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-08-2024 Consumer Law — Crop Insurance — Farmers from Gangapur Village Service Co-operative Committee insured their crops under the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme — Due to a drought in 2005, their crops were damaged, and they sought compensation — Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation based on the Collector's report or the yield data from the Directorate of Economics and Statistics — The insurance company argued that compensation should be based on yield data from the Directo India Law Library Docid # 2416982
(202) KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURNCE CO. LTD. Vs. MR. SOURABH[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Condonation of Delay — Standard for Sufficient Cause — The Commission clarified that "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay means that the party should not have acted negligently or without bona fides — The applicant must demonstrate that they were prevented from prosecuting their case by circumstances beyond their control. India Law Library Docid # 2417706
(203) RAM BHUTANI Vs. M/S. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — Delayed possession — The complainant alleged deficiency in service by respondent regarding the delayed possession and incomplete amenities — Delay in possession, incomplete amenities, incorrect application of GST and VAT, and improper compensation for the delay — The complainant argued that the opposite party failed to deliver the apartment on time, did not provide the agreed amenities, and charged incorrect taxes — The opposite party contended that the complaint was bar India Law Library Docid # 2416974
(204) DR. MANJU DADU Vs. FORTIS ESCORT HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Law — Medical Negligence — Complaint against respondent for medical negligence leading to severe injury to her husband —Whether the hospital and doctors were negligent in their treatment, leading to brain hemorrhage and subsequent health deterioration — The complainant argued that the hospital and doctors were negligent in diagnosing and treating the patient's condition, leading to severe brain injury and paralysis — The hospital and doctors claimed they provided standard medical care a India Law Library Docid # 2416975
(205) WRITER SAFEGUARD PVT. LTD. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Cash robbery — Complainant filed a complaint against National Insurance Co. Ltd. for repudiating their insurance claim of Rs. 1.33 Crores after a cash robbery — Whether the insurance claim was valid and if there was any negligence or breach of policy conditions by the complainant — The complainant argued that all policy conditions were met, and the robbery was an unforeseen event caused by an organized gang — The insurance company claimed negligence and breach of policy conditions, specifically India Law Library Docid # 2416976
(206) DAYARAM MEENA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy — The complainant insured 400 trolleys of mustard husk, which caught fire — The insurance company delayed action and eventually denied the claim, citing spontaneous combustion —Whether the fire was due to spontaneous combustion, which is excluded from the policy, and whether the insurance company was deficient in service — Petitioner argue that the fire was not due to spontaneous combustion — The insurance company delayed the survey and failed to assess the India Law Library Docid # 2416977
(207) GOIBIBO COM OFFICE Vs. AMRIT PAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Law — Airlines — Flight Tickets — Complainants booked flight tickets through Goibibo for Jet Airways, which later ceased operations — They sought refunds from Goibibo but did not receive them — Whether Goibibo, as an intermediary, is liable for refunds when the airline fails to provide services — Goibibo claimed it was merely a facilitator and not liable for refunds, citing various legal precedents and the insolvency proceedings of Jet Airways —The complainants argued that Goibibo's own India Law Library Docid # 2416978
(208) DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. MR. RAJ SINGH[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Application of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 vs. 1986 Act — The Commission clarified that cases pending or adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 will continue to be governed by the provisions of the 1986 Act, even after the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — The 2019 Act is considered prospective in nature, affecting only cases filed after its commencement. India Law Library Docid # 2417704
(209) INDIAN RAILWAYS Vs. MRS. LALITA DEVI[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Application for Condonation of Delay — The NCDRC held that an application for condonation of delay must be examined with strict scrutiny, especially when the delay is significant — The party seeking condonation must provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and demonstrate that there was no negligence or want of bonafide on their part. India Law Library Docid # 2417705
(210) ISHWAR DUTT Vs. SHREE RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Consumer — Truck damage by Fire —The complainant's truck, insured for Rs. 8,73,580, was completely damaged by fire on 13.04.2017 — The insurance company assessed the loss at Rs. 1,01,400 but did not settle the claim — Whether the insurance company was deficient in service by not settling the claim for the full insured amount — The complainant argued that the awarded amount was insufficient and sought the full claimed amount — The insurance company contended that the complainant did not repair th India Law Library Docid # 2417709
(211) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. AMNINDER SINGH[PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Motor Accident Claim — The complainant purchased a truck and insured it with National Insurance Co. Ltd — The truck met with an accident before obtaining permanent registration, leading to a dispute over the insurance claim — Whether the insurance claim is valid despite the truck not having permanent registration at the time of the accident —The insurance company argued that the claim should be denied as the truck lacked permanent registration, violating the Motor Vehicle Act —The complainant ar India Law Library Docid # 2417710
(212) BASSAPPA PARAPPA VENKTAPUR Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Insurance Claim — Automobile — Delayed registration transfer — The petitioner bought a second-hand car and faced issues with insurance claim denial after an accident due to delayed registration transfer — Whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim because the insurance policy was not in the petitioner's name at the time of the accident — Petitioner argues that delay in transferring the registration was due to mismanagement at the RTO office, and the insurance company sh India Law Library Docid # 2416969
(213) ARUN KUMAR ALIAS SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — The petitioner filed for condonation of a 401-day delay in submitting a revision petition, citing medical treatment and lack of communication from his counsel — Whether the delay in filing the revision petition should be condoned — Petitioner argues that the delay was due to medical treatment and lack of communication from the counsel and the State Commission —The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and the revision petiti India Law Library Docid # 2416970
(214) PRAVAR ADHIKSHAK AND ANOTHER Vs. PINKY WADHWA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Life Insurance Policy — The complainant's husband had two Postal Life Insurance policies and passed away in 2009 — The insurance claim was denied due to alleged suppression of material facts about his health —Whether the insured suppressed material facts about his health, and if the insurance company was justified in denying the claim — Petitioner argued that the insured concealed his illness (cancer) when applying for the policies — The insurance contract is void due to this non-disclosure — Th India Law Library Docid # 2416971
(215) JAMANBHAI ARJANBHAI GHEDIA Vs. H.&R. JOHNSON (INDIA) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Consumer Law — Manufacturing defects — Vitrified tiles —The petitioner alleged a manufacturing defect in vitrified tiles purchased for his house — The complaint was supported by a scientific test report from the Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute —Whether the tiles were defective and if the scientific report was accurate — Petitioner states that the tiles were defective as proven by the scientific report — The size discrepancy was due to a typographical error — Respondent argues that t India Law Library Docid # 2416972
(216) JITENDRA KUMAR Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Insurance Policy —The case involves an insurance claim by the nominee of an insurance policy taken ‘M’ who passed away shortly after the policy was issued — The main issue is whether the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim based on alleged suppression of the insured's true age — The petitioner argued that the age proof was provided through an affidavit and medical certificate, and the insurance was issued after medical examination — The respondent contended that the insured India Law Library Docid # 2416973
(217) SHIV KUMAR Vs. MR. ROHIT GOSWAMI[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024 Consumer Law — Substandard Seeds — Appellant purchased 6 kg of onion seeds from — He claimed that the seeds were substandard, leading to a 75% loss in yield —The main issue was whether the seeds were of inferior quality and if the dealer or manufacturer was liable for the alleged loss — Petitioner argued that the seeds were defective, causing significant crop loss — He relied on a report from the Horticulture Development Officer to support his claim —Haryana Beej Company contended that the seeds India Law Library Docid # 2417707
(218) KISHOR V. PATIL AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. MARVEL ZETA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — The complainants filed a complaint against respondent for failing to hand over possession of flats and other issues related to a housing project in Pune — The main issues include delayed possession, non-provision of promised amenities, fraudulent land transfer, and compensation for harassment and mental agony — The complainants argued that the developers failed to deliver the flats on time, did not provide the promised amenities, and fraudulently transferred land to the India Law Library Docid # 2416967
(219) AKSHAY DOSHI Vs. G. SUNDAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-08-2024 Consumer Law — Housing — The original complainant booked a flat in Mumbai, paid an advance, but did not receive possession or a formal agreement — The complainant passed away, and legal heirs continued the case —Whether the absence of a formal agreement invalidates the complainant's claim and if the State Commission had jurisdiction — Petitioner argues that no formal agreement existed, no privity of contract, and the project was not completed due to unavoidable circumstances — Respondent contend India Law Library Docid # 2416968
(220) CENTRAL ACADEMY EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AJMER THROUGH PRESIDENT SMT. SHOBHA SUMAN MISHRA Vs. M/S. JAIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY THROUGH PARTNER AJAY KUMAR JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Classification of “Consumer” — The appellant, an educational institution, filed a complaint against the respondent for poor construction work and financial losses — The State Commission dismissed the complaint, stating the appellant is not a "consumer" — Whether the appellant qualifies as a "consumer" and whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period — The appellant argued they are a consumer and the complaint was within the limitation period due to India Law Library Docid # 2416963