(201) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAGHAVA ISPAT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeal — Delay Condonation — Delay of 179 days in filing the appeal was condoned in the interest of justice based on the reasons stated in the application. India Law Library Docid # 2419311
(202) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SHANKAR LAL YOGI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Insurance claim — Repudiation of claim under policy condition for false statements and omission of information — Allegation of staged accident and arson by insured — Forensic report relied upon by insurer suggesting fire initiated extraneously — Insured claiming accident due to falling into ditch and subsequent fire — Dispute over cause of fire and compliance with policy terms. India Law Library Docid # 2419312
(203) BHATTACHARJEE ENTERPRISE Vs. AJAY PRASAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal to National Commission — Order of State Commission challenged — Consumer complaint allowed by State Commission against developer, ex parte against others — Developer appeals decree. India Law Library Docid # 2419313
(204) BELUR SRAMAJIBI SWASTHYA PRAKALAPA SAMITY Vs. BLUE STAR LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Whether a charitable hospital purchasing a CT scanner for diagnostic services, even with nominal fees, qualifies as a commercial purpose — Held, yes, as the services are rendered for a charge and the equipment is used for business operations rather than self-employment for livelihood — Relying on Supreme Court judgments that such use falls under commercial purpose, therefore, the entity is not a consu India Law Library Docid # 2419314
(205) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M/S. CORE GREEN SUGARS & FUELS PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Delay Condonation — Delay of 60 days in filing appeal condoned in the interest of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2419315
(206) MATA CHANAN DEVI HOSPITAL Vs. SAJJAN SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 SECTION 19 APPEAL TO NATIONAL COMMISSION CHALLENGE TO STATE COMMISSION ORDER PARTLY ALLOWING COMPLAINT AGAINST HOSPITAL FOR ALLEGED MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE. APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. India Law Library Docid # 2419316
(207) PRIYANKA OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Appeal — First appeal challenging order of State Commission rejecting complaint — Court heard arguments and considered material on record. India Law Library Docid # 2419317
(208) M/S HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. MRS GANGINENI VASUNDHARA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission order allowing consumer complaint and directing insurance company to pay claim amount — Issue of repudiation of life insurance claim on grounds of non-disclosure of previous policies — Appellant insurance company's contention that deceased life assured (DLA) failed to disclose existence of prior policies in proposal form, violating doctrine of ubberima fidei — Respondent's contention that relevant column in proposal for India Law Library Docid # 2419318
(209) BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KAMUBEN ARVINDBHAI PATNI W/O LATE ARVIND BABUBHAI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 69 (Corresponding to Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986) — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — The Consumer Protection Act has specific limitation periods for filing complaints, appeals, and revisions, aiming for expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes. These periods, when prescribed by statute, must be applied with rigor, even if they cause hardship to a party. India Law Library Docid # 2419307
(210) PIYUSH PRIYADARSHAN DASH Vs. KANHU CHARAN NAIK[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Appeal against order of District Commission — Mandatory deposit of 50% of awarded amount — State Commission's duty to entertain appeal — The appeal will not be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of the total amount ordered by the District Commission to be paid, which includes amounts payable to the complainant and any other fund as directed by the District Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2419308
(211) ANGAD SINGH KOHLI Vs. GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(a)(i) — Deficiency in service, unfair trade practice — Housing project — Delayed possession — Complainant applied for residential apartment and paid substantial amount — Possession was promised within 36 months but was delayed by more than two years — Complainant sought refund of amount before actual offer of possession — Opposite Party forfeited 10% of sale consideration and imposed penal interest — Held, delay in possession entitles complainant to ref India Law Library Docid # 2419377
(212) M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. M/S. IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-10-2024 Insurance Law — Claim repudiation — Policy period — Crucial date for determining coverage is when the loss occurred, not when it was discovered. India Law Library Docid # 2419374
(213) M/S. TULSIDAS KHIMJI PVT. LTD. Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-10-2024 Insurance Law Consumer Protection Fidelity Policy Repudiation of Claim Deficiency in Service The complainant company Tulsidas Khimji (P) Ltd. filed a consumer complaint against IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. for repudiating a claim under a Fidelity Policy due to alleged breach of policy conditions. The State Commission dismissed the complaint. The appellate body reviewed the decision and found that the repudiation was not justified. India Law Library Docid # 2419375
(214) M/S. U.P. COOPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD. Vs. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-10-2024 INSURANCE LAW Claim repudiation Grounds for repudiation were found to be incorrect by the Commission. The grounds included issues with loading temperature, maintenance of temperature, failure to minimize loss, and late reporting of breakdown. The complainant successfully demonstrated that these grounds were not valid or applicable in their case. India Law Library Docid # 2419376
(215) MR. SOHAN SINGH Vs. MR. GURCHARAN SINGH S/O. SH. PURAN SINGH AND OTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation — Condonation of delay — Appellant sought condonation of 499 days' delay in filing appeal — Appellant claimed reasons related to objections not being considered and arbitrary orders by the State Commission — Held, these reasons did not justify the protracted delay — Delay caused by routine and casual handling of the case. India Law Library Docid # 2419372
(216) CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT AND FINANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-10-2024 Debtor and Creditor — Loan Agreement — Settlement — Arbitration Award — Property Mortgage — Release of Title Deeds — Consumer Protection was initiated for release of mortgaged property documents after settlement of loan due to deficiency in service by the lender. India Law Library Docid # 2419373
(217) VIVEK PODDAR AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAMBHOO DAYAL AGRAWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) "Consumer" Commercial Purpose Whether a purchase is for commercial purpose depends on the dominant object of the purchase and can be determined by factors like the scale of business and number of employees If the machine is purchased for self-employment and livelihood, and the business is small, it does not amount to a commercial purpose. India Law Library Docid # 2419369
(218) M/S. KIRAN COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. Vs. MAHEENDRA PAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction — Scope — Interference only if order is illegal, arbitrary or perverse — State Commission's order found to be well-reasoned and no illegality or jurisdictional error. India Law Library Docid # 2419370
(219) SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NAVNEET NAROLIYA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-10-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Power of National Commission to set aside orders of State Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2419371
(220) KASHMIR SINGH GILL Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition challenging State Commission's order — State Commission allowed appeal, set aside District Forum's order, dismissed complaint — Petitioner argued State Commission erroneously allowed appeal without opportunity to reply — Issue: whether claim for haematuria treatment justified under policy. India Law Library Docid # 2419368