(301) NANAK CHAND RAJORA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 21 (Revisionary Jurisdiction) National Commission's power to interfere with lower forum orders is limited to jurisdictional errors or material irregularities, not re-appreciation of evidence or concurrent findings of fact. India Law Library Docid # 2418260
(302) M/S. ROLEX HOSIERY PVT. LTD. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Complaint maintainability — Commercial purpose and complicated questions of fact — Preliminary objection raised by opposite party regarding complainant not being a consumer due to commercial purpose and that the case involved complicated questions of fact requiring elaborate evidence, not permissible in summary proceedings under the Act — Held, consumer protection laws are designed to facilitate redressal for consumers, not to create hurdles, and the forum is comp India Law Library Docid # 2418263
(303) M/S CHAUSANA PHARMACEUTICALS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Insurance Claim — Hypothecation Agreement Clause — Borrower's Obligation for Insurance — Bank's Role limited to depositing claim proceeds in borrower's account. India Law Library Docid # 2418261
(304) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. LEENA JAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission order — Delay condonation — Delay of 13 days condoned to decide lis on merit. India Law Library Docid # 2418262
(305) M/S. PUJA HOME APPLIANCES PATNER PUNAM CHAND GUPTA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Revision Petition Delay in filing Condonation of delay Petitioner sought condonation of 1204 days' delay in filing revision petitions against a common order of the State Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2418264
(306) THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD. Vs. VIPENDER MANN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Tour Package — Appeal against State Commission's order awarding compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation costs — State Commission's findings indicated that delay in visa processing was due to complainants delaying submission of necessary documents, and that there was no written commitment for specific hotels or business class travel initially — Despite these findings, State Commission held opposite party liable . — This C India Law Library Docid # 2418265
(307) PARKHYATT GOA RESORT & SPA AND ANOTHER Vs. VINAY RAJKUMAR RAJPAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 19 Appeal against State Commission order Hotel liable for deficiency in service if bathroom design is faulty No expert opinion obtained, making design defect claim unsubstantiated. India Law Library Docid # 2418266
(308) MR. J. ZAHID AHMAD Vs. JMB MOTORS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 69 (previously Section 24A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Limitation Period Condonation of Delay An appeal filed beyond the prescribed limitation period can only be admitted if sufficient cause for the delay is shown and recorded A casual or routine approach to a case, or personal reasons like misplacing a file, are generally not considered sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay. India Law Library Docid # 2418270
(309) SKODA AUTO VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. AMIT ANJANI PODDAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practice — Sale of Vehicle — The complainant booked a car and requested delivery by a specific date. Due to time constraints, the dealer offered a car that was already invoiced but located at another showroom. The complainant accepted this offer, inspected the car, made payment, and took delivery. The dispute arose when the complainant claimed the car was second-hand as it had accumulated mileage and its warranty had started pr India Law Library Docid # 2418267
(310) DISHARI HEALTH POINT AND ANOTHER Vs. DOYOJAN BIBI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Medical Negligence — Deficiency in Service — Preliminary issue concerning medical negligence or deficiency in service by a nursing home and its doctor in conducting an HIV screening test — complainant admitted with fever and weakness, underwent various tests including HIV screening — OP-2, an MD in Pathology, conducted the test and declared the final result as HIV non-reactive, but mentioned possibility of false positives/neg India Law Library Docid # 2418268
(311) CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER NEHRU SATABDI CENTRAL HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. PUJA SAHU[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Medical Negligence — Jurisdiction not to reappreciate evidence but to correct errors of law or procedural irregularities — National Commission can interfere if findings of lower fora are perverse or based on misreading of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2418269
(312) INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (IATA) Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(a)(i) — Insurance Claim — Spurious Grounds for Rejection — Policy Interpretation — Interpretation of "Will" vs. "Shall" — Subrogation Rights — Breach of Policy Timelines — Arbitrary Rejection of Surveyor's Report — Admissibility of Subsequent Events — Insurance Policy Interpretation — Contra Proferentem Rule — Financial Evaluation of Agent — Misinterpretation of BSP System. India Law Library Docid # 2418272
(313) SHARDABEN ASHOKBHAI LATHIYA Vs. M/S RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-08-2024 Interpretation of Insurance Policies Accidental Death vs. Murder The distinction between an "accidental murder" and a "murder simpliciter" depends on the proximity of the cause of the murder. If the dominant intention is to kill, it's murder simpliciter. If it's caused in furtherance of another felonious act not originally intended to kill, it can be an accidental murder. However, from the victim's perspective, any murder may be considered an accident as it's unforeseen. India Law Library Docid # 2418271
(314) APOLLO MUNICH HEALTH INSURANCE Vs. BALJIT SINGH[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2024 Insurance Law Health Insurance Policy Repudiation of Claim Exclusion Clause Pre-existing Condition Burden of Proof The insurer's repudiation of a health insurance claim based on a pre-existing condition is valid if the condition existed prior to the policy's inception and is covered by an exclusion clause, provided the insurer proves the condition falls within the exclusion. India Law Library Docid # 2417708
(315) LIVING MEDIA INDIA LIMITED Vs. HMB SINHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Sweepstakes Scheme — Inclusion in participation list — Appellant offered subscription benefits including participation in a sweepstakes scheme with prize money. Complainant alleged non-receipt of subscribed issues and exclusion from the lucky draw. Later, appellant admitted a "technical error" and offered participation in a future draw, which complainant argued confirmed the deficiency in previous years. The court held that while the appell India Law Library Docid # 2417698
(316) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. SUSHAM LATA SEHGAL[PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Bank failed to pay contracted rate of interest on FDRs — Bank rectified erroneous mention of higher interest rate on FDRs by deducting excess interest paid — Bank liable to pay contracted rate of interest as mentioned on FDRs — Bank's claim of bonafide mistake in mentioning 9.5% instead of 9% rejected as mistake was repeated on several occasions and noticed late, indicating negligence — Bank held vicariously liable for negligence of its off India Law Library Docid # 2417711
(317) IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MANJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-08-2024 Insurance Law — Farmer Insurance Scheme — Insurable Interest — Widow of farmer entitled to claim under scheme for death due to accident, even if accident occurred before policy commencement, as death occurred during policy period. India Law Library Docid # 2417697
(318) ASHOK KUMAR PRAJAPAT Vs. DIRECTOR, HARYANA STATE TRANSPORT[CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Passive smoking in bus — Appeal allowed — Complainant alleged overcharging and driver smoking inside bus — District Commission dismissed complaint — Appellate authority found no overcharging — But found deficiency in service due to driver smoking inside bus causing passive smoking, mental agony and suffocation to complainant — Driver and conductor were fined, but this was deemed insufficient to address the nuisance faced by the complainant India Law Library Docid # 2417700
(319) AMARJEET SINGH GADHOK AND OTHERS Vs. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(o) Service Housing Project Delay Refund or Possession Held, Dispute relating to an agreement to sell an apartment does not relate to rendering of service. India Law Library Docid # 2416979
(320) PRABODH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. RAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — Revision petitions filed against orders of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld by District Forum — Court can examine if findings of lower forums are per incuriam or based on misinterpretation of facts or law. India Law Library Docid # 2416980