(361) KAMALJEET SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs. KOMATSU INDIA PVT. LTD. L AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of 'consumer' — Commercial purpose — Test to determine if an activity is for a commercial purpose should be based on facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be a straight-jacket formula — State Commission erred in dismissing complaint solely on the ground that the excavator was used in a mine allotted to the appellant's brother, concluding it was for commercial use without sufficient evidence — The purchase of goods through a p India Law Library Docid # 2418252
(362) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. JAYENDER AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — While considering a revision petition, the National Commission can set aside the orders of Fora below and modify them if the findings of the Fora below are found to be not based on evidence or are perverse. India Law Library Docid # 2418253
(363) LT COL P C CHANDEL (RETD) Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction of National Commission — Scope — Limited to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested by law, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Revisional powers not for interfering with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence, unless wholly perverse or against law/pleadings. India Law Library Docid # 2418254
(364) ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. RUPALI INAMDAR 201[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act 1986, Section 19 Appeal against State Commission order Rejection of medical claim under international travel insurance policy Insurer refused claim citing exclusion clause for hazardous activities. India Law Library Docid # 2418255
(365) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. AJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Insurance claim repudiation — Theft of vehicle — Insurer repudiated claim citing non-cooperation of insured, discrepancies in keys, delay in lodging FIR and informing insurer, and improper vehicle usage permit — State Commission allowed complaint — Held, repudiation not sustainable. India Law Library Docid # 2418256
(366) NEW INDIA ASSURANC CO. LTD. Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 19 Appeals Insurance Policy Deficiency in Service Fire and Special Perils Policy renewal Incorrectly insured only "Building Super Structure" instead of including furniture and fixtures Surveyor assessed claim as NIL State Commission partly allowed complaint Appeal against State Commission's order Appellant contention that claim handled according to policy terms and contract of insurance must be read in originality, without additions or subtractions India Law Library Docid # 2418259
(367) CHAIRMAN RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER Vs. BABU LAL JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Prior to Amendment) — Allotment of House — Cancellation — Deficiency in Service — Limitation — Complainant registered for house allotment in 1980, made initial deposits, and was allotted a house in 1986 — Failed to deposit demanded amount citing incomplete construction, which OPs disputed — Allotment cancelled in 1987 due to non-payment — Subsequent attempts for revival over several years at original rates were unsuccessful as per OPs’ policies and rules — Complain India Law Library Docid # 2426888
(368) IDBI BANK LIMITED Vs. SHEETAL BHARGAVA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) — Deficiency in Service, Unfair Trade Practice — Bank's disbursement of loan amount to builder in advance contrary to construction-linked payment plan — Bank held deficient in service and guilty of unfair trade practice for disbursing loan amount in advance without security, contrary to Reserve Bank of India guidelines and terms agreed upon, leading to builder absconding and project being abandoned. India Law Library Docid # 2418258
(369) CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE LTD. Vs. UTTAM RAO PAWADE AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-08-2024 Consumer Protection — Appeal — Non-joinder of necessary party — Dismissal of appeal on ground of non-joinder of dealer who had satisfied decree and against whom no relief was claimed, held unjustified where non-impleadment did not cause prejudice and could have been rectified by allowing impleadment. India Law Library Docid # 2418257
(370) 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
(371) 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
(372) 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
(373) 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
(374) 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
(375) 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
(376) 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
(377) 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
(378) 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
(379) 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
(380) 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