(381) 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
(382) 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
(383) 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
(384) 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
(385) 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
(386) 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
(387) 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
(388) 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
(389) 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
(390) BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS Vs. AWADHESH PANDEY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Non-provision of information re: dues outstanding as well as mortgaged documents — District Commission's finding that there was deficiency in service upheld — Housing Board failed to provide proof of computation or documents relating to claim of interest on delayed installments — Deficiency established and entitled complainant for relief. India Law Library Docid # 2416981
(391) AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CO. OF INDIA LTD. Vs. ABDULAZIZ AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — This Court does not ordinarily interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the Fora below unless it is shown that the findings are perverse or there is a material irregularity in the proceedings or the order is without jurisdiction. The present revision petition challenges the order of the State Commission which had reversed the decision of the District Forum and awarded compensation to the farmers for crop dama India Law Library Docid # 2416982
(392) KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURNCE CO. LTD. Vs. MR. SOURABH[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Appeal against District Commission order — Limitation period — Appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of the order — State Commission can condone delay if sufficient cause is shown — Appellant must not have acted negligently or in bad faith. India Law Library Docid # 2417706
(393) RAM BHUTANI Vs. M/S. SUNCITY PROJECTS PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(a)(i) Deficiency in Service Delay Compensation When a developer fails to deliver possession of a flat within the agreed timeframe, purchasers are entitled to compensation for the delay, even if the agreement specifies a nominal amount, if it is found to be manifestly unfair and inequitable. India Law Library Docid # 2416974
(394) DR. MANJU DADU Vs. FORTIS ESCORT HEART INSTITUTE & RESEARCH CENTRE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection — Medical Negligence — Angioplasty — Decision to proceed with angioplasty despite patient's pre-existing lung condition and co-morbidities constitutes negligence. India Law Library Docid # 2416975
(395) WRITER SAFEGUARD PVT. LTD. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21, 22 — Insurance Claim — Repudiation — Deficiency in Service — Complainant engaged in cash management services, suffered a robbery of cash from cash van — Insurance company repudiated claim based on alleged breach of policy conditions (lack of caution, negligence, theft from unattended vehicle) — Held, repudiation unjustified as policy terms were not violated and loss occurred due to orchestrated distraction by criminals. India Law Library Docid # 2416976
(396) DAYARAM MEENA AND ANOTHER Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Insurance Law Fire Policy Spontaneous Combustion Exclusion Clause Where an insurance policy excludes claims arising from spontaneous combustion, the insurer can avoid liability if they can prove the fire originated from this cause. However, mere speculation or an isolated statement from the insured suggesting internal heat is not sufficient proof, especially if the surveyor's report is delayed and potentially biased. India Law Library Docid # 2416977
(397) GOIBIBO COM OFFICE Vs. AMRIT PAL JAISWAL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is limited and should only be exercised when the State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is warranted only if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse — National Commission cannot substitute its own findings for concu India Law Library Docid # 2416978
(398) SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation period for filing complaint — Mandatory nature — Consumer forum must examine whether complaint filed within two years from cause of action accrual — Delay can be condoned for sufficient cause, recorded in writing — Filing beyond limitation without sufficient cause is an illegality. India Law Library Docid # 2426889
(399) DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. MR. RAJ SINGH[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal — Limitation — Condonation of delay — Appellant failed to provide sufficient cause for delaying the filing of appeal by 119 days — Mere procedural delays and bureaucratic hurdles are not sufficient grounds for condonation — The applicant must demonstrate diligence and lack of negligence — Delay in filing appeal beyond the statutory period cannot be condoned without a satisfactory explanation of sufficient cause. India Law Library Docid # 2417704
(400) INDIAN RAILWAYS Vs. MRS. LALITA DEVI[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-08-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal period — Condonation of delay — Grounds for condonation — Statutory period of 30 days — Delay of 498 days — Insufficient explanation of procedural delays within government departments — Court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds — Law must be applied with rigor. India Law Library Docid # 2417705