(461) BABU RAM Vs. SARTAJ ALI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — Limited — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is narrow and confined to cases where State Commission exceeded jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — It cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums based on appreciation of evidence — Case involved concurrent findings of District and State Commissions, both of which dealt with the India Law Library Docid # 2414700
(462) SUBHASH KUMAR Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Delay condoned for reasons stated in the application. India Law Library Docid # 2414702
(463) MOHD. SIDDIQUE KHAN Vs. FOREST DIVISIONAL OFFFICER (GENERAL)OFFICE OF FOREST DIVISION[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Auction purchaser — Purchaser in a public auction of existing sites is not considered a consumer under the Act, and the owner conducting the auction is not a trader or service provider — Grievances of an auction purchaser do not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. India Law Library Docid # 2414703
(464) DR. UMA KANT GUPTA AND ANOTHER Vs. GIRIJA DEVI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-05-2024 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 SECTION 2(1)(g) DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE The District Commission allowed the complaint, directing compliance with operational orders, compensation for costs, agony, and legal expenses, with interest on delayed payment. The State Commission upheld this order. The revision petition challenged these concurrent findings. India Law Library Docid # 2414704
(465) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. MANJULA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58 (1) (b) — Revision Petition — Limited scope — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and should only be exercised when the State Commission has acted without 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. India Law Library Docid # 2414696
(466) BISLERI INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MUKESH KHANDELWAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope is limited — Can only be exercised if there is a prima facie jurisdictional error, or if the lower forum acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2414697
(467) KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. OM PRAKASH DUBEY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Powers of Revisional Court — The Court can only examine the legality, propriety, and correctness of the orders passed by lower Fora, not to re-evaluate evidence or conduct fresh inquiry. India Law Library Docid # 2414701
(468) M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI MISSION HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. PARSHURAM LANDGE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 24-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can entertain a revision petition against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2414350
(469) RENAULT INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAILENDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's revisional power is restricted to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is not warranted with concurrent factual findings of District Forum and State Commission unless such errors are present. India Law Library Docid # 2414351
(470) ANAND LIFE SPACE DEVELOPMENT LLP AND OTHERS Vs. MOHIT BHALLA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 51, 58 Appeal against State Commission's order Delay in filing appeal condoned in the interest of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2414355
(471) EAST INDIA TRANSPORT AGENCY Vs. DHARIWAL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Commercial Purpose Exclusion — A company engaged in business activities and using transportation services for carrying goods to buyers for profit is not a consumer under the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2414356
(472) ZINA VARUGIS Vs. M/S. UMIYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Dismissal of complaint as barred by limitation — Appellant booked a flat, paid substantial amount, agreement for sale, delayed possession, incomplete work admitted by respondent — State Commission dismissed complaint on limitation — Appellant contended offer of possession not valid as Occupancy Certificate not produced, continuing cause of action — Respondent contended delay due to appellant's requests, flat India Law Library Docid # 2414357
(473) DR. YASMEEN KHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. SABIHA HAMID MAJOR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeals against State Commission's order — Two cross appeals — One by doctor challenging order upholding complaint, another by patient seeking enhanced compensation — Both appeals emanate from the same order and based on same facts — Lead case taken as the one filed by the doctor. India Law Library Docid # 2414358
(474) SUBHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS Vs. RUCHI SONI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act Delay in Filing Appeal Condonation of delay requires sufficient cause, meaning the party was not negligent or acting without bona fide. India Law Library Docid # 2414359
(475) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GIRI RAJ PRASAD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Order of State Commission — Upheld — Insurance claim repudiated on grounds of delay in intimation to police and insurance company — State Commission allowed appeal, finding delay not attributable to complainant and citing Supreme Court judgment that in theft claims, policy violations are not paramount — District Forum had dismissed complaint due to delay in FIR and intimation. India Law Library Docid # 2414360
(476) SHARDA VINOD BHATIA Vs. TATA MOTORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13(1)(c) — Defect in goods — Determination of — Expert opinion — Requirement for establishing manufacturing defect — Unless an expert opinion from an authorized laboratory or recognized government authority is procured and presented, a claim of manufacturing defect cannot be substantiated — Complainant's failure to obtain and present such an opinion is fatal to their claim for refund of purchase price. India Law Library Docid # 2414361
(477) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. IMRAN KHAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — Petitioners sought to revise order passed by State Commission which upheld District Forum's decision allowing death benefit claim against insurance company — Respondent argued that State Commission did not commit jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice and that grounds for revision were not novel. — Held, Petitioner's arguments were considered and found to be legally tenable, leading to allowance of the revisio India Law Library Docid # 2414362
(478) BANK OF BARODA, BRANCH NARAHI AND OTHER Vs. OMANTH CHATTERJEE S/O LATE V.C. CHATERJEE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019 Section 2(1)(g) Deficiency in Service Hacking of Bank Account RBI Circular on Zero Liability State Commission's order based solely on RBI Circular without analyzing evidence Held, order unsustainable for want of reasons and material evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2414353
(479) P. TULASIDAS Vs. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 26 — Frivolous or vexatious complaint — complainant impleading numerous unrelated individuals, including dignitaries and judges, with baseless allegations of bribe and conspiracy beyond the scope of the Act. Such actions constitute abuse of judicial process. India Law Library Docid # 2414354
(480) BANK OF BARODA Vs. R. VENKATESWARA RAO[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 & 2019 Definition of Consumer Employee-employer relationship Disciplinary proceedings Deduction of funds Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Held, a dispute arising from disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a bank, where a deduction from the employee's account is made in accordance with the disciplinary authority's order, does not fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The relationship in such cases is governed by the contract of service, India Law Library Docid # 2414352