(521) AJAY PAUL SINGH TANWAR Vs. PADAM GRAPHICS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 14, Section 17 — Jurisdiction of State Commission — Procedure for deciding complaint — Dismissal of complaint as premature for not issuing legal notice — Held, not a precondition under the 1986 Act. India Law Library Docid # 2413814
(522) VIKAS GARG Vs. ESTATE OFFICER (HOUSING) GREATER MOPHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMADA)[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(a)(i) Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice Jurisdiction Complaint filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Party, seeking refund of deposited amount with ancillary reliefs. India Law Library Docid # 2413825
(523) BAHADUR SINGH Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND OTHER[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Definitions of 'Consumer' and 'Service' Employee Provident Fund (EPF) Member Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) Maintainability of Consumer Complaint Supreme Court precedents established that EPF members are consumers and RPFC is a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act for grievances related to pension and provident fund benefits, distinguishing employer-employee service contracts. India Law Library Docid # 2403806
(524) SPICEJET LTD. Vs. MR. D.D. DAYANI AND OTHERS[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 15 and Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 — Appeal against District Forum order — Condonation of delay — Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is prospective in nature — Cases filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act are governed by the 1986 Act. India Law Library Docid # 2403809
(525) MRS. LAXMI KAUR Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal period — Condonation of delay — Appeal must be filed within 30 days of the order — State Commission may entertain appeals after expiry of this period if sufficient cause is shown — Appellant must prove they were not negligent and acted bona fide — Vague explanations are not sufficient. India Law Library Docid # 2403810
(526) GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. BSCPL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SENTHIL PRABHU R.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction Arbitral Award a binding agreement If parties compromise disputes before an Arbitral Tribunal and agree to withdraw all pending cases before any consumer forum, subsequent adjudication by a consumer forum on the same issues is invalid as it breaches the compromise, which operates as res judicata. India Law Library Docid # 2413815
(527) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MEDIALOGIC[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal challenging State Commission's order — Conditionally accepting delayed appeal — Delay of 140 days condoned due to extended period for obtaining certified copy and Supreme Court's COVID-19 related limitation exclusion. India Law Library Docid # 2413816
(528) M/S. AJMER FOODS PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Insurance Law Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy Exclusion Clause Explosion Interpretation of "explosion" in the context of damage to machinery Admissibility of claim where damage is caused by bursting due to gas pressure buildup Whether bursting amounts to explosion under the policy terms. India Law Library Docid # 2413817
(529) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. SOMIR KUMAR BAGCHI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — Limited to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegality/material irregularity by State Commission — Finding of both Fora below against petitioner supports dismissal of revision. India Law Library Docid # 2413818
(530) SBI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. KESARBEN JAYANAND BHOPE[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional powers limited — Can only be exercised if there is a prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order, or if the State Commission has exceeded, failed to exercise, or acted illegally or with material irregularity in its jurisdiction. India Law Library Docid # 2413819
(531) LIC OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. SURENDRA PRATAP NARAYAN SINGH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — In revision, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission can interfere with orders of Fora below if they are found to be not legal or irregular, or if there is perversity in findings of fact or law. India Law Library Docid # 2413820
(532) DR. V. UMA LAKSHMI Vs. MAPATHULA VENKATA SATAVENI (DIED) AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope — National Commission cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission unless State Commission acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2413821
(533) ANCHUKANDA MUHAMMED SHAREEF Vs. KAVANOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — Limited — Exercise of revisional powers — Prima facie jurisdictional error — State Commission exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity — Supreme Court held that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited and should be exercised only when the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a vested jurisdiction, or acted illeg India Law Library Docid # 2413822
(534) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. JAINENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — Limited — Powers to be exercised only for jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or acting illegally or with material irregularity — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited. India Law Library Docid # 2413823
(535) PAIRAYA KAK @ PIYARI KAK Vs. HUDA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — State Commission order setting aside District Forum order and dismissing complaint — Grounds for challenge by Petitioner — Petitioner argues State Commission ignored acceptance of delayed payment by Respondent, Petitioner never received allotment or cancellation letters, and delay condonation by State Commission was mechanical. India Law Library Docid # 2413824
(536) M/S AMBITION BUILDERS PVT. LTD Vs. MR. BALVINDER SINGH AND OTHERS[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Delay in Possession — Builder failed to obtain Completion Certificate within stipulated period — Builder offered possession without Completion Certificate, constituting deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2403811
(537) SHIRISH MADHAV DESAI Vs. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MUMBAI NORTH-EAST DIVISION[MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-04-2024 Consumer Protection — Monthly Income Scheme — Premature withdrawal — Bonus entitlement — Complainant deposited money in a monthly income scheme for a fixed period. The complainant withdrew the deposit prematurely. The scheme rules stipulated payment of bonus at maturity. There was no provision for prorata bonus in case of premature withdrawal. The scheme allowed for a penalty on premature withdrawal, which was applied. The complainant contended for a prorata bonus. Held, bonus is payable only on India Law Library Docid # 2403814
(538) SMT. MANJULA AND OTHERS Vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Gas Cylinder Explosion — Complainant suffered loss due to fire accident caused by LPG gas cylinder explosion and sought compensation from LPG supplier, dealer, and insurance company. — Held that while OP 1 and 2 (supplier and dealer) are dismissed, OP 3 (insurance company) is liable for deficiency in service for offering meager compensation despite substantial loss. Insurance company directed to pay global compensation and compensation for India Law Library Docid # 2403813
(539) IFFCO-TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. AVTAR SINGH BHANDARI AND OTHERS[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Insurance Claim — Vehicle Breakdown — Repudiation of Claim — The consumer commission ordered repair of vehicle, compensation for harassment, and litigation costs. The insurance company appealed, arguing the engine failure was due to internal mechanical issues not covered by the policy, including an add-on cover for engine and gearbox protection that only covered accidental external water ingress. India Law Library Docid # 2403807
(540) SUMAN LATA WIDOW OF SH. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA[HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-03-2024 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Insurance Policy — Bank's liability — A bank deducted a premium amount from a customer's account for an insurance policy but failed to deposit it with the insurance company. The insurance company did not inform the policyholder about the non-payment. Both parties were found to have deficiencies in service, leading to their joint and several liability. India Law Library Docid # 2403812