(541) MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED Vs. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Proper exercise of jurisdiction by lower forums — No illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error found — Interference not warranted. India Law Library Docid # 2413807
(542) SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. Vs. SMT. DIKSHA SINGH AND OTHER[UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in Service — Burden of Proof — Consumer must provide expert or technical report to establish manufacturing defect when it cannot be determined without analysis or testing of goods. India Law Library Docid # 2403817
(543) ARVIND RAJPAL JADAV Vs. CHARUDATTA VASANTRAO TULJAPURKAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Jurisdiction — Limited scope — Exercise only if jurisdictional error — National Commission can only interfere if State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2413809
(544) INDIAN FARMERS FERTILIZERS CO-OPERATIVE LTD. (IFFCO) AND OTHERS Vs. BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Guar seeds purchased for cultivation as a commercial crop do not fall under the definition of consumer, hence no consumer dispute arises. India Law Library Docid # 2413810
(545) SUSHIL KUMAR MARWAH Vs. NPCL COMMERCIAL COMPLEX[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 04-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Industrial/Commercial Use — Electricity supply obtained for factory/industrial unit for manufacturing purposes does not qualify the user as a 'consumer' under the Act, barring them from filing a complaint before consumer forums. India Law Library Docid # 2413811
(546) M.R. SOOD AND OTHERS Vs. PIONEER TOYOTA THROUGH MANAGER, AUTH. DEALER: EM PEE MOTORS LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in service Unfair trade practice Compensation Complaint filed for compensation for accidental death, unfair trade practice, loss of love and affection, and medical expenses Held, no manufacturing defect in car or airbag system proved Accident caused by rash and negligent driving of truck Expert report indicated car went under truck in an angular under-run, not a severe frontal crash, hence airbags did not deploy Owner's manual specified frontal ai India Law Library Docid # 2413812
(547) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. BRIJENDRA KUMAR TYAGI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-04-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 51 — Appeal against State Commission order — Jurisdiction of appellate authority — Appellant filed first appeal against order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2413813
(548) 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
(549) 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
(550) 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
(551) 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
(552) 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
(553) 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
(554) 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
(555) 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
(556) 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
(557) 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
(558) 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
(559) 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
(560) 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