(561) 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
(562) 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
(563) 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
(564) 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
(565) 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
(566) 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
(567) 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
(568) SUNIL MEHTA Vs. IFFCO TOKIO GIC LIMITED AND OTHER[UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-03-2024 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 41 — Appeal against District Consumer Commission's order — Consumer complaint disallowed by District Commission, leading to appeal. India Law Library Docid # 2403816
(569) GREATER MOHALI AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHER Vs. RAJ KUMARI[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 27-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(7) — Definition of Consumer — Onus on appellants to prove the complainant is not a consumer — Appellants failed to provide convincing evidence — Complainant falls under the definition of consumer. India Law Library Docid # 2403808
(570) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. M/S. KAY VEE ENTERPRISES[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, relevant provisions — Insurance Policy repudiation — Overloading of vehicle — Non-standard claim settlement — When a vehicle is overloaded, claims can be settled on a non-standard basis. The Supreme Court has held that claims should not exceed 75% of the admissible claim in such cases. India Law Library Docid # 2403671
(571) ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S. PATEL TOURS AND TRAVELS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-03-2024 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 165 — Claims Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora — Dispute regarding damage to third-party property arising from motor vehicle accident falls under exclusive jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) — Consumer Fora lack jurisdiction to entertain such claims — Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies, but special law (Motor Vehicles Act) prevails over general law regarding accident cla India Law Library Docid # 2403672
(572) KESHWA NAND DWIVEDI AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. DLF UNIVERSAL LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 69 — Limitation — Complaint barred by limitation — Complaint filed beyond two years from date of offer of possession — State Commission correctly dismissed complaint as barred by limitation. India Law Library Docid # 2403674
(573) DHFL PRAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission order — Housing loan insured under group credit life policy — Insurer repudiated claim alleging non-disclosure of pre-existing medical conditions — Deceased suffered heart attack, post-mortem confirmed as natural cause. India Law Library Docid # 2403677
(574) PAWAN HANS LIMITED Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 19 Appeal against State Commission Order Dismissal of complaint. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 2(7) Definition of Consumer Exclusion of commercial purpose. Held, Pawan Hans Ltd., a commercial entity engaged in business-to-business transactions with an insurance company for employee insurance, does not qualify as a consumer under the Act as the transaction was for a commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood by self-employment. The compla India Law Library Docid # 2403678
(575) AMBABEN WIDOW OF SHRI GOVINDBHAI JADAVBHAI KATHIRIA Vs. DEVISONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANT LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited — National Commission's power to interfere in appeals decided by State Commission is restricted to cases of jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity, not to re-appreciate evidence or findings of fact. India Law Library Docid # 2403679
(576) K.A. NAGAMANI Vs. TATA MOTORS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13(4) — Discovery, Interrogatories, Summoning of Witnesses — Complainant, a practicing advocate, filed applications seeking discovery and interrogatories. Applications dismissed by District Forum. State Commission dismissed appeal. Held that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature. Machinery of Forum cannot be used for collecting evidence for a party. Such requests must relate to specific averments in pleadings and be material to th India Law Library Docid # 2403661
(577) SPUTNIK MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR GARG AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's power to interfere with State Commission's order is limited to cases where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2403662
(578) S. LIQUAT HUSSAIN Vs. M/S COLORHOME DEVELOPERS P. LTD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and should only be exercised when a State Commission has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Concurrent findings of fact by lower Fora are generally not interfered with in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2403663
(579) MANIDWEEP ASHWAM TRUST AND OTHERS Vs. SOMPURA NAVINCHANDRA CHUNILAL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) definition of "consumer" — Whether a trust engaged in constructing a temple can be considered a consumer. — State Commission correctly held that the Trust may not be a consumer as per the Act, especially when there was no documentary evidence to show that the construction of the temple was part of the Trust's stated objectives or that the temple was run by the Trust. India Law Library Docid # 2403668
(580) YOGENDRA SINGH GURJAR Vs. RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-03-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission Order — Consumer Complaint allowed by State Commission — Complainant dissatisfied with calculation of amount deposited and interest levied — Filed appeal seeking to set aside State Commission's order and for other reliefs. India Law Library Docid # 2403669