(61) SUBHANKAR BHATTACHARJEE AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Agreement for Sale — Plea of refund and cancellation — Burden of proof — Complainants paid part consideration for purchase of a flat — Developer contended that the agreement was cancelled upon refund of Rs. 6,00,000/- via cheques issued by a third party — State Commission placed negative burden on complainants — Held, State Commission erred in shifting the negative burden of proof — The onus to prove that payments made by a stranger to the contract constituted refund of sal India Law Library Docid # 2453232
(62) SHREYA DEVELOPVELL PVT.LTD. Vs. RADHA AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Revision Petition — Condonation of Delay — Reported delay of 1106 days — Petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of ex-parte impugned order until recovery proceedings were initiated — Explanation held vague and unconvincing in the absence of supporting documents from recovery authorities — Despite repeated opportunities, Petitioner failed to file a better affidavit substantiating the date of knowledge — No sufficient cause shown — Application for condonation of delay India Law Library Docid # 2453233
(63) M/S. MAHAVIR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) — Insurance — Repudiation on ground of fraud — Standard of proof — Insurer approved claim for total loss of piling rig based on Spot Surveyor, Final Surveyor, and Original Equipment Manufacturer reports — Claim subsequently repudiated based on a second investigator's report alleging machine was operational — Held, fraud cannot be inferred from mere suspicion and must be established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence — Unsubstantia India Law Library Docid # 2453235
(64) GUNTUR CITY HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. MRS. SHUBHADA DHAWDE AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Bolam Test — A medical professional is not liable for negligence if they exercise the skill and competence of an ordinary competent practitioner and act in accordance with acceptable medical standards — A physician does not guarantee full recovery, and an error of judgment or failure to foresee complications that were not clinically co-related does not amount to negligence — Merely because an alternative course of treatment India Law Library Docid # 2453236
(65) VANDNA SOOD AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S SUKSHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 47 — Pecuniary jurisdiction — Determination of value of goods or services paid as consideration — Contractual adjustments cannot be added — Complainants paid Rs. 46,18,372 towards a commercial unit and sought to include unpaid committed returns and GST adjustments to exceed the fifty-lakh pecuniary threshold of the State Commission — Held, pecuniary jurisdiction must be assessed solely on actual consideration paid by the consumer — Contractual adjustments India Law Library Docid # 2453442
(66) ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. INDERJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act — Condonation of Delay — Meaning of "Sufficient Cause" — Delay of 112 days in filing appeal — Appellant insurance company attributed delay to procedural movement of files between local and head offices for decision-making — Held, explanation was vague, evasive, and devoid of specific dates, timeline, or names of officials involved — Litigant cannot claim condonation as of right by merely labeling delay as unintentional — Expression "sufficient cause" cannot be extended to India Law Library Docid # 2453443
(67) SUMIT CHHABRA AND ANOTHER Vs. CANARA BANK[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Banking Services — Unauthorized Electronic Debits — Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice — Joint savings account of complainants debited with fraudulent transactions totaling Rs. 44,997 — Prompt notification to Bank and Cyber Cell yielded no refund — Held, the Bank failed in its duty to safeguard the savings account from unauthorized debits and to redress a genuine grievance — Such failure constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, dep India Law Library Docid # 2453444
(68) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ARUSH KUMAR SHARMA[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Insurance — Overseas Travel Insurance Policy — Repudiation or restriction of claim — Pre-existing disease — Mandatory medical examination — Complainant disclosed his age as 59 years in the proposal form — Under IRDAI Regulations, the insurer is obligated to conduct a thorough medical check-up prior to issuing the policy — Insurer failed to conduct such examination before issuing the policy — Held, failure to carry out the mandatory medical check-up disentitles the India Law Library Docid # 2453445
(69) SIMANTA BHOWAL AND OTHERS Vs. M3M INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 35(1)(c) — Representative complaint — Maintainability of specific relief prior to public notice — Application to sue in representative capacity was allowed based on commonality of interest — Held, allowing an application under Section 35(1)(c) does not amount to unconditional admission of every prayer sought — The statutory scheme mandates issuance of public notice after permitting representative character — Before inviting the public, the Commission must India Law Library Docid # 2453237
(70) RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. M/S BPTP LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) and Section 19 — Execution of conveyance deed and taking possession — Maintainability of consumer complaint — State Commission dismissed complaint holding complainant ceased to be a consumer post-execution of conveyance deed and taking possession — Held, setting aside the order, that a flat purchaser does not cease to be a consumer merely because possession has been delivered and conveyance deed executed — It is manifestly unreasonable to expect a India Law Library Docid # 2453238
(71) RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATE LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — Consumer Protection — Binding nature of approved resolution plan — Corporate debtors sought dismissal of consumer complaints following approval of their resolution plans by the NCLT and confirmation by the NCLAT — Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Ghanashyam Mishra, the Commission held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1), all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished — Consequently, no person is entitled to init India Law Library Docid # 2453239
(72) MANJULA DORNA ROY VERGHESE AND OTHERS Vs. GRUHA KALYAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12(1)(c) — Class action — Multiple complaints regarding the same project — Maintainability — Two separate consumer complaints were instituted under Section 12(1)(c) on behalf of allottees of the same residential project ('Gruha Kalyan-Erica') — Commission held that following the precedent in Ambrish Kumar Shukla, two class actions cannot proceed simultaneously for the identical project — Subsequent complaint closed, and all complainants therein were direct India Law Library Docid # 2453240
(73) NARINDER VERMA Vs. THE CORTIZA HOLIDAY (P) LTD. AND OTHERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in Service — Holiday Membership Scheme — Enhancement of Interest — Complainant paid consideration for a five-year membership, but the opposite parties failed to provide the promised booking or refund the amount — District Commission ordered refund with 6% interest — Held, continued retention of money without providing contracted services constitutes deficiency in service — Following Supreme Court precedent, interest awarded must be restitutionary as wel India Law Library Docid # 2453446
(74) DEEPALI CHANDUR HIRANANDANI Vs. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF: THE ZEPHYR CHS LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(42) — "Service" — Scope — Dispute regarding redevelopment and loss of rental income — Complainant, a member of a co-operative housing society, raised grievances against the society and builder concerning the redevelopment process, alleged mismanagement, and consequential loss of rental/tenancy income — Nature of dispute does not fall within the framework of "consumer" and "service provider" under Section 2(42) of the Act — Grievances concerning loss of r India Law Library Docid # 2453241
(75) RANVIR SINGH SINGAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Execution of Decree — Award of Interest — Prohibition of Compound Interest — Decree Holders calculated further interest upon accrued interest — Held, interest awarded under the decree was simple interest @ 9% per annum and there can be no interest upon interest — Accrued interest cannot become part of the principal for calculating further interest — Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd., awarding compound interest in monetary refund cases is impermis India Law Library Docid # 2453242
(76) GULSHAN LAL KHERA AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJIV TRIKHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 60 — Review Application — Error apparent on face of record — Decree Holder sought review of an order staying execution proceedings, contending that the decretal amount was not fully deposited — Held, subsequent orders of the High Court in contempt proceedings conclusively recorded that the entire decretal sum stood deposited, thereby complying with earlier directions — Earlier observations of State Commission regarding procedural discrepancies in fixed dep India Law Library Docid # 2453243
(77) PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (PUDA) AND OTHERS Vs. SAROJ GOYAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Principles governing exercise of discretion — Requirement of "sufficient cause" — Discretionary power to condone delay depends on adequacy and acceptability of explanation — Courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds or on the premise that merits override delay — Unlimited leniency fosters uncertainty and undermines legislative intent — Where a party displays negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides, no indulgence can be gran India Law Library Docid # 2453244
(78) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. RENUKABEN RATILAL LAIKA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2026 Insurance Law — Group Personal Accident Policy — Absence of causal nexus between injury and death — Insured sustained a forearm fracture from falling on 29.04.2012 and died on 15.05.2013 due to a pulmonary disease — Complainant claimed accidental death benefit — State Commission allowed claim — Held, no evidence existed linking the fractured forearm to the death, which occurred due to an India Law Library Docid # 2449650
(79) M/S. TEEKAY MARINES PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance Claim — Full and Final Settlement — Discharge Voucher executed under financial distress — Maintainability of Complaint — Insured executed a discharge voucher acknowledging net adjusted loss to obtain urgent funds for bank loan repayment, reserving right to balance claim — Insurer challenged maintainability on grounds of accord and satisfaction — Held, India Law Library Docid # 2449651
(80) THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA Vs. M/S MALTOSE AGRI PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-08-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 38(8) and Section 58(1) — Interim Injunction — Recovery of bank loan — Conflict with statutory recovery forums — State Commission granted interim injunction restraining Bank from proceeding with auction/recovery of mortgaged property — Debt Recovery Tribunal had already issued Recovery Certificate and DRAT dismissed appeal — Held, State Commission cannot pass interim orders inconsistent with final orders passed by competent India Law Library Docid # 2450262