(601) DIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. SHRIRAJ AMAR MAHAGAONKAR AND OTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Powers of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — To set aside concurrent findings of District Forum and State Commission when they are not legally tenable. India Law Library Docid # 2402569
(602) SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES AND ANOTHER Vs. PRAMIL KUMAR PANDA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019 — Sections 21(b) / 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Powers of National Commission — Limited Jurisdiction — Interference permissible only when State Commission exercises jurisdiction not vested, fails to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acts illegally or with material irregularity — Concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission based on evidence are not to be interfered with in revision. India Law Library Docid # 2402570
(603) C.M.O.H., M.R. BANGUR HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER Vs. TANMOY MAJHI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) and Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 21(b) Medical Negligence Government Hospital Free Services Hospital providing free services and doctor working as government servant renders a 'Contract of Service' Patient not considered a consumer as defined under the Act when availing free treatment Complaint filed before District Forum not maintainable. India Law Library Docid # 2402571
(604) STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. GOVIND LAL SHARMA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-02-2024 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Unauthorized ATM Withdrawals — Bank liable for Rs. 3,60,000 plus interest, Rs. 10,000 for mental agony, and Rs. 5,000 for litigation costs after fraudulent ATM withdrawals from a pension account, as confirmed by lower consumer forums. India Law Library Docid # 2418432
(605) SIKKAS'S KWICK HANDLING SERVICES PVT. LTD. Vs. PARMANAND DAS MALPANI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d), Explanation to Section 2(7) — Definition of Consumer — Commercial Purpose vs. Livelihood by Self-Employment — Complainant exporter of carpets for livelihood, not a commercial entity lacking consumer status — Test for 'commercial purpose' is income/scale, not just profit generation — Complainant's business as a source of livelihood, even if substantial, does not disqualify them as a consumer. India Law Library Docid # 2418433
(606) NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. NECTER LIFESCIENCES LIMITED ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-02-2024 Marine Insurance Act, 1963 — Section 50 & 51 — Delay in voyage — Excuse for delay — Fire on vessel caused unavoidable delay — Delay excused under Section 51(1)(b) as circumstances beyond complainant's control — Repudiation of claim due to delay not justified. India Law Library Docid # 2402578
(607) RAM KUMAR Vs. IFFCO TOKYO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisited — Revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) is limited and should only be exercised for jurisdictional errors, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction, as held in Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Ors. and Rubi Chandra Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. India Law Library Docid # 2416769
(608) SHAKUNTLA SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN, DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-02-2024 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 SECTION 22 REVISION PETITION SCOPE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION LIMITED TO PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTIONAL ERROR, FAILURE OR ILLEGAL EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY LOWER FORA CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY DISTRICT AND STATE COMMISSIONS SUSTAINED UNLESS ILLEGALITY OR MATERIAL IRREGULARITY IS SHOWN. India Law Library Docid # 2402579
(609) SOMNATH PAUL Vs. URBAN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act 1986 — Section 17 — Appeals — Consumer complaint — Developer failed to complete construction and hand over flat despite full payment — State Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant — Complainant appealed seeking enhanced interest rate from OP-3 — Held, State Commission's order was well-reasoned, awarded reasonable interest @ 9% p.a. along with compensation and costs — No further interference warranted, appea India Law Library Docid # 2402580
(610) ANSHUMAN SINHA AND ANOTHER AND OTHER Vs. M/S. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-02-2024 Consumer Protection — Consumer Status — Allegation of investor status rebutted by evidence of residential use and purchase for mother's residence, not speculation; supported by previous commission orders. India Law Library Docid # 2402581
(611) RENAISSANCE RTW (ASIA) (P) LTD. Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-01-2024 Insurance Law — Marine Cargo Insurance — Policy Interpretation — Insurable Interest — Contractual Terms — Review of Judgment — Delay Condonation — Complainant sought review of a judgment dismissing their insurance claim. The review application was filed with a significant delay. While acknowledging the delay, the court condoned it to examine the merits of the review. India Law Library Docid # 2401809
(612) M. NAZEER AAHMED AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. KISHOR KUMAR GOKALDAS AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(g) — Consumer — Deficiency in Service — Complaint filed alleging deficiency in service by opposite party no.1 in not handing over possession of flat booked by complainant — Complainants had availed home loan from opposite party no.2 and flat was mortgaged as collateral — Complainants stopped paying EMIs to opposite party no.2, leading to proceedings under RDDBI Act and SARFAESI Act — Opposite party no.1 handed over possession to opposite p India Law Library Docid # 2401806
(613) ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. NILIMA JAUHARI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of — National Commission's revisional powers are limited and should only be exercised if the State Commission has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — The Commission cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower Fora based on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2401807
(614) BANK OF BARODA Vs. M/S. KUMAR TRADING COMPANY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope — National Commission can interfere only if there is jurisdictional error or material irregularity in lower fora's orders, not to re-appreciate evidence when findings are concurrent on facts. India Law Library Docid # 2401808
(615) SURESH PHARMA AND OTHER Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 29-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(A)(i) — Insurance Claim — Fire Insurance — Deficiency in Service — Delay in repudiation of claim — Complainant sought settlement of claim for stock and building damage due to fire, alleging delay by insurer. India Law Library Docid # 2401805
(616) CHIDIYA DEVI Vs. JODHPUR VIDYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission can only interfere if State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact from lower fora unless such grounds exist. India Law Library Docid # 2416766
(617) KAMLA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. AMBUJA CEMENT LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission Order — Delay in filing — Condonation of delay — The appeal was filed with a delay of 47 days, which was condoned by the Commission based on the reasons stated in the interlocutory application. India Law Library Docid # 2401801
(618) HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. SYED MUSHIR ABBAS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) — NCDRC has the power to revise orders passed by State Commissions. India Law Library Docid # 2401802
(619) J. PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. MANISH UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Condonation of Delay Special periods of limitation prescribed for appeals and revisions Object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will be defeated if highly belated appeals/revisions are entertained. India Law Library Docid # 2401803
(620) ARUN RAMKRISHNA PAWADE Vs. SHARMAN PAINTS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now replaced by Consumer Protection Act, 2019) — Section 21(b) (now Section 58(1)(b)) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission's power to interfere with lower forum orders is limited — Concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission are to be respected unless there is illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error — Petitioner failed to show any such error in impugned order. India Law Library Docid # 2401804