(621) ANKIT KHURANA Vs. SIKKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of 'consumer' — Booking a flat for personal use, even with part-payment, qualifies a person as a consumer for the purposes of the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2402603
(622) PRADEEP DAYMA Vs. UNITY EARTHTECH AND OTHERS[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 — Insurance Claim — Delayed Intimation — Contractual Obligation — Repudiation of claim on ground of delayed intimation is not justified even if there is a delay of 27 days when the word "immediately" in the policy is interpreted elastically, and a specific period of 14 days for intimation is mentioned in condition 6, meaning a delay of only 13 days is legally significant. India Law Library Docid # 2402605
(623) ARIF YUSUF BOOKWALA AND OTHERS Vs. HONGKONG AND SHANGAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-02-2024 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in Service — Credit Card Operations — Bank's liability for malfunctioning credit cards due to alleged technical glitches accepted by the bank, despite pleas of it being unintentional and beyond its control. India Law Library Docid # 2402576
(624) P. DAVID WILDSON Vs. JANANI HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction of Consumer Forum Arbitration Clause An arbitration clause in an agreement does not prevent a Consumer Forum from hearing a complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2402574
(625) DR. MAHTAB SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMPRASTHA PROMOTERS DEVELOPERS (PVT) LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Delay in Possession — Opposite parties failed to hand over possession of the flat within the stipulated period despite receiving substantial payment from the complainants. The admitted delay was over nine years. The Commission held that buyers cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession. India Law Library Docid # 2402575
(626) SHIV KUMAR MISHRA Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Condonation of Delay — delay of 37 days in filing the revision petition was condoned on the basis of reasons stated in the application. India Law Library Docid # 2416768
(627) DR. JOY'S HOSPITAL FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND ANOTHER Vs. SABYMOL C.M. ALIAS SABYMOL NAZEER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition Jurisdiction — The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is extremely limited and should only be exercised when a State Commission has exceeded its legal powers, failed to exercise its powers, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2402573
(628) 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
(629) 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
(630) 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
(631) 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
(632) 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
(633) 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
(634) 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
(635) 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
(636) 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
(637) 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
(638) 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
(639) 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
(640) 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