(641) TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. SURENDER KUMAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — Limited — Powers under this section can only be exercised if there is a prima facie jurisdictional error in the impugned order, or if the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2401713
(642) M/S. PIONEER DYEING PVT. LTD. Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Commercial Activity — Harsolia Motors V/s. National Insurance Company precedent regarding commercial activity applies to services availed by commercial organizations — Supreme Court affirmed that hiring insurance policy is for indemnifying risk, not profit generation, but nexus with profit activity is crucial for each case — State Commission mistakenly interpreted the remanding order to re-adjudicate the entire co India Law Library Docid # 2401701
(643) SARJU RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHYAM LAL Vs. SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Aggrieved by State Commission order setting aside District Forum order — Petitioner being legal heir of deceased policyholder seeking to set aside State Commission order. India Law Library Docid # 2401702
(644) ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. M/S. DUROFLEX PRIVATE LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission order — Insurance claim — Fire damage — Market value vs. Reinstatement value — Depreciation — Surveyor's report — State Commission reducing depreciation arbitrarily — Appeal allowed, State Commission order set aside. India Law Library Docid # 2401692
(645) M/S MITTAL TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. GURPREET SINGH GILL AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — First Appeal — Jurisdiction — Scope of appeal against State Commission's order — Order permitting refund of lesser area price with interest, compensation and litigation costs to complainants. India Law Library Docid # 2401693
(646) UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. FOOD COURT THE COMPANY GARDEN SOCIETY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 19 Appeal against order of State Commission Delay in filing appeal Condonation of delay 27 days delay condoned. India Law Library Docid # 2401694
(647) PAWAN SALUJA Vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING VENTURES PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Burden of Proof — For a person to be deemed to not be a consumer, it must be proven that they are engaged in the business of purchasing and selling properties with the sole aim of making a profit. Simply booking multiple properties does not automatically disqualify someone as a consumer if the primary intention is personal use or investment without active trading. The burden of proving a commercial pu India Law Library Docid # 2401695
(648) NARAYAN LAL GUJAR Vs. CIGNA TTK HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Grounds for Appeal — Insufficient medical evidence to support claim — Rejection of health insurance claim by IR — Complainant alleged heart attack, IR repudiated claim citing lack of evidence of heart muscle damage and mismatched ECGs — State Commission dismissed complaint, finding no defect in rejection — Appellant raised issues of overlooked expert opinion, discrepancies in IR's reply, and failure to consider critical "Golden Hour" treatmen India Law Library Docid # 2401696
(649) PROVAT KUMAR PAL Vs. DR. NILAABHA BHADURI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Hasty Surgery — Evidence indicated that the patient was subjected to surgery without proper pre-operative evaluation and that the decision for surgery was hasty, without trying conservative treatment first. Expert opinions suggested that the patient's condition did not warrant urgent hysterectomy. India Law Library Docid # 2401697
(650) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. RAMA MISHRA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against State Commission Order — Delay in filing — Condonation of delay — Delay of 85 days in filing the appeal was condoned for reasons stated in IA/15075/2019. India Law Library Docid # 2401698
(651) BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. SUMAN DEVI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal against order of State Commission — Delay condonation — Condonation of delay in filing appeal for valid reasons. India Law Library Docid # 2401699
(652) CONSUMERS WALFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. VASUNDHARA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeals — Order of State Commission — Dismissal of First Appeal — Complainant booked a flat, made initial payment, but builder delayed construction and eventually sold the flat to another. State Commission ordered refund of booking amount with interest. Appellants sought higher compensation. The appellate commission found no reason to interfere with the State Commission's order. India Law Library Docid # 2401700
(653) M/S. HARISH PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5 Applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal must demonstrate a "sufficient cause" for the delay. The concept of "sufficient cause" requires that the party acted with reasonable diligence and without negligence or want of bona fide. The court exercises its discretion judiciously after sufficient cause is shown. India Law Library Docid # 2401688
(654) A. ILYAS AHMED Vs. THE EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Insurance Law Export Credit Guarantee Policy Claim for losses due to non-payment by foreign buyer Interpretation of "consignment basis" versus "firm purchase basis" Assessment of delay in filing reports and its impact on claim admissibility. India Law Library Docid # 2401689
(655) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BELABEN HARISH KUMAR GANDHI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 3; Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Driving Without Valid License — Insurance Claim — Breach of Policy Conditions — Held, for an insurer to avoid liability on the ground of the driver lacking a valid license, the insurer must prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring the vehicle was driven by a duly licensed driver. Mere absence or invalidity of the license is not sufficient. The burden of pr India Law Library Docid # 2401690
(656) JAHIR KHAN Vs. ASHOK LEYLAND AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Condonation granted for delay in filing the Revision Petition based on stated reasons. India Law Library Docid # 2401691
(657) SATBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. RAHEJA DEVELOPERS LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Maintainability of Complaint Plot of land for housing construction Buy-back facility Consumer Fora have jurisdiction to deal with complaints of deficiency of service in relation to immovable properties. India Law Library Docid # 2401686
(658) SANDEEP NATHURAM NALAVADE Vs. SHIVASAHYADRI EMU FARM AND HATCHRIES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2024 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Court should lean favorably towards defaulting petitioners and not adopt a pedantic approach, but should decide cases on merits rather than thwarting the cause on the ground of limitation — However, the law of limitation must be respected and complied with, and judicial discretion for condonation of delay must be exercised judiciously based on sufficient cause and factual basis provided by the petitioner. India Law Library Docid # 2401687
(659) PREM KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. M/S. BESTECH INDIA PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 12, 21, 22—Deficiency in service—Failure to offer possession of flat within stipulated time—Complainant sought refund of amount paid—Developer acknowledged booking and issued allotment letter—Agreement stipulated possession within 36 months + 6 months grace period—Complainant paid part of the sale consideration—Delay in project completion due to a gas pipeline issue requiring revised plans and permissions—Occupancy Certificate obtained late—Complai India Law Library Docid # 2401684
(660) DR. H.B. M. PANTH Vs. ASKARI HUSSAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Medical Negligence Prima facie case of negligence established by complainants through pre-operative treatments and outcome of surgery. Onus shifts to medical establishment to prove no negligence. Circumstances suggest operational decisions were made in haste, ignoring ultrasound reports, leading to patient's condition. India Law Library Docid # 2401685