(661) DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SRI DUNDAYYA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — NCDRC can set aside order of State Commission if it suffers from material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2401706
(662) VIJAYAN P. Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, SREE GOKULAM CHITS & FINANCE COMPANY (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Consumer Forum Jurisdiction — Chitty transactions — Pledge of chitties as security for another surety — Whether constitutes deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2401707
(663) RAJESHWARI DEVI GARG Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission can interfere only if State Commission exercised jurisdiction illegally, with material irregularity, or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2401708
(664) M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED Vs. RAJIV SHARMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope and Limitations — National Commission's revisional powers highly limited, exercisable only in cases of jurisdictional error, failure to exercise vested jurisdiction, or illegality/material irregularity in State Commission's order — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact from lower fora based on evidence appreciation, as held in Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd. India Law Library Docid # 2401709
(665) VIRENDER AGGARWAL Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Order of State Commission — Set aside — District Forum order upheld — Complaint allowed. India Law Library Docid # 2401710
(666) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. BIR DEI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act Revision Petition scope limited National Commission can only interfere if State Commission acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2401711
(667) DR. AJAY SHARDA Vs. RAKESH GULATI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-01-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Review of State Commission order — Appeal allowed by State Commission setting aside District Forum order — Revision petitions filed against State Commission order — Order decides revision petitions filed under Section 21(b) of the Act against State Commission order. India Law Library Docid # 2401712
(668) 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
(669) 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
(670) 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
(671) 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
(672) 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
(673) 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
(674) 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
(675) 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
(676) 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
(677) 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
(678) 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
(679) 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
(680) 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