(681) EASTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER Vs. NAUSHAD KHAN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Applicability — Consumer dispute — Theft of luggage in train — Whether deficiency in service — Held, deficiency in service arises if Railway fails to provide safety and security to passengers and their belongings, despite collecting charges. India Law Library Docid # 2415672
(682) M/S. EMTEX MACHINERY PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. M.I.C ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — State Commission reduced compensation and affirmed rest of District Forum order — Petitioner filed revision petition arguing inadequacy of evidence for manufacturing defect. India Law Library Docid # 2415673
(683) PARAS HOSPITAL Vs. RISHI KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Limited Jurisdiction — Concurrent findings of fact by lower fora require respect in revision unless shown to be erroneous or based on misinterpretation of law or evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2415674
(684) GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. VIJAY GAUTAM[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Allotment of Plot Cancellation Delay in payment of installments and transfer fee by allottee Authority justified in cancelling allotment after issuing notice and providing opportunities. India Law Library Docid # 2415644
(685) MR. HARIKISHAN S. VIRMANI AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. VAIDEHI AKASH HOUSING PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 69 Limitation Period Complaint not admitted if filed beyond two years from cause of action, unless sufficient cause shown for delay. India Law Library Docid # 2415645
(686) BHARAT S. SHAH AND ANOTHER Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Order of State Commission set aside — Order of District Forum restored. India Law Library Docid # 2415646
(687) DR. NILESH Vs. RACHNA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Consumer Definition Medical expenses Compensation for medical expenses incurred by a father for his daughter's treatment Daughter is the consumer as she availed medical services Father is not a consumer in this context Compensation for expenses should be claimed by the daughter. India Law Library Docid # 2415647
(688) SHYAM KUMAR Vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 11(2) — Territorial Jurisdiction — Interpretation of — Complaint maintainable in district where opposite party carries on business or has a branch office, or where cause of action arose, wholly or in part — National telecom provider with nationwide presence — Complainant, an army personnel posted in a particular location — Significant hardship to pursue complaint in distant jurisdiction — Convenience of complainant considered for substantial justice. India Law Library Docid # 2415648
(689) ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MS. ANITA DAHIYA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-06-2024 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 — SECTION 58(1)(b) — REVISION PETITION — SCOPE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION — REVISIONAL JURISDICTION IS LIMITED AND EXERCISED ONLY WHEN STATE COMMISSION ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION, FAILED TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OR ACTED ILLEGALLY/MATERIALLY IRREGULARLY — CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF FACT BY FORUMS BELOW NOT TO BE INTERFERED WITH UNLESS WHOLLY PERVERSE OR AGAINST LAW/PLeadings/EVIDENCE. India Law Library Docid # 2415649
(690) MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS Vs. HENRY D'SOUZA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-06-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Appeal against State Commission order — Consumer complaint regarding vehicle defects — Petitioner challenged orders of State and District Commissions upholding the complaint. India Law Library Docid # 2415650
(691) TATA MOTORS LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMKUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Limited Jurisdiction — The National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is very limited and should only be exercised when the State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2415651
(692) AJAY KUMAR JAYASWAL AND OTHERS Vs. FUTURE GENERALI INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Revisionary Jurisdiction Scope is limited to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2415652
(693) RANDHIR SINGH Vs. M/S. MAHARAJAAUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — Revision petition filed against State Commission's order modifying District Forum's order — Issue whether defects in car constituted manufacturing defects — Court examined pleadings, documentary evidence and orders of both fora. India Law Library Docid # 2415653
(694) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER Vs. JAI KISHAN SHARMA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 31-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Powers of National Commission are limited and exerciseable only when State Commission has acted illegally or with material irregularity or failed to exercise vested jurisdiction — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact. India Law Library Docid # 2415654
(695) THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING FEDERATION LTD. Vs. MAJOR BHARGAVA R.D.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(42) — Definition of "Service" — Housing Construction — Development of a layout for residential plots falls under the ambit of "housing construction" and therefore constitutes "service" as defined by the Act. India Law Library Docid # 2415364
(696) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. POLISETTY ANUPAMA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Revisional Jurisdiction Scope National Commission's power is limited and cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission unless there's a jurisdictional error or material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 2415365
(697) AJAY KUMAR ANANT PRASAD Vs. APOLLO HOSPITAL GROUP AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Medical Negligence — Complainant seeking compensation for alleged incorrect HIV test report leading to job loss — Hospitals and laboratories followed national guidelines for HIV testing, including confirmatory tests — Kuwaiti government norms considered, where borderline cases were deemed unfit — complainant's subsequent negative tests did not prove initial negligence by respondents — No deficiency in service found as per established guidel India Law Library Docid # 2415366
(698) M/S RAJ GINNING INDUSTRIES Vs. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-05-2024 Insurance — Claim settlement — Discharge voucher — Acceptance of payment under protest — Company accepted settlement amounts from two insurance companies and signed discharge vouchers. However, 10-15 days later, the company sent letters of protest, stating the amounts were accepted under protest due to fear of harsh action from the bank. The court held that the protest letters were sent after the vouchers were voluntarily signed and amounts were credited. There was no evidence of coercion, dures India Law Library Docid # 2415367
(699) RAJWINDER SINGH Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-05-2024 Insurance Law — Accidental Dismemberment Policy — Coverage — Complainant suffered loss of middle and ring fingers, claimed compensation under policy — Insurer paid Rs. 30,000 for "Weekly Indemnity" but denied further claim arguing policy covered only "Accidental Death & Dismemberment" and specifically listed thumb and index finger loss under "Dismemberment," not middle or ring fingers — Complainant argued entitlement under "Permanent Total Loss of Use" clause which was not opted for or paid prem India Law Library Docid # 2415368
(700) CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. ABHAY KUMAR JAIN[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-05-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Bank's liability for loss of locker contents Bank as bailee Bank responsible for safekeeping of contents Deficiency in service for not providing adequate security. India Law Library Docid # 2415369