(721) DR. ADIT DEY - PETITIONER Vs. SRI DURGA CHARAN SHEE AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional jurisdiction of National Commission is limited — Can only interfere if State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Concurrent findings on appreciation of evidence by lower fora cannot be interfered with. India Law Library Docid # 2401418
(722) RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BALBIR KAUR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — Scope — Limited — Exerciseable only in case of jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction — State Commission's order requiring interference only if prima facie jurisdictional error is apparent. India Law Library Docid # 2401232
(723) CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIA AIRLINES & 2 OTHERS Vs. C.V. JOSEPH, MANAGER (RETIRED) SYNDICATE BANK, & 3 OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision against State Commission order — Delay in filing revision petition — Condonation of delay — Allowed in the interest of justice due to cross revision petitions being considered on merits and common issues. India Law Library Docid # 2401231
(724) CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIA AIRLINES AND OTHERS –PETITIONER Vs. C.V. JOSEPH, MANAGER (RETIRED) SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS – RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 21(b), 2(r), 14(1)(c) & (d) — Revision Petitions against State Commission's order — Merger of Revision Petitions for common adjudication — Delay in filing Revision Petition condoned in the interest of justice due to cross Rps being taken up on merits and common issues — Order of District Forum allowing complaint modified by State Commission increasing compensation — OPs challenged State Commission's order for setting aside, Complainants sought enhancement India Law Library Docid # 2401416
(725) CHANDRASHEKHAR EXPORTS PVT. LTD. - PETITIONER Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. - RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 19 & 21 — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has the power to entertain revision petitions against orders passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions. India Law Library Docid # 2401419
(726) SATNAM SINGH Vs. AEGON RELIGARE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) not to interfere with the findings of facts of the lower fora unless perverse or based on no evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2401420
(727) CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIA AIRLINES AND OTHER – PETITIONER Vs. C.V. JOSEPH, MANAGER (RETIRED) SYNDICATE BANK, AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT(S)[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — Powers of revision against State Commission's order — Scope limited to material irregularities or non-compliance with law — Not an appellate forum. India Law Library Docid # 2401421
(728) GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY - PETITIONER(S) Vs. HIMANSHU BOHRA - RESPONDENT(S)[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revisionary Jurisdiction — National Commission's power to interfere with concurrent findings of forums is limited — Interference is permissible only in cases of patent illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error — Re-appreciation of evidence or challenging concurrent findings on already raised grounds does not warrant interference. India Law Library Docid # 2401412
(729) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - PETITIONER Vs. HEMA AGARWAL AND ANOTHER - RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay — Condonation of delay justified due to office shifting and procedural steps, despite clerical errors in application — Delay of 580 days condoned with costs of Rs. 1.00 lakh. India Law Library Docid # 2401413
(730) LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA - PETITIONER Vs. GUDIYA DEVI - RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-12-2023 Limitation — Condonation of Delay — Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (or relevant earlier Act) — Revision Petition — Petitioner sought condonation of delay of 157 days in filing Revision Petition against State Commission's order — Grounds cited included processing delays, obtaining necessary documents (FIR, Charge-Sheet), and translation issues — Commission analyzed principles for condonation of delay based on Supreme Court judgments in Basawaraj, Esha Bhattacharjee, Office of the Chief Post Master India Law Library Docid # 2401414
(731) M/S. EICHER MOTORS LTD. – PETITIONER Vs. AVINASH SHETYE AND ANOTHER – RESPONDENT[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — Highlighting that the present Commission is not a appellate forum but a revisional forum, which means it can only interfere with the order of the lower forum if it is illegal, irregular, or improper, and not on the basis of factual disputes unless there is a perversity. India Law Library Docid # 2401415
(732) PRAGATI PAPERS INDUSTRIES KALAAMB DISTT.SIRMOUR H.P. THR M.D. AND OTHERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. THR BRANCH MANAGER NARAINGARH DISTT.AMBALA AND OTHERS[HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Complaint — Dismissal of — Insurance claim — Flood loss alleging — Court found no evidence of flood in the locality on the day of the alleged incident — Valuation report invalid due to lack of evidence — Insurance company's surveyor report stating no flood confirmed — District Consumer Commission's order directing payment set aside. India Law Library Docid # 2400974
(733) SMT. SONALI CHATTERJEE W/O SRI JAYANTA CHATTERJEE Vs. MRS. SUMITRA HALDER AND OTHERS[WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, Section 17(1)(a)(i) — Deficiency in Service — Joint Venture Agreement — Landowner and Developer Agreement — Developer's Obligation to Construct and Hand Over Flat — Complaint for Refund of Earnest Money — Developer's Rights under Agreement — Buyer's Payment of Earnest Money as per Agreement — Delayed Construction — Death of Developer — Legal Heirs' Liability — Consumer Forum's Role in Redressal. India Law Library Docid # 2401004
(734) SRI SHANKAR LAL RAJGARIA AND OTHERS Vs. THE MISSION HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-12-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24A Limitation Complaint filed after the statutory period of two years from the date of cause of action without a condonation petition is not maintainable. India Law Library Docid # 2401005
(735) MAKEMY TRIP (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED Vs. MR. SHANKAR JINDAL AND ANOTHER[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in Service — Online Travel Agent Liability — An online travel agent is not absolved of responsibility when a flight booked through its platform is cancelled, and it should assist customers in such situations rather than merely directing them to the airline. India Law Library Docid # 2400962
(736) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SH. KHEM RAJ PAINULI[UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal against District Consumer Forum's order — Insurance claim — Vehicle damage due to falling stone — Insurance company repudiated claim due to lack of valid fitness certificate at the time of accident — District Forum allowed the complaint — Appeal filed by insurance company. India Law Library Docid # 2401002
(737) M/S. ENGINEERS INDIA LIMITED Vs. PT. ASURANSI MITSUI SUMITOMO, INDONESIA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023 Insurance Law Marine Cargo Insurance Institute Cargo Clauses (A) Coverage for damage during transit Admissibility of repair costs vs. consequential losses Interpretation of policy exclusions for delay. India Law Library Docid # 2400942
(738) DR. D. J. DE SOUZA Vs. THE MANAGER[GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Freezing of Account and Blocking of Debit Card Bank's actions were genuine and system-operated due to multiple customer IDs and suspected fraud attempts, not a deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2400970
(739) THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ICICI BANK TOWER Vs. HASINA RIZWAN SHAIKH[GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Appeal against District Forum's order — Insurance claim — Car fire — Exclusion clauses — Insurer's repudiation based on electrical failure excluded by policy terms — Complainant's argument on admissibility of investigator's report and explanation of policy terms — Court's assessment based on panchnama, police report, and FSL report — surveyor's assessment accepted due to lack of cross-examination — Modification of District Forum's order to reflect sur India Law Library Docid # 2400972
(740) DOLE RAM S/O SH. SURTA Vs. THE H.P. STATE CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND OTHERS[HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 30-11-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance — Property Damage — Repudiation of claim — Denial of claim on ground of misrepresentation of property usage (residential vs. commercial) — Insurance company estopped from raising this issue when its agent and bank officials inspected the property before issuing the policy and verified documents — Subsequent objection loses significance, especially when claim is for dwelling house damage — Insurance company cannot repudiate the claim after accepting premi India Law Library Docid # 2400987