(861) MUNICIPAL COUNCIL JALORE AND OTHERS Vs. ALLAHBUX AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Revisionary powers of National Commission — Scope is limited — Can be exercised only if there is a prima facie jurisdictional error, or if the State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Concurrent findings of fact by lower Fora should generally not be interfered with. India Law Library Docid # 2418427
(862) ASHWINDER KAUR AND OTHER Vs. OMAXE CHANDIGARH EXTENSION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Incomplete Construction — Claim for Commitment Charges — Where complainants made full payment after receiving offer of possession and failed to provide cogent documentary proof of incomplete construction, their claim for commitment charges beyond offer of possession is not tenable. India Law Library Docid # 2402597
(863) YES BANK LIMITED Vs. SHASHI KUMAR AND OTHER[CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.] 15-02-2024 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Bank's responsibility — Bank hired courier services not the complainant — Bank is liable for loss of cheque by courier — Mere loss of cheque does not prevent filing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act using copies of documents, but bank cannot be absolved of deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2402598
(864) BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD Vs. MRS. KIRAN SINGH[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction of Consumer Courts Power Bills Consumer courts cannot entertain complaints against power bills assessed under the Electricity Act. India Law Library Docid # 2402600
(865) MR. SATISH KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. RAMA PALACES AND RESORTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Deficiency in Service — Definition — Fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in quality, nature, or manner of performance of service undertaken by contract — Failure to deliver possession of property within stipulated period constitutes deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2402601
(866) MR. RAJESH MALIK AND OTHER Vs. RUDRA BUILD WELL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-02-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A — Limitation Period — Failure to deliver possession of flat is a continuous wrong and constitutes a recurrent cause of action — Complainants can approach consumer courts as long as possession is not delivered. India Law Library Docid # 2402602
(867) 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
(868) 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
(869) 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
(870) 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
(871) 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
(872) 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
(873) 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
(874) 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
(875) 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
(876) 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
(877) 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
(878) 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
(879) 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
(880) 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