(881) CHOTANAGPUR GRAPHITE (P) LTD. Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 28-08-2023 Insurance Law — Interpretation of Policy Terms — Accident Outside Policy Cover — Overturning risk explicitly excluded in policy, unless additional premium paid. India Law Library Docid # 1882304
(882) JAIMANTI DEVI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD VIBHUTIKHAND [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 11, Section 17(2) — Territorial Jurisdiction — Complaint filed in District Forum where Respondent has a branch office — Amended Section 17(2) requires cause of action to arise in the jurisdiction of the Forum — Supreme Court interpreted "Branch Office" in amended section to mean branch office where cause of action arose, to avoid absurd consequences — Interpretation of "Branch Office" to mean where cause of action arose is necessary to prevent forum shoppi India Law Library Docid # 1882321
(883) MANAGER, SREI PARIBAS, SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. K.A. HANUMESH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 25-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Appeal against State Commission order upholding District Forum order — Dismissal of appeal by State Commission without detailed consideration of evidence and maintainability issues — OPs (Petitioners) argued that the matter was commercial and complainant was not a consumer, and that repossession was lawful as per agreement — Court considered both sides' arguments, including complainant's admission of default and OPs' failure to India Law Library Docid # 1882331
(884) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. BALBIR SINGH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition against State Commission's order — Grounds for challenge — Delay in intimation of theft to insurance company — Policy clause regarding notice to insurance company distinguished for accidental loss versus theft — Theft requires immediate notice to police and cooperation in securing conviction, not necessarily immediate notice to the insurance company unless for accidental loss. India Law Library Docid # 1882115
(885) VINEET RUIA AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. GEETA GANESH PROMOTERS PVT. LTD. [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-08-2023 Jurisdiction Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Complaint dismissed as reliefs sought were pending before the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in a civil suit. India Law Library Docid # 1882119
(886) CLOUDTAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Sale of Pressure Cookers without BIS Mark Domestic Pressure Cooker (Quality Control) Order, 2020 Mandatory conformity to Indian Standard IS 2347:2017 Enforcement date February 01, 2021 Sale of 1033 pressure cookers after enforcement date without BIS mark Contravention of Order Defect as per Section 2(10) of the Act Violation of consumer rights Central Consumer Protection Authority's power to recall and impose penalty Appeal dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 1882305
(887) BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs. BANWARI LAL GUPTA [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited scope — Powers to be exercised only if State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — No such infirmity found in State Commission's order, hence upheld. India Law Library Docid # 1882309
(888) DR. AJAY SINGH PUNDEER AND ANOTHER Vs. SHAMSHER SINGH AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope — Limited to jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity — National Commission cannot re-examine evidence or merits extensively when State Commission's order is well-reasoned. India Law Library Docid # 1882248
(889) M/S. AMBIKA LAND DEVELOPERS Vs. SHRI RAJPAL LAXMAN RAUT [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(r) — Consumer — Commercial purpose — Plot booking — Number of plots is not decisive, purpose of booking is decisive — No evidence produced by appellant to prove plots were booked for commercial purpose — Respondents not proved to be engaged in buying and selling plots — Complainants are consumers. India Law Library Docid # 1882256
(890) ESAF SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD TOWN BRANCH DPO ROAD PALAKKAD KERALA Vs. UBAID AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Deficiency in Service Unfair Trade Practice Manufacturer, dealer, and service center failing to repair a vehicle within the warranty period, rendering it useless, constitutes a deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 1882261
(891) ROHAN KAKKAR AND OTHERS Vs. IREO GRACE REALTECH PRIVATE LIMITED [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Relevant sections for refund, compensation and costs — Allotment of flats and execution of buyer's agreements by the opposite party — Complaint filed for refund, compensation for mental agony and harassment, and litigation costs. India Law Library Docid # 1882282
(892) CHAIRMAN, BELGAUM POSTAL & RMS DN. CO-OP CR. SCT LTD AND ANOTHER Vs. SHIVANAND SHIVABASAPPA KADAKOL AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Jurisdiction Cooperative Societies A cooperative credit society providing banking services to its members is a service provider, and its members are consumers, making complaints maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. India Law Library Docid # 1882302
(893) M/S. SHRIRAM CHITS (MAHARASHTRA) LTD. Vs. SHEFALI [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — National Commission's power to interfere with concurrent findings of lower forums is limited. It can only intervene if the State Commission has acted beyond its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity. India Law Library Docid # 1882284
(894) JASIBEN GOVINDBHAI MAKWANA Vs. AVIVA LIFE INSURANCE CO. INDIA LTD. [GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 12, 14 Deficiency in Service Insurance Claim Repudiation Non-disclosure of Material Facts Life Insurance Policy Contract of Utmost Good Faith Materiality of Facts Fraudulent Intent Sections 45 of the Insurance Act, 1938 Dishonest Intent Evidence Burden of Proof. India Law Library Docid # 1882301
(895) MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FARM DIVISION Vs. SUMIT KUMAR AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 18-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary powers of National Commission — Scope is limited to jurisdictional error, failure to exercise jurisdiction, or illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction — National Commission should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower Fora unless such findings are perverse or based on no evidence. India Law Library Docid # 1882329
(896) BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. MACHERLA KISHORE KUMAR [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 13(4) — Deficiency in Service — Repudiation of Insurance Claim — Admissibility of Documentary Evidence — Consumer forums are not bound by strict rules of Evidence Act and can rely on unauthenticated documents, but credibility must be assessed — Failure to formally prove crucial documents like investigator's report and hospital records through examination of witnesses led to repudiation being unsubstantiated. India Law Library Docid # 1882280
(897) SATISH ESTATES PVT. LTD. Vs. GULSHAN RAI [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-08-2023 Consumer Protection — Deficiency in service — Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) — Developer's obligation to deliver possession or refund deposit with interest — Developer's failure to deliver possession of a plot within a reasonable time as per agreement, despite buyer making substantial payment — Developer's claim of forfeiture of deposit due to buyer's default in payment is questionable without proper demand notice — State Commission's order directing possession or refund with in India Law Library Docid # 1882283
(898) STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR Vs. VIPIN KUMAR AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Revision Petition — Scope of — Limited — Powers only to be exercised if there is prima facie jurisdictional error in impugned order — State Commission's order upheld as no infirmity, material irregularity or jurisdictional error found. India Law Library Docid # 1882285
(899) CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. KARNIAL SINGH [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r) — Deficiency in service and Unfair trade practice — Default in payment by allottee — Obligation of housing authority to allot or refund promptly — Non-cancellation of allotment despite default and continued issuance of show-cause notices — Allottee's plea that multiplying interest made payment impossible — Held, the housing authority's inaction in cancelling the allotment when it was a duty to do so amounts to deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 1882303
(900) M/S. BPTP LTD. Vs. AROOP KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-08-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Failure to refund amount with agreed interest. Complainant booked a flat and paid a significant amount. Developer failed to start construction within the promised timeframe. Developer promised refund with 9% interest via email. Developer later refunded an amount with a deduction without explanation. Flat buyer's agreement did not allow for such deductions. Developer's actions constituted deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 1882308