(961) JATIN JAIN Vs. ADANI M2K PROJECTS LLP & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Delay in Possession — Developer agreed to complete construction within 48 months from agreement date with a six-month grace period, making the due date for possession April 25, 2018 — Developer completed construction on July 20, 2017, but possession was offered on February 16, 2019, after obtaining an occupation certificate on February 12, 2019 — Court ruled that possession was offered with reasonable delay and not a deficiency in service, India Law Library Docid # 1882182
(962) AMBILY MENON & ANOTHER Vs. M/S. BPTP LTD. & 3 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in Service — Delay in Possession — Developer agreed to deliver possession of a flat within 36 months from the execution of the agreement, with a grace period of 180 days — Developer failed to deliver possession within the stipulated period and also failed to obtain an occupancy certificate — This constitutes a deficiency in service as home buyers cannot be made to wait for possession indefinitely. India Law Library Docid # 1882187
(963) SHEEL DEV YADAV Vs. M/S. BPTP LTD. AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Real Estate — Delay in Possession — Project Delayed — Developer offered possession after obtaining Occupation Certificate — Buyer obligated to take possession as per agreement — Previous Commission judgment citing different possession period disregarded due to overlooking contractual clause for grace period and buyer's obligations — Buyer's claim for refund with exaggerated interest rejected. India Law Library Docid # 1882201
(964) UMIYA HABITAT CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. M/S. UMIYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12, 21 — Deficiency in Service — Constructional Defects — Home buyers formed a co-operative society and filed a complaint alleging various constructional defects and deficiencies in service by the developer. — Developer obtained completion and occupation certificates from statutory authorities. — Home buyers did not raise objections at the time of taking possession. — Report from an independent engineer was filed, but the engineer's affidavit was not submi India Law Library Docid # 1882242
(965) ANIL MILKHIRAM GOYEL AND ANOTHER Vs. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED (HSBC) [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Bank's actions regarding KYC updates, account freeze, and CIBIL status — Complainants' joint savings account frozen due to alleged non-compliance with KYC norms, despite evidence of prior updates — Dishonor of cheques despite sufficient funds — Reopening of previously settled loan accounts — Bank's inconsistent stand and failure to provide crucial documents — Held, bank's actions unjustified, negligent, and amounted to deficiency in service India Law Library Docid # 1603341
(966) LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. UMA BAI DHANKAR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Group Personal Accident Policy — Accidental Death — Insurer's repudiation of claim — Burden of proof — Exclusion clause interpretation — Policy terms ambiguity. India Law Library Docid # 2415669
(967) AAKUP KHAN S/O SHRI AJMAT KHAN Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. & 2 OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Insurance claim — Vehicle accident — District Forum awarded compensation based on Complainant's submission about surveyor's assessment. State Commission reduced award based on surveyor's report filed at final argument stage. Court upheld State Commission's order, noting surveyor's report requires due weight and Complainant failed to provide contrary evidence. India Law Library Docid # 1882180
(968) ARMY WELFARE HOUSING ORGANISATION Vs. CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Maintainability of Complaint — Plea that Complainant is not a 'Consumer' under Section 2(1)(d) is rejected as the dispute pertains to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices related to land allotment and enhanced compensation. India Law Library Docid # 1882188
(969) VISHWANATH GANGADHAR PATANKAR Vs. AVADHOOT GAS AGENCY AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction of Consumer Commission — State Commission set aside District Forum order allowing consumer complaint against gas agency for deficiency in service — Highlighting that State Commission failed to address specific issue of gas agency refusing bookings — Issue of gas agency not accepting bookings found to be deficiency in service — State Commission's reliance on controlling authority's directions not justification for re India Law Library Docid # 1882212
(970) M/S. BHAGAT FORD Vs. GURDARSHAN SINGH DHILLON [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission can intervene only if lower forums wrongly exercised jurisdiction or there was miscarriage of justice — Concurrent findings of fact by District Forum and State Commission not to be re-appreciated unless jurisdictional error is shown. India Law Library Docid # 1882369
(971) CONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH SOCIETY SURAKSHA SANKOOL Vs. DR. RAJESH GANDHI [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act — Medical Negligence — Res Ipsa Loquitor — Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor — Application — Unexplained death of a young patient post-minor surgery — Prima facie evidence of negligence — Doctrine applicable when unexplained event points to negligence. India Law Library Docid # 1882371
(972) AJITH THOMAS ABRAHAM AJITH THOMAS ABRAHAM, 65, MONTIETH ROAD, EGAMORE Vs. CHERUKAT VIJAYAKUMAR AND OTHERRS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ] 07-06-2023 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 14(1)(a) — Moratorium — Corporate Debtor vs. Directors — A moratorium imposed against a company under Section 14 of the IBC does not prevent execution proceedings against its directors, who may be personally liable. India Law Library Docid # 1882362
(973) PHILIPS THOMAS & OTHERS Vs. DEEN HOSPITAL & OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Scope of — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Every death during treatment or surgery does not automatically imply negligence by medical professionals. The party alleging negligence must provide material evidence to support the claim. India Law Library Docid # 1881909
(974) AASHUTOSH PRAMOD SRIVASTAVA & ANOTHER Vs. DR. RAHUL PATIL & ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21 Medical Negligence Burden of Proof Complainants failed to prove allegations of medical negligence against the Opposite Parties, thus the complaint was dismissed. India Law Library Docid # 1882181
(975) LIFELINE LABORATORY AND OTHERS Vs. ANJANAAGRAWAL AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 51 Appeal against State Commission order Delay in filing appeal Condoned due to reasons stated. India Law Library Docid # 1882207
(976) METRO HOSPITAL AND HEART INSTITUTE Vs. DR. OM PRAKASH AGARWAL AND OTHERS [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 06-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Causation — Foreign Object — Complainant alleged foreign objects left during surgery, causing pain years later. Court examined CT scans and found no convincing evidence of a surgical needle, noting sharp needles would likely cause early symptoms. India Law Library Docid # 1882226
(977) MANAGER, SUMITRA D. S. MOTORS @ SUMITRA D.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJIV GUPTA @ RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Vehicle purchased for commercial purposes, like running as a taxi with multiple drivers, does not qualify as a consumer under the Act — Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence that the vehicle was registered as commercial or was used for profit-making activities rather than personal livelihood. India Law Library Docid # 1873470
(978) MANAGER, SUMITRA D. S. MOTORS @ SUMITRA D.S. MOTORS PVT. LTD. Vs. RAJIV GUPTA @ RAJIV KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 13, 21(b) — Manufacturing Defect — Expert Opinion — Procedure for testing defects — Lower forums erred in concluding manufacturing defect without expert opinion as mandated by Section 13 of the Act and without establishing a link between the mechanic's opinion on engine heating and the alleged defect in suspension. India Law Library Docid # 1877403
(979) DEPARTMENT OF POST AND OTHERS Vs. COLONEL NARENDRA NATH SURI (RETD.) [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 05-06-2023 Consumer Protection Law — Liability of Post Office — Misappropriation of funds — Post office held liable for misappropriation of funds from recurring deposit account due to actions of its agent opening a fake savings account and withdrawing money based on forged documents and in connivance with officials. India Law Library Docid # 1882221
(980) DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NORTHERN RAILWAY AND OTHERS Vs. BIRENDERA KUMAR PASWAN [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-06-2023 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Unfair Trade Practice — Consumer Rights — Railways — Tickets — Penalty imposed for not producing 'original' ticket at journey's end, despite pre-paid reserved tickets being presented and no issues during journey or boarding — Consumer forums finding this to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice — Reconsideration of penalty amount. India Law Library Docid # 1882224