(101) CTR MANUFACTURING IND. LTD. THROUGH REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. MRUTYUNJAY PRASAD AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Interference by higher forum — Reassessment of evidence — Higher forum in revisional jurisdiction should not re-assess or re-appreciate evidence when lower forums have concurrent findings of fact — Interference is only justified if findings are perverse or lower forums acted without jurisdiction. India Law Library Docid # 2422859
(102) M/S OM SHRIM DEVELOPERS THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHERS Vs. BALVINDER SINGH NEEL AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Sufficient Cause — Appellants sought condonation of 541 days delay in filing appeal — Appellants claimed ignorance due to judicial custody of key personnel — Evidence showed execution of Vakalatnama by appellant no. 2 while in custody, indicating knowledge of proceedings — Bail order of another appellant also mentioned pendency of consumer complaint — Court found appellants' explanations to be incorrect and misleading, and not constitutin India Law Library Docid # 2422852
(103) PURAB D. SHAH Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Insurance — Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy — Claim for loss due to fire — Complainant's claim vs. Surveyor's assessment — Insurer paid part of claim, dispute over remaining amount — Owed balance amount with interest. India Law Library Docid # 2422853
(104) VIKAS CHANDRA MISHRA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Condonation — Delay of 22 days in filing the Revision Petition was condoned in the interest of justice. India Law Library Docid # 2422854
(105) DR. A.K. RAI Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay condoned — Parties referred to complaint before District Forum — Complainant vs. Opposite Party (Hospital/Doctor). India Law Library Docid # 2422855
(106) KARAN AHUJA Vs. BANK OF BARODA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Jurisdiction — National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. India Law Library Docid # 2422856
(107) SHO, GOVT. RAILWAY POLICE Vs. G. SAI KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(c), 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o) Complaint Consumer Service Law enforcement agencies like the Police Department, performing sovereign functions, are not service providers under the Act and thus consumer complaints are not maintainable against them for deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2422850
(108) ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER Vs. TUHIN KANTI CHOWDHURY[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 24A (Limitation) — Cause of Action — Condonation of Delay — The limitation period for filing a consumer complaint begins from when the deficiency in service occurred — However, if the deficiency is concealed or its consequences only become apparent later, the cause of action can be considered to arise from the date of such discovery — In this case, the fraudulent act of the bank manager was not immediately apparent to the complainant, and the consequences India Law Library Docid # 2422851
(109) ROHIT MITTAL AND OTHERS Vs. ANNA CHILD CARE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Medical Negligence — Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) — Standard of Care — Breach of Duty — Damage — Liability — Doctors and hospitals are liable for medical negligence if they fail to adhere to the standard of care required in treating premature babies for ROP, resulting in permanent damage to the child's vision. India Law Library Docid # 2422595
(110) JANKI SAHU Vs. POONARAM SAHU[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Consumer Disputes — Burden of Proof — Complainant failed to provide cogent evidence such as photographs, bills, or expert reports to substantiate claims of construction deficiencies and wastage of materials. India Law Library Docid # 2422596
(111) UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD AGRAWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Dismissal of appeal affirming District Forum order regarding theft of passenger luggage — Petitioner/OP (Railways) liability for deficiency in service — Stolen suitcase during train journey — Complainant alleging negligence of Railways and TTE — Railways denying liability and citing passenger's responsibility to secure belongings and declare valuables as per Railway Rules — District Forum awarded compensation for financial loss India Law Library Docid # 2422597
(112) SURENDRA HINDU SINGH BHATI AND ANOTHER Vs. AJAY CHANGANI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in service — Misappropriation of deposits — Society and its office bearers held jointly and severally liable to compensate depositors for maturity amounts, interest, damages, and legal expenses — District and State Commissions' orders upheld. India Law Library Docid # 2422593
(113) AIR AMBULANCE AVIATION AND ANOTHER Vs. GULNAZ BANO AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's revisional power is restricted to cases where State Commission or District Forum exercised jurisdiction not vested in them, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums based on evidence should not be interfered with unless there is patent illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error India Law Library Docid # 2422594
(114) AMAN HOSPITAL Vs. AMARJIT KAUR AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of revisional jurisdiction — Limited — Can only interfere if State Commission exercised jurisdiction not vested, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower fora which are on appreciation of evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2422588
(115) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S. AGARWAL STORES AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Insurance Claim — Fire Damage India Law Library Docid # 2422589
(116) AMIT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA, NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Delay in filing — Condonation — Delay of one day in filing the revision petition was condoned due to facts and circumstances. India Law Library Docid # 2422590
(117) MS VKG ASSOCIATES Vs. SMT. B.M. MALA AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope of interference by the High Court — High Court can interfere if there is an error of law or jurisdiction, not merely on factual findings. India Law Library Docid # 2422591
(118) DR. ABHAY YADAV AND OTHERS Vs. M/S. TRANCON-SHETH CREATORS PVT. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-01-2025 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21 — Consumer Complaint — Deficiency in service — Unfair trade practice — Builder-buyer agreement — Refund of deposited amount — Jurisdiction — Preliminary issues — Written statement — Rejoinder — Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 — Section 4 — Agreement for Sale — Loan arrangement — Cancellation notice — Earnest money — Administrative expenses — Delay interest — Litigation costs. India Law Library Docid # 2422592
(119) M/S. DHEERAJ ASSOCIATES HAVING PLACE OF OFFICE AT, NEHRU MARG, PUNE- MAHARASHTRA Vs. DR. DEEPAK SITARAM DESAI SITARAM DESAI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d)(i) — Consumer — Definition — Property purchased for commercial use or resale — Not for earning livelihood by self-employment — Such buyer is not consumer under the Act — Here, complainant resold the flat and purchased it for establishing a clinic, hence not a consumer. India Law Library Docid # 2420420
(120) M/S. NITESH COLOUR LAB Vs. M/S. JINDAL PHOTO FILM LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 26-11-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Definitions Consumer Commercial Purpose Self-employment exclusion Machine purchased for business with employees and large operational capacity signifies a commercial purpose, not self-employment for livelihood, thus disqualifying the purchaser as a consumer. India Law Library Docid # 2420421