(321) HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR AND ALLIED SCIENCES Vs. SMT. MUNNI AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 20-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Medical Negligence — Standard of Proof — While medical negligence allegations are serious, proof must be beyond mere suspicion or probability. Expert opinions offering probabilities, without conclusive findings linking the outcome to specific negligent acts by the hospital, are insufficient to establish deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2418201
(322) M/S ATMA STEEL LIMITED Vs. HARVEER SINGH[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer dispute — Deficiency in service — Where a company fails to pay deposited money with accrued interest as promised, it constitutes a deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2418197
(323) JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAJESH VERMA AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 19-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24A Limitation Continuing cause of action If a developer fails to fulfill their obligations under an agreement, it constitutes a continuing cause of action, making the complaint not time-barred. India Law Library Docid # 2418203
(324) SHRIKRISHNA PANDITRAO DANVE Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Excessive Billing Calculation of Average Consumption District Commission directed electricity company to revise bills based on average consumption of 400 units per month from October 2004 to April 2012. India Law Library Docid # 2418202
(325) NPX TOWER OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. M/S. HI-LEAD INFOTECH PVT. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 UP Apartments Act, 2010 Applicability Not applicable to commercial complexes maintained as a single unit by the promoter. India Law Library Docid # 2418207
(326) UNION OF INDIA Vs. M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Insurance — Deficient Service — Contract of Indemnity — Insured is a Consumer — Repudiation of claim on grounds of late intimation and non-issuance of policy certificate — Advance premium deposited — Intimation letter signed by officer finalizing deal — Opposite party failed to deny authenticity of intimation letter and withheld best evidence — Adverse inference drawn — Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64VB — Risk assumed only on payment of premium — Policy terms and India Law Library Docid # 2418208
(327) DR. R.K. AGARWAL AND OTHERS Vs. SUMIT SRIVASTAVA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) & 2(1)(d) — Medical Negligence — Admission of appeal with delay — Delay of 89 days in filing appeal condoned due to reasons stated in application regarding translation of documents and engaging advocate. India Law Library Docid # 2418209
(328) AMARJEET B. MISHRA Vs. DR. PANJABRAO ALIAS BHAUSAHEB DESHMUKH MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE AMRAVATI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d) and Section 2(1)(e) — Consumer — Service — Consideration — Distinction between student and employee — A person availing services without consideration is not a consumer — Fees paid for educational courses are not consideration for medical treatment — Services rendered by an intern as part of their training, without any agreement for consideration between the hospital and intern, do not constitute consideration for medical services — Appeal dismissed India Law Library Docid # 2418210
(329) K. MURUGESAN Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) Consumer and Service Definitions Beneficiary of a Government scheme, which is provided free of charge and for a commercial purpose, is not considered a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. India Law Library Docid # 2418211
(330) ROBIN K. RODRIGUES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Motor Vehicles Act — Insurance Claim for Stolen Vehicle — Repudiation of claim by Insurance Company — Vehicle traced — Dispute over ownership and release by Criminal Court — Claim allowed by District Commission — Reversed by State Commission — Revision Petition filed by Complainant. India Law Library Docid # 2418212
(331) SHIV PRAKASH SINGH Vs. P.C.F. PRATAPGARH AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Paddy Purchase Policy — Procurement of paddy by government centres is subject to policies, requiring a minimum yield of 67% milled rice — Rejection of paddy that yields less than the prescribed percentage is not a deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2418213
(332) REGISTRAR, RAI UBIVERSITY Vs. PATEL RAMESHBHAI DHULABHAI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) "consumer", Section 2(1)(o) "service" — Education services — Held, educational institutions and services provided by them are not considered "services" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. India Law Library Docid # 2418204
(333) RAM CHANDER Vs. ADAMA INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Against State Commission order setting aside District Forum order allowing complaint of crop damage due to pesticides — Complainant failed to prove crop was intended for paddy nor followed usage instructions — No expert opinion or sample analysis produced — Farmers' crop failure can be due to various reasons, need reliable evidence for deficiency in service. India Law Library Docid # 2418205
(334) SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019 — Section 21(b) / 58(1)(b) — Revision Jurisdiction — Limited Scope — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is restricted to cases where State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is not warranted with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums unless there is illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error. India Law Library Docid # 2418206
(335) JITENDRA SHARMA Vs. MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE CO.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 19 — Appeal — Delay in filing — Condoned — Appeal filed with a 10-day delay was condoned on the grounds provided in the application. India Law Library Docid # 2418218
(336) SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. SURYAKANT TRIPATHI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 13-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revision Petition — Against dismissal of appeal by State Commission on ground of limitation — Delay in filing appeal — Condonation of delay — Not a matter of right — Appellant must show sufficient cause with detailed reasons — Summary procedure under consumer law emphasizes expedition — Petitioner failing to file copy of application for condonation of delay before State Commission despite opportunities — Specific dates and details of reason for del India Law Library Docid # 2426892
(337) TATA MOTORS LTD. Vs. HARPREET SINGH AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 12-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 58(1)(b) — Revision Petition — Scope — National Commission's revisional jurisdiction is limited to cases where the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise vested jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity — Interference is warranted only if findings are against law, pleadings, evidence, or are perverse — National Commission cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact by lower fora based on appreci India Law Library Docid # 2418217
(338) J.D. HERBALS AND OTHERS Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — Commercial Purpose — Loan availed for commercial venture without element of livelihood by self-employment does not make the borrower a "consumer". India Law Library Docid # 2418214
(339) JEEVAN LATA Vs. IIFCO TOKIO INSURANCE CO. LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisional Jurisdiction — Limited scope — National Commission cannot interfere with concurrent findings of facts by District Forum and State Commission unless there is patent illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error. India Law Library Docid # 2418215
(340) TATA MOTORS FINANCE LTD. Vs. DHARMENDER KUMAR YADAV AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 11-09-2024 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 21(b) — Revisionary jurisdiction of National Commission — Limited scope — Interference only if State Commission acted illegally or with material irregularity, or failed to exercise jurisdiction — Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums not to be disturbed unless perverse or against evidence. India Law Library Docid # 2418216