(1) NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MR. ASHOK KUMAR[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 23-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 15 — Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — Appeal filed with a delay of 22 days — Appellant contended delay occurred due to obtaining legal opinions from Regional Office and senior counsel — Relying on Supreme Court precedent defining sufficient cause as absence of negligence or lack of bona fides, Commission held that satisfactory explanation was furnished by appellant — Delay of 22 days in filing the appeal was condoned. India Law Library Docid # 2453438
(2) BHARTENDU SOOD AND ANOTHER Vs. INDIAN RAILWAYS CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION (IRCTC) AND ANOTHER[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 22-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Enhancement of Compensation — Quantum and adequacy — Consumer fora are empowered to grant compensation that not only recompenses the affected consumer for mental agony, harassment, and hardship, but also deters deficient conduct by service providers — Compensation is not restricted to actual pecuniary loss and must have a reasonable nexus with the nature of the deficiency, conduct of the service provider, and time and expenses expended in litigation — Award of a meagre cons India Law Library Docid # 2453454
(3) M/S. CEMCON TRACK INDUSTRIES Vs. M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Insurance — Burglary Policy — Repudiation — Reasonable Precautions — Factory closed for months — Insured claimed massive loss of stock allegedly stolen over 2 to 3 months through multiple holes made in boundary walls — Insurer repudiated claim citing breach of policy condition requiring reasonable precautions — Deploying only a single security guard per shift for an inactive premises exceeding one acre held grossly inadequate — Failure to detect continuous theft and wall br India Law Library Docid # 2453226
(4) NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. MR. RAVINDER KUMAR GUPTA AND OTHERS[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 22-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12 — Health Insurance — Repudiation of claim — Non-supply of policy terms and conditions — Insurer repudiated claim invoking Exclusion Clause 4.9 regarding obesity — Insurer failed to establish delivery or communication of policy terms and conditions containing the exclusion clause to the insured — Insured had specifically communicated non-receipt of terms, acknowledged by insurer — Insurer cannot rely upon exclusionary clauses not supplied or communicated India Law Library Docid # 2453447
(5) M/S VIDYA SAGAR INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH & NEUROLOGY AND ANOTHER Vs. MS. RAJNI JASWANI AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Provisional Diagnosis and Co-existing Conditions — Patient diagnosed with spinal tuberculosis based on MRI findings indicating Koch's as prime consideration — Doctor performed debridement and extracted tissue for biopsy — Biopsy later revealed malignant cancer — Doctor continued anti-tubercular therapy in OPD reviews in absence of biopsy report — Held, debridement and tissue biopsy conformed to accepted medical practice — Tuberculosis India Law Library Docid # 2453234
(6) RANBIR SINGH Vs. TDI INFRASTRUCTURE[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 21-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of "Consumer" — Commercial purpose — Onus of proof — Complainant booked a residential plot and paid substantial booking amount — Opposite party contended that the complainant was an investor who acquired the plot for commercial gain and resale — Held, the burden of proving that the property was purchased for a commercial purpose rests squarely upon the developer — In the absence of cogent documentary evidence demonstrating that the com India Law Library Docid # 2453448
(7) PUNAM AGRAWAL Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 18-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Banking Service — Fixed Deposits — Premature withdrawal versus extension — Complainant requested conversion of term deposits prior to their maturity date to reinvest at a higher interest rate for 400 days — Bank deducted penal interest under Clause 10 of its Master Circular — Complainant claimed Clause 14 applied exempting penalty on extension — Held, Clause 14 applies only to extension beyond the original term, whereas liquidating deposits prematurely to reinvest afresh co India Law Library Docid # 2453439
(8) UDAY AGNIHOTRI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 17-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 72 — Execution of orders — Finality of decree — State Commission directed payment of insurance claim with interest, penal interest upon default, and litigation costs, which was affirmed in appeal by the National Commission — Failure of judgment debtors to satisfy the decree fully within the prescribed timeframe attracts enforcement proceedings — Incomplete compliance within the stipulated period keeps the liability alive and entitles the decree holder to r India Law Library Docid # 2453440
(9) VIKAS JAIN Vs. TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 17-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 12 and 15 — Sale of vehicle — Delay in registration certificate and CNG endorsement — Unfair trade practice — Complainant purchased a car delivered with a CNG kit, but issuance of the registration certificate was substantially delayed due to lack of requisite approvals for the CNG fitment — Opposite parties argued the car was originally a petrol variant and the kit was retrofitted upon request — Held, delivering a vehicle with CNG fitment causing registra India Law Library Docid # 2453449
(10) THE BRANCH MANAGER, APCO VEHICLE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. Vs. NARAYANAN V. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-09-2026 Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 — Regulation 14 — Limitation for filing Revision Petition — Period of limitation is ninety days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order — Impugned order received on 23.10.2025; statutory limitation expired on 20.01.2026 — Revision petitions filed on 01.09.2026 and 02.09.2026 resulted in a delay of 223 and 224 days respectively — Special limitation periods prescribed under consumer law are designed to achiev India Law Library Docid # 2453247
(11) C.E.O ALSTONE HOUSE Vs. PAYYANTAVIDE NASAR AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Consumer Protection — Condonation of Delay — "Explanation" versus "Excuse" — Discretionary power — Delay of 199 days in filing revision petition — Petitioners argued that State Commission took a hyper-technical view and that the case possessed strong prima facie merits — Held, condonation of delay is a discretionary power dependent on the sufficiency and acceptability of the cause shown, length of delay being immaterial — Strong case on merits cannot bypass lim India Law Library Docid # 2453248
(12) THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. M/S. M.V.R. INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 16-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Revisional Jurisdiction — Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact — Parameters under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited and exercisable only when the State Commission acts without jurisdiction, fails to exercise jurisdiction, or acts with material irregularity or illegality — Findings based on appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction unless wholly pervers India Law Library Docid # 2453249
(13) PUNEET SHARMA Vs. ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 16-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in service — Custody and retention of device — Complainant deposited mobile phone with service centre specifically for a vertical line on screen — Device subsequently reported as not turning on — Held, additional faults arose while handset was in custody of the service centre — Opposite Parties neither repaired the phone on payment basis nor returned it citing warranty expiry, retaining it indefinitely — Indefinite retention without resolution deprived India Law Library Docid # 2453441
(14) SUNIL KUMAR MALKANI Vs. M/S OMAXE LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) — Definition of "Consumer" — Commercial Purpose and Foreign Citizenship — Opposite Party contended that the complainant was an investor and a British citizen purchasing for commercial gain — Held, the burden lies upon the developer to establish through documentary evidence that the purchaser is engaged in the regular business of buying and selling flats for profit — Mere bald assertion or the foreign citizenship of the purchaser does not exclude th India Law Library Docid # 2453450
(15) RAJESH KUMAR GOYAL Vs. M/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Complaint dismissed in default — Non-appearance of complainant and counsel — Ground of inadvertent error — Complainant's counsel inadvertently noted the next date of hearing in his case diary as 17.07.2023 instead of 12.04.2023, resulting in dismissal in default by District Commission — Diary extract placed on record — Held, absence was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to a bona fide mistake — In the interest of justice, complainant ought to be India Law Library Docid # 2453451
(16) RAHUL MANN Vs. M/S. EXPRESS PROJECT PVT. LTD.[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 15-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(11) — Deficiency in service — Real estate — Allotment of subject plot to third party pendente lite — Complainant paid substantial consideration, but possession was delayed beyond the agreed period of 36 months — Developer arbitrarily cancelled allotment and transferred the plot to a third party during the pendency of the complaint — Held, developer committed deficiency in service — Developer ought to have waited for the disposal of the complaint before c India Law Library Docid # 2453452
(17) RAKESH KUMAR UTPAL Vs. BLK SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND OTHERS[DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 34 & First Appeal — Medical Negligence — Burden of Proof — Onus on complainant — Reliance on expert evidence — Appellant alleged medical negligence, improper monitoring of vitals, and delayed treatment causing coma and subsequent death of his wife — Held, the burden of proving medical negligence lies on the claimant and must be established through cogent evidence — Mere allegations denied by the opposite party do not constitute proof — Appellant failed to India Law Library Docid # 2453453
(18) MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. ZAKIR KHAN AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Limitation — Condonation of Delay — "Sufficient Cause" — Distinction between Explanation and Excuse — Appeal filed with delay of 252 days on ground of frequent changes in legal officers and delay in formulating strategy — Held, movement of files between legal officers or internal administrative inaction does not constitute sufficient cause — Indecision or incompetence of internal officers cannot justify delay — Following Supreme Court precedent, the reason proffer India Law Library Docid # 2453227
(19) SULTAN SINGH Vs. AGRICULTURE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 14-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Crop Insurance — National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) — Claim calculation — Complainant farmer sought compensation for potato crop loss — District Commission awarded compensation based on complainant's loan amount rather than scheme provisions — Held, claims under NAIS must be determined strictly in accordance with the prescribed formula based on shortfall between threshold yield and actual yield — Adjudicating forums cannot bypass the contractual methodology of th India Law Library Docid # 2453250
(20) SANJAY DUTT SHARMA Vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Telecommunication Services — Lifetime Validity Scheme — Disconnection of mobile connection — Complainant alleged mobile number was wrongfully disconnected despite paying for lifetime validity — Service provider contended scheme carried validity of 999 days requiring recharge under Telecommunication Tariff Order, 1999 — District Commission ordered restoration of connection and nominal damages of five thousand rupees — Complainant failed to produce any documentary e India Law Library Docid # 2453228