(21) ARNAB BHATTACHARJEE Vs. SAFDARJUNG SPORTS INJURY CENTER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 10-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(o) and 21(a)(i) — Medical negligence — Maintainability of complaint — Free treatment at Government Hospital — Status of patient as consumer — Opposite Party, a Government Hospital, rendered treatment completely free of cost — Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha held that hospitals rendering services free of charge to everybody without exception stand excluded from the ambit of service under Section 2(1)(o) — In the ab India Law Library Docid # 2453229
(22) M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LIMITED Vs. SMT. CHANCHLA KUMARI[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Loan and Hypothecation — Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice — Forcible repossession of financed vehicle — Financier seized complainant's vehicle citing outstanding loan defaults concerning a separate vehicle owned by her husband — Husband was neither a co-borrower nor a guarantor for complainant's loan — Vehicle was seized without proper notice or legal justification — Held, seizing a borrower's hypothecated asset to recover dues owed by a third party India Law Library Docid # 2453230
(23) GOLDEN HOME DEVELOPERS Vs. ANKUR ROY CHOUDHURY AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 09-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) and Section 19 — Housing construction — Delay in possession and execution of conveyance deed — Contractual obligation — Entire consideration and registration charges paid by complainants — Developer delayed possession and failed to execute Deed of Conveyance, attributing delay to municipal sanctions and an injunction in a civil suit — Held, delayed plan sanctions and civil court injunctions do not absolve the developer of its contractual obligation India Law Library Docid # 2453231
(24) SUBHANKAR BHATTACHARJEE AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 08-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Agreement for Sale — Plea of refund and cancellation — Burden of proof — Complainants paid part consideration for purchase of a flat — Developer contended that the agreement was cancelled upon refund of Rs. 6,00,000/- via cheques issued by a third party — State Commission placed negative burden on complainants — Held, State Commission erred in shifting the negative burden of proof — The onus to prove that payments made by a stranger to the contract constituted refund of sal India Law Library Docid # 2453232
(25) SHREYA DEVELOPVELL PVT.LTD. Vs. RADHA AGARWAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Revision Petition — Condonation of Delay — Reported delay of 1106 days — Petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of ex-parte impugned order until recovery proceedings were initiated — Explanation held vague and unconvincing in the absence of supporting documents from recovery authorities — Despite repeated opportunities, Petitioner failed to file a better affidavit substantiating the date of knowledge — No sufficient cause shown — Application for condonation of delay India Law Library Docid # 2453233
(26) M/S. MAHAVIR CONSTRUCTIONS Vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) — Insurance — Repudiation on ground of fraud — Standard of proof — Insurer approved claim for total loss of piling rig based on Spot Surveyor, Final Surveyor, and Original Equipment Manufacturer reports — Claim subsequently repudiated based on a second investigator's report alleging machine was operational — Held, fraud cannot be inferred from mere suspicion and must be established by clear, cogent and convincing evidence — Unsubstantia India Law Library Docid # 2453235
(27) GUNTUR CITY HOSPITAL AND OTHERS Vs. MRS. SHUBHADA DHAWDE AND ANOTHER[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Medical Negligence — Standard of Care — Bolam Test — A medical professional is not liable for negligence if they exercise the skill and competence of an ordinary competent practitioner and act in accordance with acceptable medical standards — A physician does not guarantee full recovery, and an error of judgment or failure to foresee complications that were not clinically co-related does not amount to negligence — Merely because an alternative course of treatment India Law Library Docid # 2453236
(28) VANDNA SOOD AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S SUKSHA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 47 — Pecuniary jurisdiction — Determination of value of goods or services paid as consideration — Contractual adjustments cannot be added — Complainants paid Rs. 46,18,372 towards a commercial unit and sought to include unpaid committed returns and GST adjustments to exceed the fifty-lakh pecuniary threshold of the State Commission — Held, pecuniary jurisdiction must be assessed solely on actual consideration paid by the consumer — Contractual adjustments India Law Library Docid # 2453442
(29) ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. INDERJIT KAUR AND ANOTHER[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act — Condonation of Delay — Meaning of "Sufficient Cause" — Delay of 112 days in filing appeal — Appellant insurance company attributed delay to procedural movement of files between local and head offices for decision-making — Held, explanation was vague, evasive, and devoid of specific dates, timeline, or names of officials involved — Litigant cannot claim condonation as of right by merely labeling delay as unintentional — Expression "sufficient cause" cannot be extended to India Law Library Docid # 2453443
(30) SUMIT CHHABRA AND ANOTHER Vs. CANARA BANK[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Banking Services — Unauthorized Electronic Debits — Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice — Joint savings account of complainants debited with fraudulent transactions totaling Rs. 44,997 — Prompt notification to Bank and Cyber Cell yielded no refund — Held, the Bank failed in its duty to safeguard the savings account from unauthorized debits and to redress a genuine grievance — Such failure constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, dep India Law Library Docid # 2453444
(31) BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANOTHER Vs. ARUSH KUMAR SHARMA[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 07-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Insurance — Overseas Travel Insurance Policy — Repudiation or restriction of claim — Pre-existing disease — Mandatory medical examination — Complainant disclosed his age as 59 years in the proposal form — Under IRDAI Regulations, the insurer is obligated to conduct a thorough medical check-up prior to issuing the policy — Insurer failed to conduct such examination before issuing the policy — Held, failure to carry out the mandatory medical check-up disentitles the India Law Library Docid # 2453445
(32) SIMANTA BHOWAL AND OTHERS Vs. M3M INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 35(1)(c) — Representative complaint — Maintainability of specific relief prior to public notice — Application to sue in representative capacity was allowed based on commonality of interest — Held, allowing an application under Section 35(1)(c) does not amount to unconditional admission of every prayer sought — The statutory scheme mandates issuance of public notice after permitting representative character — Before inviting the public, the Commission must India Law Library Docid # 2453237
(33) RAJENDRA PRASAD SHARMA Vs. M/S BPTP LTD.[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 2(1)(d) and Section 19 — Execution of conveyance deed and taking possession — Maintainability of consumer complaint — State Commission dismissed complaint holding complainant ceased to be a consumer post-execution of conveyance deed and taking possession — Held, setting aside the order, that a flat purchaser does not cease to be a consumer merely because possession has been delivered and conveyance deed executed — It is manifestly unreasonable to expect a India Law Library Docid # 2453238
(34) RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATE LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 31 — Consumer Protection — Binding nature of approved resolution plan — Corporate debtors sought dismissal of consumer complaints following approval of their resolution plans by the NCLT and confirmation by the NCLAT — Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Ghanashyam Mishra, the Commission held that once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1), all claims not part of the plan stand extinguished — Consequently, no person is entitled to init India Law Library Docid # 2453239
(35) MANJULA DORNA ROY VERGHESE AND OTHERS Vs. GRUHA KALYAN AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 12(1)(c) — Class action — Multiple complaints regarding the same project — Maintainability — Two separate consumer complaints were instituted under Section 12(1)(c) on behalf of allottees of the same residential project ('Gruha Kalyan-Erica') — Commission held that following the precedent in Ambrish Kumar Shukla, two class actions cannot proceed simultaneously for the identical project — Subsequent complaint closed, and all complainants therein were direct India Law Library Docid # 2453240
(36) NARINDER VERMA Vs. THE CORTIZA HOLIDAY (P) LTD. AND OTHERS[STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH] 03-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Deficiency in Service — Holiday Membership Scheme — Enhancement of Interest — Complainant paid consideration for a five-year membership, but the opposite parties failed to provide the promised booking or refund the amount — District Commission ordered refund with 6% interest — Held, continued retention of money without providing contracted services constitutes deficiency in service — Following Supreme Court precedent, interest awarded must be restitutionary as wel India Law Library Docid # 2453446
(37) DEEPALI CHANDUR HIRANANDANI Vs. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF: THE ZEPHYR CHS LTD. AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(42) — "Service" — Scope — Dispute regarding redevelopment and loss of rental income — Complainant, a member of a co-operative housing society, raised grievances against the society and builder concerning the redevelopment process, alleged mismanagement, and consequential loss of rental/tenancy income — Nature of dispute does not fall within the framework of "consumer" and "service provider" under Section 2(42) of the Act — Grievances concerning loss of r India Law Library Docid # 2453241
(38) RANVIR SINGH SINGAL AND ANOTHER Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIA BULLS REAL ESTATE AND OTHERS[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2026 Consumer Protection — Execution of Decree — Award of Interest — Prohibition of Compound Interest — Decree Holders calculated further interest upon accrued interest — Held, interest awarded under the decree was simple interest @ 9% per annum and there can be no interest upon interest — Accrued interest cannot become part of the principal for calculating further interest — Relying on Supreme Court precedent in Suneja Towers Pvt. Ltd., awarding compound interest in monetary refund cases is impermis India Law Library Docid # 2453242
(39) GULSHAN LAL KHERA AND ANOTHER Vs. SANJIV TRIKHA[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 02-09-2026 Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 60 — Review Application — Error apparent on face of record — Decree Holder sought review of an order staying execution proceedings, contending that the decretal amount was not fully deposited — Held, subsequent orders of the High Court in contempt proceedings conclusively recorded that the entire decretal sum stood deposited, thereby complying with earlier directions — Earlier observations of State Commission regarding procedural discrepancies in fixed dep India Law Library Docid # 2453243
(40) PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (PUDA) AND OTHERS Vs. SAROJ GOYAL[NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION] 01-09-2026 Limitation Act, 1963 — Section 5 — Condonation of Delay — Principles governing exercise of discretion — Requirement of "sufficient cause" — Discretionary power to condone delay depends on adequacy and acceptability of explanation — Courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds or on the premise that merits override delay — Unlimited leniency fosters uncertainty and undermines legislative intent — Where a party displays negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides, no indulgence can be gran India Law Library Docid # 2453244