advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela
  about us


information management services
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Important judgements passed by the Consumer Courts
General (on CP Act)



1. Tailor directed to compensate for improper stitching.  Contract of Service and Contract for Service defined.

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 75 of 1990

Sri A.C. Modagi
Vs.
Cross Well Tailor & others



2. Goods for supporting commercial activity also to be considered as though procured for commercial purpose.

National commission, New Delhi
First appeal no.22 of 1989

SYNCO Textiles Pvt.Ltd. 
Vs.
Greaves cotton and Company Ltd.



3. IOC directed to compensate for defective cylinder

    National Commission ,New Delhi
First appeal no. 82 of 1992

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
Vs 
V.Venkataraman and Ors.



4. Payment of tax to government cannot constitute a payment of  'consideration'.

 National Commission,New Delhi
Revision Petition no.136 of 1993

The Mayor,Calcutta Municipal Corporation
Vs
Tarapaada Chatterjee and others



5. Court fee paid does not amount to payment of consideration.

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision petition No. 108 of 1993

Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat
Vs
The State of Gujarat



6. Cinema contest declared unfair trade practice

State Commission, Madras-4
R.P.- 273/94

Beauty Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd., Madras-600014
Vs 
Consumer Rights Protection Council,  Madurai-625002.



7. Cause of action could not be said to arise at the place where the bank draft was made

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 317 of 1994

Haryana Urban development Authority 
Vs 
Vipan Kumar Kohli



8. Case cannot be dismissed without proper notice to the complainant

State Commission, Cuttack
Consumer Disputes Appeal no.46 of 1993

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela
Vs
M/s. National Insurance Co.Ltd.



9. Opposite party cannot be authorised to decide the complaint

National Commission, New Delhi
First appeal Nos.151 to 166 of 1994

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela, Etc.
Vs 
Rourkela Regional Improvement Trust and Anr.



10. Contract against statutory provisions not enforceable

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision petition No.548 of 1996

Unit Trust of India 
Vs 
Ram Kishan Chawla



11. Tax payment cannot be held as consideration for hiring service

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition Nos.704 and 704-A of 1995

M/s Signet Corporation 
Vs 
Commissioner,M.C.D., New Delhi and others



12. Compensation can be awarded only if any loss or injury is caused due to the negligence of opposite party

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEWDELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 770 OF 1996

Indian Airlines Ltd. ... Petitioner
Vs
Dr. V.J.Philip ... Respondent


13. An author is a consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. 
(From the Order dated 30-4-1996 in Appeal Case No. 18/96 of the State Commission, Chandigarh)

Subodh Kapoor & Anr.                                 ... Petitioners
Vs
Dr. R.R.Sharma & Anr.                                 ... Respondents


14. A seller cannot claim the status of a consumer

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 817 OF 1996

M/s. Sakthi Sugars Ltd., Orissa - Petitioner
Vs
Sridhar Sahoo & Others - Respondents



15. Omission to make corrective statement on a document is only a clerical mistake and does not amount to deficiency in service.

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1106/95

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela     ... Appellant
Vs.
Asst. Post Master, Bhubaneswar & Ors.     ... Respondents



16. The dealer is also responsible for any manufacturing defect

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 955 OF 1996

Harmohinder Singh                 ...  Petitioner
Vs
Anil Sehgal & Anr.                  ...  Respondents


17.  When a delay in filing a case occurs due to assurances given by the dealer, point of limitation cannot be raised by the O.P.

NATIONAL COMMISSION,  NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NOS. 850-851 OF 1996

West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation -- Petitioner
                     Vs.
Shri Bijoy Kumar Roy & Anr.                  -- Respondents


18. Consumer Protection Act is not for entertaining or compensating speculative transactions or losses

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 55 OF 1997

Unit Trust of India                                     -- Petitioner
                      Vs.
Smt. Sabitri Devi Agarwal                         -- Respondent



19.  When a child is admitted to a school, both the child and the parents are consumers. When the child suffers due to injury, parents also suffer and they are entitled to damages.
National Commission, New Delhi
First Appeal 518 of 1994

S. Somasundaram                                                         ---   Appellant
                                                           Vs.
The Correspondent, 
Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy       ---   Respondent



20. Consumer fora to protect the interest of the consumer can grant relief on the basis of the facts in the complaint and the overall circumstances of the case.

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 909 of 2001

Maruti Udyog Limited                                            ---  Petitioner
                                  Vs.
Mrs. Bhawana Sabharwal & Anr.                            ---  Respondents



21. Interest shall have to be paid by the Financial Company, even beyond the date of maturity, if for any reason there is delay in making the payment to the depositor.

National Commission, New Delhi
First Appeal No. 60 of 1995

M/s Sakthi Finance Ltd.                                          ---    Appellant
                        Vs.
A. James                                                               ---    Respondent



22. "Co-operative Societies do come under the purview of theConsumer Protection Act and hence the District Forum can exercise jurisdiction over them".

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition Nos. 823 to 826 of 2001

Smt. Kalawati & Ors.                                                          ---  Petitioners
               Vs.
M/s United Vaish Co-operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd.      ---  Respondent


23. "State Commission cannot deny production of additional evidence, even in the Appeals"

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 120 & 121of 2000

Khivraj Motors                                                 ...... Petitioners
            Vs.
V. Chandrababu & Anr.                                   ...... Respondents


24. "Just because a particular charge was not paid, due to its own mistake, the Electricity Company cannot penalise the consumer

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1163 of 2001

S.Kulandairajan                                                 ---- Petitioner
             Vs.
The Junior Engineer, Rural/North, 
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr.                   ---- Respopndents



25. Consumer Courts ought to examine the reasonability of the compensation claimed by the complainant

National Commission, New Delhi
First Appeal No. 208 of 2001

Ashutosh Mishra                                         ----   Appellant
                Vs.
N.C.Panigrahi                                             ----   Respondent



26.  The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer.

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1563 of 2000

Smt. Y.Yasodhamma & Ors.                       ----   Petitioners
                 Vs.
The Supdt. of Prohibition & Excise               ----  Respondent


27. An applicant for certified copy of a judicial order, who deposits a fee for obtaining such copy is a "consumer". Administrative functions of soverign functionaries also come under the purview of the CP Act"

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 2135 of 2000

Shri Prabhakar Vyankoba Aadone                ---- Petitioner
                        Vs.
Supreintendent, Civil Court                           ---- Respondent


28. Authorised representatives and consumer organisations can represent and argue before the consumer fora
(Excerpts from the order of the National Commission)

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 1017 of 2002

In the matter of:

Authorised Representative of the Parties


29.Condonation of delay has to be based on sufficient cause, especially when the right of the consumer is concerned, against the might of the State Authority

National  Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 2696 of 2002

Ashok Kumar                                    ---  Petitioner 
                Vs. 
HVPNL                                             ---  Respondent



30. Lack of internal communication cannot be a ground for depriving the consumer of his rightful due

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 2520 of 2002

Lawang T. Pulger & Anr.                     -- Petitioner 
                 Vs.
M/s ICICI Infotech Services Ltd. & Anr. -- Respondents


31. Directions for providing uninterrupted power supply cannot be sustained

National Commission, New Delhi
First Appeal no. 355 of 1995

Kerala State Electricity Board               -- Appellant 
            Vs.
Raveendran                                         -- Respondent



32. For any act or error within the office of the Respondent, complainant cannot be faulted.

National Commission, New Delhi
First Appeal no. 210 of 1996

Consumer & Human Rights Forum            -- Appellant 
                        Vs.
Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd.                    -- Respondent


33.Consumer Forums while assessing damages should put themselves in the position of the complainant as to how he suffered.

National  Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 604 of 2003

Chandrakant Mahadev Kadam              ..    Petitioner 
                  Vs
Asstt. Engineer, MSEB, Atpadi & Ors.  ..   Respondents


34. A consumer dispute cannot be decided by a District Forum, when no part of cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction.

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 182 of 2004/A

Kamakashya Prasad                   .. Petitioner
                     Vs
Lalji Sah Krishi Kendra & Ors.     ... Respondents


35. Kisan Vikas Patra wrongly issued to complainant (HUF).   National Commission awards compensation, though there was no contract as per the Rules notified by the Government for the issue of the Patras

National Commission, New Delhi
Revision Petition No. 2033 of 2004

Union of India & Others                              ---- Petitioners
                        Vs.
Dr. Satinder Nath Verma (HUF)                  ---- Respondent


36. Ministry of Petroleum directed to ensure the upgradation of LPG bottling plants within 4 years.

National Commission, New Delhi 
Original Petition No.  224 of 2001

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela                    ... Complainant(s) 
                                                               Vs. 
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.                            .... Opposite Parties


37.  Employees are entitled to benefit of two years weightage under the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS), if they had contributed for a total of 20 years under the 1971 as well as 1995 Schemes

National Commission, New Delhi 
Revision Petition No.  4221 of 2014

Regional PF Commissioner, Bellary, Karnataka                  ... Petitioner(s) 
                                                               Vs. 
C.Raghavendrachar                                                          .... Respondent(s)


38. Claiming hefty damages without basis is an abuse of the process of the Consumer Courts

National Commission, New Delhi

CONSUMER CASE NO. 142 OF 2013

Shri GAURAV GARG,                                           ..... Complainant(s)
                                           Versus 
  
M/s PEPSICO INDIA & ANR.,                                ..... Opp. Party(s)


39. Since the Review requires detailed examination of the case, it is not permissible under Section 22(2) of the CP Act.                   

National Commission, New Delhi 
M.A. No. 57 of 2007 in

Original Petition No.  224 of 2001

Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela                    ... Complainant(s) 
                                                               Vs. 
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.                            .... Opposite Parties


40. Insurance Company acquitted and the relief provided to the consumer withdrawn, as the consumer was at fault


M/S. RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.  ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                 Versus    
K.S. ESHWARAPPA                                            ...........Respondent(s)


41. Telephone calls made from a Hotel Room cannot be compared with calls made from a PCO and hence the charges.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
CONSUMER CASE NO. 148 OF 2003

C.E.R.S. & ANR.                                         ...........Complainant(s)
                                                   Versus    
TAJ MAHAL HOTEL & ORS.                     ...........Opp.Party(s)


42. DuPont penalised for selling defective weedicide and pulled up for delaying payment of compensation.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
                REVISION PETITION NO. 3975 OF 2013                  
                    
E.I DUPONT INDIA PVT. LTD.                        ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                  Versus    
DEVIDAS KISHTA REDDY GANGULWAR & 4 ORS.
                                                                           ...........Respondent(s)


43. In a case of theft of electricity, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
        REVISION PETITION NO. 2890 OF 2011         
                    
PSPCL & ANR.                                                    ...........Petitioner(s)
                                             Versus    
GURU RAM DASS ESTATE                               ...........Respondent(s)


44. Consumer deprived of any relief for non-inclusion of necessary parties.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 OF 2012     

JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD.                           ...........Appellant(s)
                                                              Versus    
ETHELWAD O. MENDES                                 ...........Respondent(s)


45. Revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission can be exercised only when there is jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice – Credit Card cannot be debited without the consent of the cardholder

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3192 OF 2018
                    
MANAGER, HDFC BANK CARDS DIVISION & ANR.
                                                                             ...........Petitioner(s)
                                                 Versus    
ANAND VASANT NIRGUDE                            ...........Respondent(s)


46.Warranty benefits denied, as the customer had failed to produce documentary evidence for having informed the Customer Care Centre.

NATIONAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
          REVISION PETITION NO. 1810 OF 2017         
                    
SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
                                                                                 ...........Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus    
FAROOQ KHAN & ANR.                                  ...........Respondent(s)


                                                                                                    Top
 





feedback

query
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela