CASES

1. Consumer Utility and Trust Society vs. State of Rajasthan ..................................................................... 3

2. Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das .......................................................................................... 3

3. Spring Meadows Hospital Vs Harjol Ahluwalia........................................................................................ 4

4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs Shiv Kumar Joshi ............................................................ 4

5. Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG Industrial Institute ............................................................................ 5

6. Kores (India ) Ltd Vs Samir Purkayastha .................................................................................................. 6

7. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust v. Unique Shanti Developers and Ors ...................................... 6

8. Nandan Biomatrix Ltd Vs Ambika Devi ................................................................................................... 7

9. Paramount Digital Colour Lab Vs Agfa India Pvt Ltd ............................................................................ 7

10. Cheema Engineering Services vs. Rajan Singh ..................................................................................... 8

11. Sakthi Engineering Works Vs Sri Krishna Coir Rope Industry ......................................................... 8

12. SGS India vs. Dolphin International Ltd .............................................................................................. 9

13. T. Nagaiah S/o T. Narasimha v. Jain Irrigation Systems Private Limited ....................................... 9

14. Cachet Pharmaceuticals Vs State of Maharashtra ................................................................................ 9

15. State of Haryana Vs Brij Lal Mittal....................................................................................................... 10

16. CONSUMER GUIDANCE SOCIETY V. AMWAY INDIA ENTERPRISES ....................... 11

17. YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) (P) LTD. V. KISHAN HEGDE ............................................. 11

18. State of Telangana Vs Himajal Beverages ........................................................................................... 12

19. NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION LTD VS M. MADHUSUDAN REDDY.................... 12

20. Mercedes Benz India pvt Ltd Vs Prince Bansal ................................................................................. 13

21. Bharati Knitting Company v DHL Express ....................................................................................... 13

22. General Motors (India) Pvt Limited Vs Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & Anr ..................................... 14

23. Regual Vs Ujala Case .............................................................................................................................. 15

24. Colgate vs. Pepsodent............................................................................................................................. 16

25. Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor .......................................................................................................... 16

26. Country Colonizers v. Harmit Singh Arora ........................................................................................ 16

27. Spicejet limited Vs Ranju Aery .............................................................................................................. 17

28. Amazon sellers Private Ltd. Vs Gopal Krishna ................................................................................. 17

29. Rediff.com vs Urmil Munjal .................................................................................................................. 18

30. Hello travels vs Harish Jain ................................................................................................................... 20

31. MakemyTrip v. Manabendra Saha Roy ................................................................................................ 21

32. Station Manager , Air India , Aizawal Vs Dr . K Vanlalzami ........................................................... 21

33. M/s. Srilankan Airlines Ltd. v. Subhash Chawla ................................................................................ 22

34. Chief General Manager AIR India Vs Antony Benjamin ................................................................. 23

35. Bank of India v. Mustafa Ibrahim Nadiadwala................................................................................... 23

36. Magma Fincorp Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari .................................................................................... 24

37. Kalawati Vs United Vaish ...................................................................................................................... 25

38. Banne Singh Sekahwat v. Jhunjhunu Academy .................................................................................. 25

39. FIITJEE V. SHINJINI TEWARI........................................................................................................ 26

40. B.N.M Educational Institution and Anr v. Kum Akshatha and Anr .............................................. 27

41. Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha ................................................................ 27

42. Indian medical association vs VP Shantha .......................................................................................... 28

43. Martin F D’Souza Appellant vs Mohd Ishfaq .................................................................................... 28

44. Yash Raj Films v. Afreen Zaidi ............................................................................................................. 29

45. Cannought Plaza Restaurant v. Karan Mitra....................................................................................... 30

46. J.K. Mittal v. Kingfisher Airline ............................................................................................................ 30

47. Ganesh Salian v. Pepsi Foods ............................................................................................................... 31

48. MakemyTrip v. Manabendra Saha Roy ................................................................................................ 31

49. Tata Engineering v. Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreement ....................................................... 32

50. DJ Desouza v. CPC Diagnostics .......................................................................................................... 33

51. Big Bazaar v. State of Gujarat ............................................................................................................... 34

52. Sarvajeet Singh v. Batra Hotel, Rawatsar ............................................................................................. 35

53. Ireo Grace RealTech v. Apartment Buyers ......................................................................................... 35

54. DLF Southern Homes v. Flat Buyers of Western Heights............................................................... 36

 1. CONSUMER UTILITY AND TRUST SOCIETY VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Facts: A patient underwent a tubectomy operation at a government hospital, but due to alleged
negligence by the surgeon and lack of post-operative care, she suffered severe complications, resulting
in permanent physical disability, continuous pain, and mental distress. The complainant sought
compensation for these injuries, claiming negligence on the part of the hospital staff.

Issues:

• Whether the patient, who availed herself of free medical treatment in a government hospital,
could be considered a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act.
• Whether the medical services provided in a government hospital could be classified as a "service"
rendered for "consideration," allowing the patient to claim compensation.

Judgment: The National Commission rejected the compensation claim, holding that individuals
receiving medical treatment in government hospitals are not "consumers" under the Consumer
Protection Act. The Commission reasoned that government-provided medical services, offered without
a fee, do not qualify as a "hired" service under the Act. It further clarified that taxes paid to the state by
citizens are not equivalent to "consideration" for specific services. While taxes are levied for general
governmental purposes, "fee" is paid for a particular benefit. Therefore, the free medical treatment
provided at government hospitals does not constitute a "service" for the purpose of claiming
compensation under the Act.

2. MORGAN STANLEY MUTUAL FUND VS KARTICK DAS

Facts: Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund (MSMF) is an internationally recognized financial services company
that offers various services, including investment banking, asset management, securities trading, and
financial advisory. In this case, Kartick Das, a prospective investor, sought to be considered a consumer
under the Consumer Protection Act (C.P. Act), alleging that he was entitled to certain rights as an
investor.

Issues:

• Whether a prospective investor, like Kartick Das, could be considered a "consumer" under the
C.P. Act.
• Whether the offer of shares to a prospective investor constituted a "service" under the C.P. Act.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that a prospective investor could not be considered a "consumer"
under the C.P. Act. The Court clarified that shares only become "goods" after they are allotted to an
investor. Thus, before the allotment, the investor is merely a prospective buyer and not entitled to
consumer rights under the C.P. Act. The Court held that the rights of the investor would arise only after
the shares were allotted. This judgment was later criticized, as it was argued that in developed countries,
such financial transactions are regarded as services, and prospective investors should be considered
potential users of services under the C.P. Act.

3. SPRING MEADOWS HOSPITAL VS HARJOL AHLUWALIA

Facts: Harjot Ahluwalia, a minor, was admitted to Spring Meadows Hospital by his parents for treatment
of typhoid. During his stay, a nurse administered an injection that caused severe complications, leading
to brain damage. As a result, Harjot entered a vegetative state and was expected to remain in that
condition for life. The parents filed a complaint, alleging medical negligence by the hospital and seeking
compensation for the physical and mental suffering caused.

Issue: The primary issue was whether the parents of the child, who suffered due to the hospital staff’s
negligence, could claim compensation for the mental anguish and suffering experienced by both the child
and themselves.

Judgment: The court acknowledged the difficulty of holding medical professionals accountable but
emphasized that medical negligence, such as administering incorrect medication, can cause significant
harm. It invoked the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), meaning the nature of the
injury itself indicated negligence. The court held that, under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, "consumer" includes not only the person who hired the service but also those who benefit
from it. Therefore, the parents had the right to claim compensation for their suffering due to the
negligence.

The court also confirmed that the Commission had the authority under Section 14(d) of the Act to hear
the case and award compensation to both the minor and the parents. In conclusion, the Supreme Court
dismissed the petitioner’s appeals and imposed a fine of INR 5,000.

4. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER VS SHIV KUMAR JOSHI

Facts: A member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme applied for his Provident Fund benefits,
which were delayed due to an incomplete application. The process was eventually completed, and the
claim settled. The respondent filed a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
seeking damages for the delay. The Forum awarded him 18% interest on the delayed payment and costs.
The appellant, Provident Fund Commissioner, appealed but faced dismissals at the State and National
Commissions.

Issues:
 • Whether a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme can be considered a "consumer"
under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

• Whether the duties performed by the Provident Fund Commissioner constitute a "service" as
defined under the Act.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that the Provident Fund Commissioner’s duties under the
Provident Fund Scheme qualify as a "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act.
The Court clarified that the Commissioner discharges statutory functions specifically for employees’
benefit, not for employers, and that the administrative charges are paid as part of the employee's
membership in the scheme. Citing Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjot Ahluwalia, the Court noted that
a "consumer" includes beneficiaries of services, even if they did not directly pay for them. Therefore,
employees covered under the Provident Fund Scheme are considered "consumers" under the Act.

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that since no part of the administrative charge is directly
deducted from the employee's wages, employees cannot be deemed to have "hired" the service. The
Court emphasized that excluding employees as consumers would contradict the purpose of the Act and
the scheme.

5. LAXMI ENGINEERING WORKS V. PSG INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE

Facts: Laxmi Engineering Works (the appellant) ordered a CNC Universal Turning Central Machine
(model PSG 450) from the respondent. The respondent delayed the machine’s delivery by six months.
Once delivered and installed, the machine showed several defects. Despite the respondent’s attempts to
repair the machine, it continued to malfunction, leading the appellant to file a complaint with the
Consumer Forum. The Consumer Forum ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the appellant did
not qualify as a "consumer" under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the machine was
purchased for a commercial purpose. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court to challenge
this decision.

Issues:

• What is the scope and meaning of the phrase "for any commercial purpose" under Section 2(d)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the explanation added by the Consumer Protection
(Amendment) Act, 1993, is clarificatory and applies retroactively to all pending cases. Determining
whether a purchase is "for commercial purposes" depends on the facts of each case. If an individual buys
goods exclusively for self-employment to earn a livelihood, they may still qualify as a "consumer" under
the Act. However, in this case, the Court observed the machine’s nature and purpose and agreed with
the lower forum’s conclusion: the machine was not intended solely for self-employment or earning a
livelihood. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming that the appellant
did not fall within the Act’s definition of a consumer.

6. KORES (INDIA ) LTD VS SAMIR PURKAYASTHA

Facts: Shri Samir Purkayastha (the respondent) purchased a copier machine from Xerox Corporation
(the petitioner) through an authorized dealer, paying Rs. 39,000 for the machine and Rs. 4,000 for
installation. The machine came with a warranty for six months or 30,000 copies, whichever came first.
However, the respondent claimed that the machine was defective from the start and continued to
malfunction despite repeated repairs by the petitioner. The respondent filed a complaint, and the District
Forum held that the machine was defective. This order was upheld by the State Commission, Tripura,
which directed the petitioner to replace the machine and pay Rs. 20,000 in compensation.

Issues: Whether the copier machine was purchased for a "commercial purpose," thereby excluding the
respondent from the definition of "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Judgment: The State Commission initially ruled that the copier was used for industrial purposes, distinct
from a commercial purpose, and thus the respondent could be considered a consumer. However, the
appellate authority disagreed with this interpretation, stating that "commercial purpose" has a broad
meaning and should consider factors such as business scale, investment, and intent (whether for
livelihood or substantial profit). The appellate authority noted that the respondent used the machine for
producing photocopies for a fee, indicating a regular business activity rather than self-employment for
livelihood. Consequently, the appellate authority held that the purchase was for a commercial purpose.
The appeal was allowed, the orders of the District Forum and State Commission were set aside, and the
complaint was dismissed without costs.

7. LILAVATI KIRTILAL MEHTA MEDICAL TRUST V. UNIQUE SHANTI

DEVELOPERS AND ORS

Facts: Unique Shanti Developers constructed a building called Madhuvan with thirty-two 1BHK flats,
out of which Lilavati Medical Trust purchased 29 flats to use as hostel accommodations for nurses
working at its hospital. Agreements to sell were executed for each flat, and the full consideration was
paid. After receiving the architect’s completion certificate, the trust used the flats as hostels. Within 2-3
years, the building structure deteriorated due to poor construction quality, leading the trust to vacate the
flats. Lilavati Medical Trust filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission. The National Commission dismissed the complaint, ruling that the trust was not a
"consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as it acquired the flats for a
"commercial purpose" (to provide hostel facilities as part of the hospital's operation).

Issues: Whether the transaction by Lilavati Medical Trust was for a "commercial purpose," and if
determining this would depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, rejecting a rigid interpretation and providing
guidelines for assessing "commercial purpose": "Commercial purpose" generally includes manufacturing,
industrial activities, or business-to-business transactions. The good or service purchased must have a
direct connection with a profit-generating activity to qualify as "commercial." The identity of the buyer
or the transaction value is not decisive for determining a "commercial purpose." If the dominant purpose
of the purchase was personal use or non-commercial consumption for the buyer or their beneficiaries,
it may not be considered a "commercial purpose." Based on these principles, the Supreme Court
concluded that the flats were used for the welfare of the nurses rather than for profit-generation directly
linked to the hospital's operations, allowing the trust’s appeal.

8. NANDAN BIOMATRIX LTD VS AMBIKA DEVI

Facts: The Complainant (respondent) entered into an agreement with the Appellant to cultivate safed
musli, a medicinal crop, under a buyback arrangement. She purchased 750 kg of wet musli from the
Appellant and cultivated it with the expectation that the Appellant would buy back the produce at a
minimum price. The Appellant, however, failed to buy back the crop, leading to the destruction of a
significant portion of it.

Issue: Whether the Respondent qualifies as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Judgment: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that the
Respondent is a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The NCDRC
noted that the agreement between the parties involved both the sale of a product and the provision of a
service, as the Appellant had supplied the wet musli for cultivation. The purpose of cultivation was to
earn a livelihood, not for a large-scale commercial purpose. Thus, a farmer who purchases goods or
services to grow produce to earn a livelihood remains a "consumer" even if the produce is sold back to
the seller or a third party.

9. PARAMOUNT DIGITAL COLOUR LAB VS AGFA INDIA PVT LTD

The Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held that if a person trains another person to operate the machine so as to produce a
final product based on skill and effort in the matter of photography and developing the same, cannot take such person out
of the definition of ‘consumer.’
 10. CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICES VS. RAJAN SINGH

Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the respondent, Rajan
Singh, who purchased a brick manufacturing machine, qualified as a 'consumer' under the relevant laws.
The central question revolved around whether Singh had bought the machine for 'self-employment'.

Issues:

• Definition of 'self-employment': The court needed to decide whether the term 'self-employment'
applied to Singh's purchase.
• Evidence of use: The court emphasized that 'self-employment' is not explicitly defined in law
and requires evidence to determine if the machine was used solely for self-employment to earn
a livelihood without commercial intent.

Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified that the interpretation of 'self-employment' hinges on the
evidence presented. It noted that: Self-employment means that the individual exclusively uses the
machinery for production to earn a livelihood. Earning a livelihood through commercial activities does
not automatically exclude the concept of self-employment. The court emphasized that 'self-employment'
is distinct from commercial purposes, as it pertains to the individual's personal use of the machinery
without involving regular employees or workers for trade. Ultimately, the term 'him' in the context of
self-employment was interpreted to include family members, suggesting that family usage also falls under
this category.

11. SAKTHI ENGINEERING WORKS VS SRI KRISHNA COIR ROPE INDUSTRY

Facts: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) reviewed a case
in light of a Supreme Court judgment regarding the definition of a 'consumer' under the relevant
consumer protection laws.

Issues: The main issue was whether an individual purchasing goods for commercial purposes could still
be classified as a 'consumer' if those goods were used exclusively for self-employment to earn a
livelihood.

Judgment: The National Commission clarified that: A person who buys goods for commercial purposes
is generally not considered a consumer under the Act. However, if those goods are used exclusively for
earning a livelihood through self-employment, the buyer will be treated as a consumer. The key phrase
emphasized was "used by him exclusively" for the purpose of earning a livelihood through self-
employment, indicating that the personal use of the purchased goods for this purpose qualifies the
individual as a consumer despite the commercial nature of the purchase.

12. SGS INDIA VS. DOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LTD

In this case, the burden of proof regarding the alleged deficiency in service lies with the complainant.
Initially, it is the complainant's responsibility to provide evidence of the deficiency. If they succeed in
establishing this initial burden, the responsibility then shifts to the respondent. According to civil
proceedings rules, the burden remains with the party that would lose if no evidence is presented by the
other side.

In this instance, the complainant failed to prove that the sample retained by the appellant was materially
different from what was certified. As a result, the burden of proof did not shift to the appellant.
Therefore, the Commission made a legal error by drawing adverse inferences against the appellant
without sufficient evidence to support the complainant's claims.

13. T. NAGAIAH S/O T. NARASIMHA V. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS PRIVATE

LIMITED

In this case, the plaintiff bought a drip irrigation system from the respondent, who manufactured the
system. After some time, the pipes in the system developed cracks, which resulted in water leaks. These
leaks ultimately led to the failure of the plaintiff's crops. The respondent had claimed that the pipes met
the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and provided a warranty for the product. However, the
Commission ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that pipes that conform to BIS standards are expected
to have a lifespan of ten years. Since the pipes failed prematurely, this indicated a deficiency in service or
quality, justifying the Commission's decision in favor of the plaintiff.

14. CACHET PHARMACEUTICALS VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Facts: The petition was filed by accused Nos. 5 to 8, directors of M/s Cachet Pharmaceuticals, regarding
a criminal case pending in the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Beed. The Drugs Inspector collected
samples of “Hemfer syrup” manufactured by Cachet Pharmaceuticals and distributed by Alkem
Laboratories. The sample was found to be substandard in quality as the cyanocobalamin content was
significantly lower than what was indicated on the label. Despite requests from Cachet Pharmaceuticals
for re-testing, both the Maharashtra State Drug Control Laboratory and Central Drugs Laboratory
confirmed that the product did not meet the required quality standards.

Issues:
 • Whether the directors (accused Nos. 5 to 8) of Cachet Pharmaceuticals could be held liable for
the substandard drug, given that qualified chemists were designated for manufacturing and
quality assurance.
• Whether the complaint contained sufficient details implicating the directors in the manufacturing
process, making them liable under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The liability of the
company and directors for alleged offenses under the Act, and the application of vicarious
liability principles.

Judgment: The court held that the complaint sufficiently established that the directors were involved in
the manufacturing process and thus could be held liable. The court clarified that Section 34 of the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act does not exclude directors from liability even if qualified personnel were responsible
for manufacturing and quality control. The petition was dismissed, as the court found no grounds to
interfere with the lower court's order to issue process against the directors. The court noted that the
petitioners had avoided appearing in court, emphasizing the need for accountability in cases involving
public health and safety.

15. STATE OF HARYANA VS BRIJ LAL MITTAL

Facts: On August 7, 1990, the District Drugs Inspector of Hisar visited M/s. Naresh Medical Agencies,
obtained samples of sodium chloride injections, and sent them for analysis. On September 10 and 11,
1990, the Government Analyst reported that the samples were misbranded and adulterated under the
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The Inspector notified the firm, which revealed that M/s. Ajay Medical
Agencies and National Distributors were the distributors, and M/s Mitson Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
was the manufacturer. On August 31, 1992, the Inspector filed a complaint in the Chief Judicial
Magistrate's Court against the manufacturers and their directors under Section 27 of the Act. The
directors sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that since the drug's shelf life had expired in July
1991, they were deprived of their right under Section 25(4) to test the drugs with the Central Drugs
Laboratory. The High Court agreed and quashed the proceedings against them.

Issues:

• Whether the expiry of the drugs’ shelf life deprived the directors of their right under Section
25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, to test the drugs with the Central Drugs Laboratory.
• Whether the directors could be held liable under Section 34(1) of the Act without evidence
showing they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business.

Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the right to re-test the drugs with the Central Drugs
Laboratory depended on timely notification under Section 25(3), which the manufacturers did not
provide. Thus, the expiry of the shelf life did not justify quashing the case. However, the Court upheld
the High Court’s decision on a different ground, observing that the prosecution lacked specific
allegations showing the directors were responsible for the company’s operations. Merely being directors
did not make them liable under Section 34(1), as per precedent from Delhi Municipality v. Ram Kishan.
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the proceedings against the directors were quashed.

16. CONSUMER GUIDANCE SOCIETY V. AMWAY INDIA

ENTERPRISES

Facts: Amway faced allegations of selling adulterated and mislabelled nutritional supplements, including
products like Nutrilite Protein and Amway Madrid Safad Musli. These products were found to contain
lower-quality ingredients than what was indicated on their labels.

Issues:

• Whether Amway engaged in unfair business practices by misrepresenting the quality of

ingredients in its nutritional supplements.
• What form of compensation should be provided to affected consumers given the challenges in
identifying each one.

Judgment: The court ruled that Amway had engaged in unfair business practices by selling products
with mislabelled and inferior-quality ingredients. It ordered Amway to compensate consumers. However,
since identifying all affected consumers was impractical, the court directed that the compensation be
allocated to a consumer welfare fund to benefit consumers broadly.

17. YUM RESTAURANTS (INDIA) (P) LTD. V. KISHAN HEGDE

Facts: On December 23, 2014, the complainant ordered food worth Rs. 382 at the petitioner’s
restaurant. The food was allegedly served in an unhygienic manner, had a foul odor, and caused the
complainant to feel ill and vomit. After visiting a doctor, the complainant was diagnosed with food
poisoning. He filed a consumer complaint, and the District Forum awarded him compensation of Rs.
10,000, along with litigation costs of Rs. 4,000 and the food cost. The State Commission upheld this
decision.

Issues:

• Whether the onus of proving the food was defective should lie with the consumer or the
restaurant.
• How much evidence is required to establish that the food served was indeed defective.
Judgment: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), led by V.K. Jain, ruled
that the initial burden of proof lies with the consumer, but it is met by the complainant’s affidavit stating
that the food was defective and supported by a doctor’s medical certificate confirming food poisoning.
The NCDRC acknowledged that it is impractical for consumers to retain and test defective food, as
restaurants generally do not allow customers to take food for testing. The Commission upheld the
compensation awarded to the complainant.

18. STATE OF TELANGANA VS HIMAJAL BEVERAGES

Facts: In State of Telangana Vs. Himajal Beverages, Kinley water bottles were seized from an authorized
contract packer of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. during inspections by the Legal Metrology
Department. The department found that the packaging violated Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology
(Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which requires packages to display the name and contact details
of a person responsible for consumer complaints.

Issues:

• Whether the absence of contact information for consumer complaints on the Kinley water
bottles constituted a violation of Rule 6(2) of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities)
Rules, 2011.
• Whether compliance with Rule 6(2) is mandatory for consumer protection.

Judgment: The Telangana High Court held that compliance with Rule 6(2) is mandatory to protect
consumer rights and upheld the seizure as a valid enforcement of the Legal Metrology Act. The court
adopted a literal interpretation, underscoring the need for strict adherence to packaging and labeling
standards. The judgment emphasized that labeling rules are designed to benefit consumers and safeguard
the public interest, establishing an important precedent for upholding consumer protection through
strict compliance with legal standards.

19. NATIONAL SEED CORPORATION LTD VS M. MADHUSUDAN

REDDY

Facts: Farmers in Andhra Pradesh experienced crop losses allegedly due to defective seeds supplied by
the National Seed Corporation Ltd. When the farmers initially filed complaints, the District Forums
dismissed them, claiming a lack of jurisdiction, as seed quality issues were covered under the Seeds Act.

Issues:

• Whether the District Forums had jurisdiction to hear complaints about defective seeds, given
the Seeds Act's provisions.
 • Whether farmers could seek compensation for defective seeds under the Consumer Protection
Act.

Judgment: The National Commission upheld the farmers' complaints, ruling that the seeds were
defective and that the Seeds Act did not provide compensation for crop losses. It affirmed that farmers
are considered "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act and are therefore entitled to seek
redress for defective seeds. The Commission ordered the National Seed Corporation to compensate the
farmers for their losses, setting a precedent for consumer protection in agriculture and affirming that
farmers can claim compensation for defective agricultural inputs under the Consumer Protection Act.

20. MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT LTD VS PRINCE BANSAL

Facts: Prince Bansal purchased a Mercedes Benz car from M/s Joshi Auto Zone Pvt. Ltd. for ₹37 lakhs.
Shortly after the purchase, the car began to produce noise after just 1,424 kilometers of use. The dealer
inspected the car, replaced the shock absorbers, and made various adjustments to address ongoing issues,
including noises from the doors and the sunroof. After the car had run 4,140 kilometers, a cut was found
on the front tire, which was also replaced. Persistent problems continued, leading Bansal to have the car
inspected by Grace Automotives, which reported an "inherent manufacturing defect" that the
manufacturer could not rectify. Consequently, Bansal filed a complaint with the District Forum, seeking
either a replacement of the car or a refund, along with compensation.

Issue: Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the persistent defects in the car.

Judgment: The State Commission ruled in favor of Bansal, directing Mercedes Benz to pay ₹2 lakhs as
compensation, along with ₹22,000 for litigation costs. This decision was based on an expert report from
a committee of professors from Punjab Engineering College, which confirmed ongoing issues with the
vehicle. Aggrieved by this ruling, Mercedes Benz appealed to the NCDRC. The NCDRC upheld the
State Commission's decision, agreeing that the expert report justified the compensation. Consequently,
it directed Mercedes Benz to pay ₹2 lakhs to Bansal for the defects in the vehicle.

21. BHARATI KNITTING COMPANY V DHL EXPRESS

Facts:
The case involves an appeal from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
regarding a dispute between a manufacturer and a courier service, DHL. The manufacturer had
consigned goods to a German buyer, along with necessary documents, which were sent on May 25, 1990.
However, the consignment did not reach its destination. As a result, the buyer only agreed to pay DM
35,000 instead of the full invoice amount of DM 56,469.63. The manufacturer filed a complaint with the
State Commission, which ordered DHL to pay the difference of DM 21,469.63 (approximately
₹4,29,392.60). DHL appealed, leading to a review by the NCDRC.

Issues:
The central issues in this case are:

1. Whether the manufacturer is entitled to the full amount of damages for the loss incurred due to
the non-delivery of the consignment.

2. Whether the liability of the courier service is limited to the amount stated in the consignment
agreement, which was set at US $100.

Judgment:
The NCDRC upheld the earlier decision of the National Commission, which found that the liability of
DHL was limited to US $100 as per the consignment agreement. The court noted that the manufacturer
had accepted the terms of the contract when signing the consignment note, which included clauses that
specifically limited liability for lost shipments and excluded consequential damages. The court
highlighted that the Consumer Protection Act is designed to provide quick and cost-effective remedies,
but it cannot override the contractual agreements made by the parties.

The NCDRC concluded that since the manufacturer had agreed to the terms that limited liability, it could
not claim damages beyond what was stipulated in the contract. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower
commission's ruling, awarding only US $100 (approximately ₹3,515) for the deficiency in service, along
with interest. The appeal was dismissed, and the court reiterated that any further remedies must be
pursued through the appropriate legal channels, leaving the door open for future claims under civil law
if necessary.

22. GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PVT LIMITED VS ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT &
ANR

Facts: The respondent, Kartick Das, purchased a Chevrolet Forester AWD model on May 1, 2004, for
₹14 lakhs, along with accessories worth ₹1.91 lakhs, based on an advertisement that claimed the vehicle
was suitable for off-road driving. However, he later discovered that the vehicle was merely a passenger
car, had defects, and was not suitable for the advertised purposes. Consequently, Das filed a consumer
complaint against General Motors (the appellant), alleging unfair trade practices. He sought a refund of
the purchase price with interest and compensation of ₹50,000 for the inconvenience.

Issues:

1. Was there an unfair trade practice by General Motors in advertising the vehicle?
 2. Is the order passed by the National Commission valid?

Judgment: The District Forum initially ruled in favor of Das, ordering a refund with 9% interest from
the complaint date, as well as ₹5,000 for mental agony and ₹2,000 for litigation costs. The State
Commission modified the decision, awarding Das ₹50,000 as compensation (including litigation costs)
but imposed a ₹5,000 cost on him for what it deemed an undeserving claim. It also prohibited General
Motors from advertising the vehicle as an SUV and required corrections in their promotional literature.

The National Commission upheld the finding of unfair trade practices, but also took a broader view of
the situation. Given that the vehicle had been used for about a year and had covered 14,000 km, it
ordered General Motors to refund ₹12.5 lakhs (upon the return of the vehicle without accessories) and
awarded an additional ₹50,000 for litigation costs. Additionally, it imposed punitive damages of ₹25
lakhs, directing ₹5 lakhs to be paid to Das and the remainder to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare
Fund.

However, the court found that the National Commission overstepped its jurisdiction by awarding
punitive damages that were not requested and violated principles of fair procedure and natural justice.
The court noted that punitive damages require specific pleading related to intentional wrongdoing rather
than just actual loss. It pointed out that Das had initially accepted the District Forum's order and only
approached the National Commission after the State Commission modified that relief. Thus, the court
ruled that the National Commission's order was not sustainable and clarified that this ruling does not
prevent any aggrieved party from filing a claim in the appropriate forum.

23. REGUAL VS UJALA CASE

Facts: Jyothy Laboratories Ltd., the manufacturer of Ujala fabric whitener, filed a complaint against
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. for a comparative advertisement for Reckitt's product, Robin Blue. The
ad showed a side-by-side comparison, suggesting that Robin Blue was superior to Ujala. Jyothy
Laboratories argued that the ad was misleading and defamatory, as it negatively portrayed Ujala’s quality
without factual backing.

Issues: Whether the comparative advertisement by Reckitt Benckiser was misleading and defamatory
toward Ujala. Whether Reckitt’s advertisement violated principles of fair competition.

Judgment: The court held that while comparative advertising is permissible, it must be factual and
should not denigrate competitors. Reckitt Benckiser was ordered to remove the ad and to stop using
misleading comparative claims that disparaged Ujala. This case reinforced that companies must ensure
their comparative advertisements do not mislead or harm the reputation of other brands, upholding fair
competition principles.
 24. COLGATE VS. PEPSODENT

Facts: Pepsodent released an advertisement for its Germicheck toothpaste, claiming it was “130%
better” than Colgate at killing germs. The ad depicted a visual battle against germs, presenting Pepsodent
as the superior option. Colgate filed a lawsuit, arguing that the ad was misleading and harmed its
reputation.

Issues: Whether Pepsodent’s claim of superior germ-kill efficacy was misleading. Whether Pepsodent’s
advertisement damaged Colgate’s reputation unfairly.

Judgment: The court ruled in Colgate’s favor, determining that Pepsodent’s claim of “130% better”
efficacy was exaggerated and not supported by clear, substantiated evidence. The ruling emphasized that
claims in advertisements must be factual, scientifically validated, and must avoid disparaging competing
products, especially when making direct comparison.

25. FORTUNE INFRASTRUCTURE V. TREVOR

Facts:
In Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor, Fortune Infrastructure delayed the handover of a flat indefinitely, leading
the buyer to file a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issues:

1. Whether indefinite project delays by the developer constitute a deficiency of service.

2. Whether the buyer is entitled to a refund and compensation for the delay.

Judgment:
The NCDRC ruled in favor of the buyer, ordering Fortune Infrastructure to refund the payment with
compensation. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, deeming a three-year completion period
reasonable and finding that indefinite delays without valid justification constituted a deficiency of service
under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). The ruling emphasized that
consumers are entitled to refunds and compensation for unwarranted project delays.

26. COUNTRY COLONIZERS V. HARMIT SINGH ARORA

Facts:
In this case, Country Colonizers significantly delayed the completion of a real estate project, causing
financial and emotional distress to the homebuyers.

Issues:
 1. Whether developers are obligated to refund homebuyers for long project delays.

2. The appropriate compensation for affected homebuyers in such cases.

Judgment:
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled in favor of the homebuyers,
ordering the developer to refund their payments. The refunds included an interest rate comparable to
that of nationalized bank home loans. Additionally, each buyer received lump-sum compensation of Rs.
1 lakh. This judgment reinforces the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA)'s
commitment to consumer protection, emphasizing fair treatment and accountability in cases of
unreasonable project delays.

27. SPICEJET LIMITED VS RANJU AERY

Facts:
Ranju Aery booked flight tickets through [Link] for a SpiceJet flight. However, the flight was
cancelled without prior notice, forcing Aery to incur additional costs to book alternative flights. She
sought compensation for her losses.

Issues:

1. Whether SpiceJet and [Link] were responsible for compensating Aery for her additional
expenses and mental distress due to the cancellation.

2. Whether consumers can file complaints in any jurisdiction for online transactions.

Judgment:
The District Forum ruled in Aery’s favor, ordering SpiceJet to refund her expenses and pay
compensation for mental distress. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
upheld this decision, emphasizing that consumers purchasing online have the right to file complaints in
any jurisdiction. This case underscores the significance of consumer rights in the digital marketplace and
holds service providers accountable for disruptions without notice.

28. AMAZON SELLERS PRIVATE LTD. VS GOPAL KRISHNA

Facts:
On May 11, 2016, Gopal Krishan purchased a Xiaomi Redmi Note 3 mobile handset through Amazon
India's online portal, making the payment online. Upon receipt, the handset was found to be defective.

Issues:
 1. Whether Amazon India, as the facilitator of the sale, could be held responsible for the quality of
the product sold through its platform.

2. Whether Amazon India was vicariously liable for the defect along with the manufacturer.

Judgment:
The court observed that it is the duty of the platform facilitating the sale to ensure that goods sold meet
quality standards. If products purchased online are defective, the online portal cannot evade
responsibility. The court held that an agent (in this case, Amazon) involved in the sale of a product has
a duty to ensure its quality. If the product is defective, the agent is vicariously liable along with the
manufacturer for any loss caused to the buyer. This case reinforces the accountability of online platforms
for the quality of products sold through them.

29. [Link] VS URMIL MUNJAL

Facts: A customer (complainant) made an online purchase of goods (a mobile handset) through
[Link], which served as a facilitator or intermediary for the transaction between the buyer and an
independent seller. The role of [Link] was to connect the buyer with the seller, allowing them to
complete the purchase. After receiving the product, the complainant found it defective. The complainant
attempted to address the issue by seeking assistance on how to return the defective product to the seller
for a replacement or refund.

1. Complaint with the District Forum

o Dissatisfied with the response from [Link], the complainant filed a case with the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Gurgaon, alleging deficiency of service
on the part of [Link]. The complaint asserted that [Link], as the intermediary,
had an implied duty to assist in cases involving defective products sold on its platform.

2. District Forum’s Ruling

o The District Forum ruled in favor of the complainant, holding that [Link] was
responsible for providing guidance on returning defective goods as per its role as a
facilitator. The Forum found that, based on [Link]’s terms and conditions, it had a
duty to help connect buyers and sellers and facilitate communication when issues arose
with purchased products. [Link] was thus found liable for a deficiency in service.

3. Appeal to the State Commission

o [Link] appealed to the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

but the State Commission upheld the District Forum’s ruling. The State Commission
 confirmed that [Link], as the intermediary, had a duty to inform the buyer about the
return process for defective goods, as this duty was inherent in its role as a facilitator.

4. Non-Compliance and Delay

o After the State Commission’s decision, [Link] did not comply with the order, nor
did it immediately file an appeal with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC). It was only after receiving a show-cause notice from the District
Court on October 15, 2012, for non-compliance that [Link] obtained a certified
copy of the order and filed a revision petition with the NCDRC. This delay resulted in a
total of 327 days past the allowable limit.

Issues:

1. Whether [Link], as an online facilitator, is responsible for assisting consumers with return
processes for defective products sold on its platform.

2. Whether the delay of 327 days in filing the revision petition by [Link] is justified and should
be condoned.

3. Whether the complainant is a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, in relation to [Link]’s role as an intermediary.

Judgment:

1. On Condonation of Delay

o The NCDRC dismissed [Link]’s petition based on the delay of 327 days in filing.
[Link] claimed it became aware of the State Commission's order only upon receiving
the show-cause notice on October 15, 2012, and subsequently obtained a certified copy
on October 18, 2012. However, the NCDRC found that [Link] had already received
a free copy of the order on October 17, 2011, a fact supported by documentation. Thus,
the claim that [Link] was unaware of the order for a full year was deemed baseless.
The NCDRC rejected the condonation application, finding the delay inexcusable.

2. On the Merits of the Case

o The NCDRC examined whether [Link], as an intermediary, was liable for the return
process. [Link] argued that it merely facilitated the transaction and bore no
responsibility for the quality of goods or the return process. However, the NCDRC
highlighted that [Link]’s own terms and conditions indicated its role as a facilitator
and that it had an implied duty to assist buyers in cases involving defective products.
 Both the District Forum and the State Commission had emphasized that [Link]
should have informed the complainant about the return process, in line with its
responsibility as an intermediary.

3. On Consumer Status of the Complainant

o [Link] contended that the complainant was not a “consumer” under Section 2(1)(d)
of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as [Link] provided “gratuitous” services
without consideration. However, the NCDRC rejected this argument, stating that
[Link]’s role in facilitating e-commerce transactions constituted a service with
business returns, and it was not acting as a charitable organization. Hence, the
complainant had consumer rights against [Link] under the Consumer Protection
Act.

4. Final Decision

o The NCDRC dismissed the revision petition on the grounds of inordinate delay and lack
of merit, upholding the decisions of both the District and State Commissions. The court
emphasized that [Link], as a facilitator, had an obligation to support buyers in cases
involving defective goods, thereby reinforcing consumer rights in e-commerce
transactions. No costs were awarded.

30. HELLO TRAVELS VS HARISH JAIN

Facts: The case involves a revision petition filed by M/s Hello Travel (the Travel Portal) against an
order by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. of Chandigarh. The Complainant,
Mr. Harish C. Jain, booked a tour package costing ₹61,200 through the Travel Portal. He paid an advance
of ₹20,000 to the Travel Agency (Your Tour Advisor Pvt. Ltd.) via the Travel Portal but did not receive
the hotel vouchers or other necessary documents. His requests for a refund went unanswered. The
Complainant filed a complaint with the District Forum, which ruled in his favor on 23.07.2019, ordering
the Travel Portal and Travel Agency to refund the advance and pay compensation for mental agony and
litigation costs.

Issues:

• The primary issue was whether the Travel Portal could be held jointly liable for the actions of
the Travel Agency, despite claiming it was merely an intermediary.
• The Travel Portal contended that it should not be held responsible for the compensation and
costs awarded to the Complainant.
Judgment: The State Commission upheld the District Forum's decision, finding both the Travel Portal
and the Travel Agency liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It was determined that
the Travel Portal, by providing access to the Travel Agency through its platform, had a responsibility to
ensure the quality of services offered. The Travel Portal's argument of being an intermediary was rejected,
with references to previous cases emphasizing the duty of online platforms to ensure service quality. The
Revision Petition was dismissed, and the Travel Portal was ordered to pay ₹1,00,000 as a cost to the
Consumer Legal Aid Account. The original orders of the District Forum were confirmed, with
compliance mandated within specified timelines.

31. MAKEMYTRIP V. MANABENDRA SAHA ROY

Facts: Manabendra Saha Roy booked a Dubai tour package for four people with Make My Trip (MMT)
for Rs. 2,06,959 based on a detailed itinerary received via email on September 19, 2015. The initial
itinerary included sightseeing at various locations in Dubai. However, three days before the departure,
when Roy collected his tickets, he discovered that the itinerary had been changed. The new version did
not include sightseeing; it only covered air tickets and hotel stays. Since MMT's cancellation policy
allowed cancellation only ten days before departure, Roy could not cancel the tour without losing his
payment, forcing him to accept the revised, less-inclusive itinerary. Roy claimed MMT’s actions were
restrictive, unfair, and deceptive trade practices. MMT argued that the initial itinerary was clearly marked
as “tentative” and subject to change, meaning the respondent could not claim any relief since he
proceeded with the tour.

Issues: Did MMT's last-minute itinerary change amount to a deficiency in service? Were MMT’s actions
deceptive, restrictive, and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act?

Judgement: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that MMT’s
behavior constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices. The term “tentative” could not justify a
complete and significant itinerary change, especially when the final version lacked promised sightseeing
activities. By altering the itinerary after receiving full payment and allowing no option for cancellation
without forfeiture, MMT had acted unfairly and caused undue hardship to Roy. The NCDRC upheld the
State Commission’s decision, ordering MMT to pay Rs. 1,10,000 as compensation for the mental pain
and inconvenience caused to Roy.

32. STATION MANAGER , AIR INDIA , AIZAWAL VS DR . K VANLALZAMI

Facts: Dr. K. Vanlalzami, a student, booked an Air India flight from Aizawl to New Delhi for January
8, 2015. Upon arrival at the airport, she was informed that the flight was overbooked and that she would
be denied boarding. As a result, she missed her train to Jodhpur and had to rebook a flight from Silchar
several days later, incurring additional expenses. During the check-in for her rescheduled flight, she faced
further complications due to a lack of seat allocation, which caused her significant stress. After sending
a legal notice to Air India, which went unanswered, she filed a consumer complaint seeking ₹2 lakhs in
compensation. The District Forum awarded her ₹1 lakh, a decision upheld by the State Commission.

Issues:

The main issue was whether Air India exhibited a deficiency in service that warranted compensation for
the inconveniences faced by Dr. Vanlalzami.

Judgment: The National Commission found that Air India was negligent in providing service to Dr.
Vanlalzami, making them liable to pay suitable compensation. The Commission noted that the airline
did not present any valid defenses regarding the overbooking before the District Forum. Given the
circumstances, including the significant delay and the additional expenses incurred by the complainant,
the compensation awarded by the District Forum, which was confirmed by the State Commission, was
deemed appropriate. The revision petition filed by Air India was dismissed, and the previous orders were
upheld without any changes or costs imposed.

33. M/S. SRILANKAN AIRLINES LTD. V. SUBHASH CHAWLA

Facts: Subhash Chawla and his family booked a trip to Singapore and Malaysia through SriLankan
Airlines via M/s. D. Paul’s Travels. On April 21, 2006, while returning from Changi Airport, Singapore,
the airline refused to accept their baggage, which included a Sony television shipped separately as
unaccompanied baggage at a cost of ₹22,671. Due to this refusal, the complainant could not benefit
from customs duty-free allowances and incurred an additional ₹1,000 in transportation costs. SriLankan
Airlines argued that the television exceeded permissible weight limits and was prohibited as accompanied
baggage.

Issues:
• The primary issue was whether Srilankan Airlines was liable for the baggage charges and if the
compensation awarded for mental agony and litigation costs was justified.

Judgment:
• The District Forum ordered Srilankan Airlines to reimburse ₹22,671 for the baggage and

awarded ₹1,00,000 for mental agony and ₹10,000 for litigation costs.

• Both the Complainant and the airline appealed the decision, but the appeals were dismissed.

• The airline then filed a revision petition with the National Commission, which resulted in a partial
allowance of the petition.
 • The National Commission directed the airline to pay ₹50,000 in compensation for mental agony
(reduced from ₹1,00,000) and ruled that the airline would not be liable to pay the ₹22,671
baggage charge.

34. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AIR INDIA VS ANTONY BENJAMIN

Facts: The complainant's flight was cancelled, resulting in a prolonged 26-hour wait at the airport.

During this time, the complainant was not provided with lodging facilities, leading to significant mental
and physical suffering.

Issues:

• The main issue was whether there was a deficiency in service due to the airline's failure to provide
lodging facilities during the flight cancellation.

Judgment: The District Forum initially awarded compensation to the complainant for the airline's lack
of lodging facilities.

However, upon appeal, this decision was set aside. The appellate court ruled that the airline was not
legally obligated to provide lodging and noted there was no evidence to support the availability of lodging
within the airport.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, the District Forum's order was reversed, and the complaint was
dismissed with no order as to costs.

35. BANK OF INDIA V. MUSTAFA IBRAHIM NADIADWALA

Facts: The Respondent/Complainant, Mustafa Ibrahim Nadiadwala, co-owned properties in Raigad and
took a loan of ₹10,48,000 from the Appellant/Bank, mortgaging the properties by depositing two
conveyance deeds.

Despite repaying the loan, the bank failed to return the original documents. The complainant sought the
return of the original deeds, ₹99 lakhs for mental agony, and ₹50,000 for litigation costs.

Issue:

The primary issue was whether there was a deficiency in service by the Bank regarding the non-return
of the original title deeds.

Judgment: The State Commission partly upheld the complaint, ordering the bank to return the original
title deeds within two months. If the bank failed to comply, it would pay ₹500 per day until the
documents were returned. Additionally, the bank was ordered to pay ₹9 lakhs for mental suffering and
₹10,000 for litigation costs.

Dissatisfied with this ruling, the bank appealed to the National Commission. In the appeal, the bank
admitted that the title deeds had been misplaced and were not available for return.

The National Commission found that the bank had indeed committed a deficiency in service by losing
the title deeds while in its custody. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, and the bank was ordered
to pay ₹5 lakhs as compensation for the loss of the title deeds, along with ₹10,000 for litigation costs.
The amount was to be paid within four weeks, failing which interest at 12% per annum would apply for
any delay in payment.

36. MAGMA FINCORP LTD. V. RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI

Facts: The complainant purchased a vehicle through a hire purchase agreement with a financier. After
making seven installment payments, the complainant defaulted on the loan. Despite receiving a demand
notice, he failed to clear the outstanding dues. The financier repossessed the vehicle and later sold it due
to the complainant's continued default. The complainant challenged the ownership rights of the financier
and the legality of the vehicle's repossession.

Issues:

• Whether the financier is the real owner of the vehicle under the hire purchase agreement, and
whether there are any obstacles preventing the financier from repossessing the vehicle due to the
hirer's non-payment.
• Whether proper notice is required for the repossession of the vehicle and the consequences of
failing to provide such notice.

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled against the complainant's claims of unfair trade practices and
deficiency of service regarding the repossession of the vehicle due to non-payment. The Court noted
that there was no specific allegation of breach regarding the repossession, and the financier was not
required to present the hire purchase agreement, as the District Forum had not requested it. The Court
clarified that under the hire purchase agreement, the financier retained ownership of the vehicle and was
not obligated to disclose sale details unless specifically requested. The requirement for notice prior to
repossession is contingent on the agreement's terms or the conduct of the parties. If a notice requirement
is implied, failure to provide it could lead to a deficiency of service and entitlement to damages. The
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversing the decisions of the lower forums. However, it directed the
financier to pay the complainant ₹15,000 as damages for not issuing proper notice before repossessing
the vehicle.
 37. KALAWATI VS UNITED VAISH

Facts: The petitioners (complainants) deposited various amounts in fixed deposit receipts with the
respondent (a co-operative society). After the fixed deposits matured, the respondent defaulted on
payments. The petitioners approached the District Forum, claiming deficiency in service, which directed
the respondent to refund the deposited amounts along with interest. The respondent appealed to the
State Commission, which overturned the District Forum’s decision, ruling that the petitioners were not
consumers under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and that the District Forum had no jurisdiction
over the matter based on the Societies Act.

Issues:

• Whether the petitioners were considered consumers under the CPA, given their membership in
the co-operative society.
• Whether the District Forum had jurisdiction over the disputes between the petitioners and the
co-operative society based on the provisions of the Societies Act.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the State Commission erred in its judgment. It emphasized
that the CPA is meant to be supplementary to other laws, allowing consumers to seek redressal in District
Forums regardless of other legal provisions. The Court clarified that Section 93 of the Societies Act does
not bar the District Forum's jurisdiction because it is not a civil court. It affirmed that members of a co-
operative society can be consumers when they engage in transactions that involve services rendered by
the society, such as accepting deposits and paying interest. The Court distinguished the rights of a
member from those of the society itself, likening it to the relationship between shareholders and a
company. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the District Forum’s order, confirming that the
petitioners were indeed consumers and entitled to pursue their complaints. The State Commission's
order was set aside, and the petitioners were awarded costs of ₹2,000.

38. BANNE SINGH SEKAHWAT V. JHUNJHUNU ACADEMY

Facts: The complainant's daughter attended a school run by the opposite party (OP) and completed her
12th exam in 2013. The complainant requested a transfer certificate (TC) and a refund of the caution
money, but the school demanded ₹10,000 as a precondition for issuing the TC, despite there being no
outstanding fees. As a result of the school's refusal to issue the TC, the complainant's daughter could
not gain admission for the 2013-14 academic year. The complainant filed a consumer complaint in the
District Forum seeking ₹4,50,000 in compensation. The District Forum ordered the school to issue the
TC and a character certificate within 15 days, with a penalty of ₹10,000 for non-compliance. The
complainant was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded and appealed to the State Commission,
which upheld the District Forum's decision. The complainant then filed a revised petition with the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

Issue:

Was there a deficiency in service on the part of the school?

Judgment: The NCDRC found that the school's wrongful act prevented the complainant's daughter
from securing admission in the college for the 2013-14 academic year, which could have significant
implications for her career. The NCDRC determined that both the District Forum and State
Commission failed to adequately consider the impact of the lost academic year when deciding on
compensation. As a result, the NCDRC modified the State Commission's order, directing the OP to pay
₹50,000 to the complainant within one month. If the payment was not made, the complainant could
recover the amount through an execution petition in the District Forum.

39. FIITJEE V. SHINJINI TEWARI

Facts: In the present case, the parents of the Respondent child had paid the fees in advance for a two-
year coaching programme. However, due to acute medical reason, it became impossible for the child to
attend the coaching classes. On this account, the parents asked for a refund but the same was denied by
the Appellant organisation.

Argument by FIITJEE- Complainant is not entitled to any refund in terms of provisions of the
enrolment form, which was duly signed by the Complainant at the time of admission of her son.

Issue: Whether refund can be taken from coaching institutes in case of impossibility to attend the
classes?

Decision: The forum stated that the appellant should not be given an unfair advantage, particularly
considering the interests of consumers with limited means. It noted that students or parents signing
admission forms often lack bargaining power to negotiate or refuse specific clauses, so such clauses
should not be used against them.

The forum further stated that if a student leaves a course midstream due to deficient or substandard
services, it would be unfair to withhold fees as no service provider can charge for services that were not
delivered or utilized. The coaching institute was also criticized for failing to respect the student’s medical
condition, which caused further mental distress. The practice of making students and parents sign one-
sided agreements during enrollment was deemed an unfair trade practice.
 40. B.N.M EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION AND ANR V. KUM AKSHATHA AND ANR

Facts: The complainant, a 14-year-old student, participated in a school-organized educational tour in

December 2006. She fell ill with a fever and despite her classmates informing the teachers, no medical
aid was provided, causing her health to deteriorate. Upon reaching Delhi, she was finally taken to the
hospital after collapsing in her hotel bathroom. There, she was diagnosed and doctors noted that timely
medical intervention could have prevented the severity of her illness. As a result, she became bedridden
and required constant care. Alleging gross negligence on the part of the teachers and school management,
her family filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation for medical expenses, future treatment, and
damages.

Issue: Whether the teachers/school were liable to the student?

Decision: Teachers had a mandatory duty to take care of students' health during the tour since they
were minors under their care and custody. Found gross negligence in not providing medical attention
when the student experienced blackouts. Held school vicariously liable for teachers' negligence. The
National Commission held that the Appellant should pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- as
an all-inclusive one time compensation to the Complainant, along with interest @ 8% per annum from
the date of filing of the complaint.

41. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD V. SURESH PRASAD SINHA

Facts: Board failed to publish result of Respondent’s son in Senior Secondary Examination. As a result,
the Respondent’s son had to re-appear for examination and suffered loss of 1 year.

Issue: Whether a statutory School Examination Board comes within purview of Consumer Protection
Act?

Decision: Consumer Protection Act is meant to cover services rendered for consideration, including
professional or quasi-commercial activities. However, the Act does not apply to the statutory function
of evaluating whether a candidate has successfully passed an exam. Negligence or deficiencies during the
examination process, such as evaluation or issuance of mark sheets, do not turn the examination board
into a service provider or the student into a consumer under the Act. The Court clarified that holding
exams, evaluating answer scripts, declaring results, and issuing certificates are all statutory non-
commercial functions. The examination fee paid by students is not considered payment for a service, so
any deficiencies in the process do not make the board a service provider. Consequently, the respondent’s
complaint was not maintainable.
 42. INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION VS VP SHANTHA

As a result of this judgment, medical profession has been brought under the section 2(1)(o) of CPA,
1986 and also, it has included the following categories of doctors/hospitals under this section:

a. All medical/dental practitioners doing independent medical/dental practice unless rendering only
free service.

b. Private hospitals charging all patients.

c. All hospitals having free as well as paying patients and all the paying and free category patients
receiving treatment in such hospitals.

d. Medical/dental practitioners and hospitals paid by an insurance firm for the treatment of a client
or an employment for that of an employee.

It exempts only those hospitals and the medical/dental practitioners of such hospitals which offer
free service to all patients.

43. MARTIN F D’SOUZA APPELLANT VS MOHD ISHFAQ

The consumer was advised to take certain medication, and afterwards operated. He alleged that the
appellant was negligent in prescribing amikacin to him, which caused hearing impairment.

SC: Doctor not guilty of medical negligence. The court relied on the opinion of an expert from the
All India Institute of Medical Sciences and affidavits by other doctors who had stated that the
appellant was not negligent.

The court cautioned against holding doctors liable for unsuccessful treatment or mishaps
that were not necessarily due to negligence.

Before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer
Forum or Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of
doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after
that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice
be then issued to the concerned doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors
who may not be ultimately found to be negligent.

‘Sometimes despite their best efforts the treatment of a doctor fails. For instance, sometimes despite the best effort of a
surgeon, the patient dies. This does not mean that the doctor or the surgeon must be held to be guilty of medical
negligence, unless there is some strong evidence to suggest that he is’, the bench said.
 Whenever acceptable practise is followed by a doctor, one cannot claim negligence on part of the
doctor. Procedure as per practise is good enough, standard practice, code of conduct has to be
followed.

44. YASH RAJ FILMS V. AFREEN ZAIDI

FACTS: Afreen Fatima Zaidi, a teacher, watched the movie Fan with her children after seeing its trailer,
which included the song "Jabra Fan." Disappointed that the song was missing from the movie, she
claimed her children felt unwell due to not eating, leading to hospitalization. She filed a consumer
complaint, seeking compensation and a directive for Yash Raj Films to include the song in the movie.
Her complaint was initially dismissed by the district forum, but the State Commission ordered Yash Raj
Films to compensate her with INR 10,000 plus INR 5,000 for legal costs. Yash Raj Films then appealed
the decision.

ISSUES: Does the complainant qualify as a "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection
Act?

Did the omission of "Jabra Fan" from the film amount to an "unfair trade practice" under Section 2(1)(r)
of the Consumer Protection Act?

JUDGMENT: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld the State
Commission's ruling, finding no grounds for interference and requiring Yash Raj Films to pay
compensation and costs. Yash Raj Films subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which stayed the
NCDRC's order. The Supreme Court clarified that a trailer’s content does not constitute a promise or
contract; thus, excluding the trailer song from the film is not a "deficiency of service." Legal standards
indicate that advertisements generally do not constitute offers but are instead “invitations to offers.” In
this case, the court found that the trailer was not an “offer” or a binding “promise” but rather a way to
encourage audiences to buy tickets. No contractual relationship is created from watching a trailer; the
only transaction occurs when a consumer buys a ticket, which allows them to view the movie, not any
specific content previewed in promotional material. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that Yash
Raj Films falsely represented or intended to deceive viewers with the trailer. Emphasizing artistic
freedom in filmmaking, the court recognized that creative works, including trailers, must allow for
flexibility in how films are presented. Hence, it dismissed any claims that omitting the song amounted to
a breach of service.
 45. CANNOUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANT V. KARAN MITRA

FACTS: The case involved a promotional scheme by McDonald's titled “McDonald's Mein Khao Har
Bar Prize Le Jao.” On September 1, 2005, the complainant placed two orders worth Rs. 81 each and
received a coupon that promised "sure shot" prizes, including small French fries with a purchase of Rs.
20 or more, and the chance to win items like mobile phones and a car through SMS participation.
However, the complainant claimed the terms of the scheme were unclear, as there were no terms
displayed on the restaurant’s notice board. Additionally, the complainant was charged Rs. 3 per SMS, a
rate they alleged was higher than usual.

The complainant argued that the scheme was an unfair trade practice because participants were required
to make further purchases to claim their prizes. The lack of transparency regarding the scheme's terms
and winner results also led the complainant to file a consumer complaint. The District Consumer Forum
initially awarded the complainant Rs. 10,000 in compensation, which the State Commission increased to
Rs. 2 lakh with Rs. 10 lakh in punitive damages to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.

ISSUES: (1) Was the McDonald's promotional scheme an unfair trade practice? (2) Was the SMS charge
an undue burden on consumers, and did McDonald's receive any financial gain from the SMS charges?
(3) Did the State Commission have grounds to enhance the initial compensation?

JUDGMENT: The National Commission examined the issues, noting that:

1. Unfair Trade Practice: The scheme was considered an unfair trade practice as it required further
purchases to claim prizes, which could be misleading for consumers. However, there was no
direct evidence to show that McDonald’s profited from the SMS charges.
2. Compensation: The National Commission found the State Commission's compensation
excessive due to a lack of direct evidence linking McDonald’s to any profit-sharing arrangement
with the telecom providers. The award was modified, reducing the compensation to Rs. 30,000
for the complainant and Rs. 70,000 for the Consumer Welfare Fund.
3. Jurisdiction: The National Commission highlighted that its role was not to re-evaluate facts
already considered by lower forums unless there was a jurisdictional error.

46. J.K. MITTAL V. KINGFISHER AIRLINE

FACTS: A practicing advocate (Complainant No.1) booked tickets with Kingfisher Airlines for a round
trip from Delhi to Bhubaneswar on 12th March 2008. However, upon arriving at the airport, he
discovered that Kingfisher Airlines did not operate flights on this route, and he was directed to take
flights operated by Deccan Airways (a low-cost airline) instead. Although the ticket mentioned that
Deccan would operate the flight, the flight numbers used were Kingfisher Airlines identifiers, which gave
the impression that it was a Kingfisher Airlines flight, not a Deccan flight. Kingfisher charged
significantly higher fares than Deccan for these flights, though the amenities on Deccan were far inferior
to those on Kingfisher’s regular services.

ISSUE: The primary issue was whether Kingfisher Airlines' actions in selling tickets for Deccan-operated
flights under its own branding and flight numbers constituted an unfair trade practice by misleading
customers into paying higher fares for what they assumed to be a Kingfisher flight, with its associated
amenities and service quality.

JUDGMENT: The court held that Kingfisher Airlines engaged in unfair trade practices by projecting
Deccan flights as its own and charging a premium fare. It noted that an "unwary flier" would reasonably
assume they were booking a Kingfisher flight, given the use of Kingfisher’s branding, identifiers, and the
absence of clear disclosure. The court directed Kingfisher Airlines to pay a compensation of Rs.
25,00,000 to the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Government of India and instructed the Directorate
General of Civil Aviation and the Secretary of Civil Aviation to consider regulations preventing similar
practices in the future.

47. GANESH SALIAN V. PEPSI FOODS

FACTS: The complainant bought seven packets of Lays Potato Chips from Lalith Stores and Juice Centre
in Udupi, manufactured by Opposite Party (O.P.) 2 and distributed by O.P. 4. Upon opening three
packets, the complainant found only a few slices in each. Weighing four of the packets, it was found they
totaled 15 grams, though they should have weighed 60 grams as printed. The complainant issued a legal
notice demanding compensation, which was either received or refused by the O.P.s.

ISSUES: (1) Did the O.P.s engage in unfair trade practices by misrepresenting the weight of the chips on
the packaging? (2) Was the initial compensation of Rs. 500 awarded by the District Forum (DF)
adequate?

JUDGMENT: The DF held that the O.P.s engaged in unfair trade practices, as the actual weight of chips
in the packets was significantly less than stated. The DF initially ordered O.P. 2 to pay Rs. 35 with Rs.
500 as compensation and 10% interest. On appeal, considering the misrepresentation and potential harm
to other consumers, the compensation was raised to Rs. 50,000, with Rs. 2,000 as legal costs. O.P. 2 was
directed to pay the sum within two months, failing which interest at 9% would apply.

48. MAKEMYTRIP V. MANABENDRA SAHA ROY

FACTS: Manabendra Saha Roy booked a Dubai tour package for four people with Make My Trip (MMT)
for Rs. 2,06,959 based on a detailed itinerary received via email on September 19, 2015. The initial
itinerary included sightseeing at various locations in Dubai. However, three days before the departure,
when Roy collected his tickets, he discovered that the itinerary had been changed. The new version did
not include sightseeing; it only covered air tickets and hotel stays. Since MMT's cancellation policy
allowed cancellation only ten days before departure, Roy could not cancel the tour without losing his
payment, forcing him to accept the revised, less-inclusive itinerary. Roy claimed MMT’s actions were
restrictive, unfair, and deceptive trade practices. MMT argued that the initial itinerary was clearly marked
as “tentative” and subject to change, meaning the respondent could not claim any relief since he
proceeded with the tour.

ISSUES: (1) Did MMT's last-minute itinerary change amount to a deficiency in service? (2) Were MMT’s
actions deceptive, restrictive, and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act?

JUDGMENT: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that MMT’s
behavior constituted unfair and deceptive trade practices. The term “tentative” could not justify a
complete and significant itinerary change, especially when the final version lacked promised sightseeing
activities. By altering the itinerary after receiving full payment and allowing no option for cancellation
without forfeiture, MMT had acted unfairly and caused undue hardship to Roy. The NCDRC upheld the
State Commission’s decision, ordering MMT to pay Rs. 1,10,000 as compensation for the mental pain
and inconvenience caused to Roy.

49. TATA ENGINEERING V. REGISTRAR OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE AGREEMENT

FACTS: Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited (Telco) is a leading manufacturer of
commercial vehicles in India, operating through a network of exclusive dealers. The dealers are allocated
specific territories where they can sell Telco vehicles, with no permission to sell outside these zones. The
Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements challenged this arrangement, claiming it constitutes a
"restrictive trade practice" under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act,
particularly alleging that Telco's agreement restricts competition through territorial allocation and
exclusive dealership.

ISSUES: (1) Does the agreement between Telco and its dealers, restricting the sale of vehicles to
designated territories, amount to a "restrictive trade practice"? (2) Is the exclusive dealership agreement,
which limits dealers to selling only Telco vehicles, restrictive of competition? (3) Does the territorial
restriction imposed by Telco affect competition among dealers and ultimately harm consumer interests?

JUDGMENT: The Court held that the territorial allocation and exclusive dealership provisions in Telco’s
agreement did not amount to restrictive trade practices. Key reasons included:

1. Consumer Interest: The territorial restrictions helped ensure a fair distribution of vehicles across
various parts of India, including remote areas, where other manufacturers had less presence. This
also guaranteed availability of after-sales services.
 2. Public Interest: The exclusivity and territorial arrangement did not hinder competition but
instead supported a healthy competition among manufacturers rather than creating competition
solely among Telco dealers.
3. Market Conditions: Due to limited vehicle supply and a substantial demand gap, allowing dealers
unrestricted territories could lead to concentrated sales in urban areas, depriving rural consumers
of access to vehicles.

Thus, the Court set aside the Commission’s decision, concluding that the agreement did not fall within
the definition of a restrictive trade practice and therefore was not registrable under the MRTP Act.

Concept Discussed: Rule of Reason in Restricted Trade Practices and Consumer Protection

The "rule of reason" approach was used to assess whether the territorial restrictions and exclusive
dealership promoted or hindered competition and consumer welfare. It focused of market impact,
purpose and effect. Under this principle:

Promotion of Competition: The Court recognized that the allocation of territories could encourage
competition between manufacturers in each market, promoting consumer choice across the
[Link] Protection: The territorial restrictions were found to protect consumers by ensuring
wide access to vehicles and after-sales service, even in areas that might otherwise be neglected.
Contextual Analysis: Rather than viewing the restrictions as inherently anti-competitive, the Court
evaluated the specific industry characteristics, demand-supply conditions, and market needs, concluding
that the restrictions were justified in this case for promoting broader competition and consumer
protection.

50. DJ DESOUZA V. CPC DIAGNOSTICS

FACTS: The appellant placed an order for a TurboChem 100 Unit after receiving a quotation from the
respondent in August 2015. The appellant paid 50% of the instrument's cost (Rs. 3,50,000). Pre-
installation requirements included an efficiently air-conditioned room, a 1KVA Online UPS, and
broadband for remote diagnostics. Upon delivery, the respondent advised the appellant that their existing
UPS was inadequate, suggesting a 1KVA Online UPS was necessary due to potential power fluctuations
in the country. The appellant claimed the instrument lacked an on-board laundry facility, which he
believed was essential. Dissatisfied, the appellant sought reimbursement and damages.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the insistence on a specific type of UPS by the respondent constitutes a restrictive
trade practice. (2) Whether the absence of the on-board laundry facility and the UPS requirement
constitutes a deficiency in service under consumer protection law.
JUDGMENT: The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Goa State Commission, and
subsequently the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed the
appellant's complaint. It was determined that there was no commitment from the respondent to supply
an instrument with an on-board laundry facility, nor evidence of a manufacturing defect. Additionally,
the requirement for a 1KVA Online UPS was deemed reasonable given the electrical supply situation in
India, and it did not amount to a restrictive trade practice. The court upheld this decision, finding no
deficiency in service or unfair trade practices, and dismissed the appeal.

CONCLUSION: The courts concluded that the respondent's insistence on a specific UPS was a precaution
for optimal performance, not a restrictive trade practice, and that the respondent had not violated any
commitments or consumer protection laws.

51. BIG BAZAAR V. STATE OF GUJARAT

FACTS: Big Bazaar, a retail store in Ahmedabad, organized a "Mega Saving Day" on Republic Day,
January 26, 2006, offering discounted prices to attract customers. Due to high demand, the store
implemented a system where customers were required to purchase a Rs. 50 currency coupon for entry,
which could be redeemed fully against purchases, or refunded if unused. Out of 3,900 coupons issued,
almost all were redeemed, with a few remaining unaccounted for.

The Department of Weights and Measures and Consumer Affairs, Gujarat, filed a complaint, alleging
that the Rs. 50 coupon requirement constituted an unfair and restrictive trade practice, asserting that the
store had imposed an unauthorized entry fee and collected Rs. 1,95,000 from consumers.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the Rs. 50 coupon, required for store entry, amounted to an unfair or restrictive
trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. (2) Whether the store’s practice unjustly restricted
consumer access or imposed unfair conditions for purchase.

JUDGMENT: The District Forum ordered Big Bazaar to refund Rs. 1,95,000 and pay additional
compensation, a decision later upheld by the Gujarat State Commission. However, on further appeal,
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held that Big Bazaar's Rs. 50 coupon
policy did not amount to restrictive or unfair trade practices. The NCDRC reasoned that since the
coupon value was redeemable against purchases or refundable if unused, it did not impose an unjust cost
or restriction on consumers. Additionally, the policy aimed at managing store capacity rather than
profiting from entry fees. The court clarified that business promotions that attract genuine customers
and prevent overcrowding are lawful and common international practices. Thus, the revision petition
was allowed, and orders from the District Forum and State Commission were set aside.

CONCLUSION: The court concluded that requiring a redeemable coupon did not constitute a restrictive
trade practice, as it did not unjustly limit consumer access to goods or services. The coupon policy was
upheld as a legitimate measure to manage high customer volumes without imposing undue costs or
conditions on consumers.

52. SARVAJEET SINGH V. BATRA HOTEL, RAWATSAR

FACTS: The appellant (customer) filed a complaint against the respondent, the owner of "Batra Hotel"
in Rawatsar, for charging Rs. 5 extra per bottle for three soft drinks purchased on July 8, 2000. The hotel
justified this additional charge as a service fee to keep the drinks cold, although the official price of each
bottle was Rs. 40. No notice was displayed in the hotel about this extra charge, nor was it itemized in the
bill.

ISSUES: (1) Whether charging an extra amount beyond the official price for soft drinks constituted a
"restrictive trade practice."? (2) Whether this extra charge was an unjustified cost imposed on consumers
without prior disclosure.

JUDGMENT: The District Forum initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that the extra charge was not a
restrictive trade practice. However, on appeal, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
overturned this decision, holding that the additional charge was indeed a restrictive trade practice under
Section 2(1)(nnn) of the Consumer Protection Act. This section prohibits trade practices that manipulate
prices or impose unjustified costs on consumers. The Commission noted that by charging more than the
listed price without informing consumers or listing the amount in the bill, the hotel had imposed an
unjustified restriction on customers. This practice of increasing prices without transparency led to unjust
enrichment for the hotel. The Commission directed the respondent to refund Rs. 15 (the extra amount
charged for three bottles) to the appellant, pay Rs. 500 as compensation for mental distress, and Rs. 500
as litigation costs, all within three months.

CONCLUSION: The hotel’s additional charge for cold drinks without prior notice or bill transparency
was held to be a restrictive and unfair trade practice, imposing an unjustified cost on consumers. The
Commission’s order reinforced consumer protection by ensuring transparency in pricing practices.

53. IREO GRACE REALTECH V. APARTMENT BUYERS

FACTS: The Department of Town and Country Planning granted a license to develop a housing project,
“The Corridors,” in Gurgaon, Haryana, which was transferred to Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. ("the
Developer"). The building plans were sanctioned in 2013, but significant delays occurred in construction
and delivery. Many apartment buyers alleged unfair terms in the Apartment Buyer Agreements (ABA),
including clauses allowing the Developer to unilaterally change deadlines and penalize buyers heavily for
delayed payments while providing minimal compensation for its own delays. Buyers filed a complaint
with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for compensation and a refund
due to the Developer’s delays and failure to deliver as promised.

ISSUES: (1) Whether the one-sided terms in the ABA constituted an unfair contract and an unfair trade
practice under the Consumer Protection Act. (2) Whether the Developer's delay in delivering possession
justified a refund with compensation to apartment buyers.

JUDGMENT:

1. Unfair Contract and Trade Practices: The Court held that the terms of the ABA were excessively
one-sided, favoring the Developer by imposing harsh penalties on buyers but offering minimal
compensation for delays on the Developer’s part. The Court found this constituted an unfair
trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Delayed Possession and Refunds: The Court categorized buyers into two groups based on
possession status:
(a) Category A: For buyers whose units were complete with an occupation certificate, the
Court mandated that they accept possession. However, it required the Developer to pay
delay compensation, as the contract’s compensation terms were deemed insufficient.
(b) Category B: For buyers whose units were incomplete and without an occupation
certificate, the Court allowed a full refund with interest, recognizing that buyers should
not be indefinitely bound to wait for possession.
3. Compensation and Interest: The Court noted that the ABA’s delay compensation rate of 0.9%-
1% annually was inadequate. However, it also rejected the buyers’ demand for 20% interest,
deeming it excessive. Instead, it awarded a 9% simple interest per annum, balancing both parties'
interests, especially considering market impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

54. DLF SOUTHERN HOMES V. FLAT BUYERS OF WESTERN HEIGHTS

FACTS: Nine buyers booked flats in a residential project, "Western Heights," in New Town, Bengaluru,
which DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Annabel Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. were developing.
The agreement stipulated a 36-month delivery period, which the developers failed to meet. The buyers
filed a consumer complaint, later joined by others, under the Consumer Protection Act before the
NCDRC. The NCDRC dismissed the complaint, accepting the developer's argument that delay
compensation was limited to what was outlined in the Apartment Buyers Agreement (ABA). Key Clauses
of the ABA: Clause 11(a): Developer to complete construction within 36 months, barring force majeure
conditions. Clause 14: Delay compensation at Rs. 5 per square foot per month if possession wasn’t given
on time. Clause 1.3 and 1.10(a): Buyers responsible for taxes and other charges as specified. Clause 23(b):
Buyers to bear a proportionate cost if the developer secures bulk electricity supply for the complex.
ISSUES: (1) Whether the delayed possession and failure to deliver amenities constituted a deficiency in
service.(2) Whether the ABA’s delay compensation terms were inadequate to compensate for the
developer’s prolonged delay. (3) Whether the flat buyers were entitled to additional compensation due
to the developer's inability to meet its commitments.

Judgment:

1. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Contract: The Supreme Court found that the developer’s delay
of 2-4 years in handing over possession was a clear deficiency in service under the Consumer
Protection Act, as it imposed severe hardship on buyers obligated to pay rent and loan
installments due to this delay. The Court highlighted the ABA’s one-sided nature, crafted to
favor the developer without equal protections for buyers.
2. Inadequate Compensation: The Court ruled that the delay compensation of Rs. 5 per square
foot (approximately 0.3% per annum) was insufficient to cover buyer losses. Recognizing the
severe hardship and financial strain on buyers, the Court held that this term was inadequate and
unreasonable.
3. Right to Fair Compensation: The Court stated that requiring flat buyers to defer their
compensation rights to obtain conveyance deeds was unreasonable and unacceptable, reversing
the NCDRC’s stance. It awarded a fair compensation of 6% simple interest per annum on the
amounts paid by buyers, starting from the contractually agreed handover date until the
possession date.
4. Electricity and Charges: The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision on electricity
charges, as these were specified in the ABA and did not contradict any other terms.

Final Order: The Supreme Court overturned the NCDRC’s decision, ordering the developer to
compensate each buyer at a 6% interest rate annually on the total purchase amount from the end of the
agreed 36-month period until possession, with an additional Rs. 5 per square foot delay compensation
per month. Payment was ordered within one month, with a 9% penalty interest for further delays.