Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Consumer Protection Act, 1986

383 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act — showing 201–383.

SAVANI ROADLINESversusSUNDARAM TEXTILES LTD. AND ANR.

2001 INSC 29613 July 2001Appeal(s) allowed

Sundaram Textiles Ltd. (respondent No. 1) entrusted 125 cartons of goods to Sa Vani Roadlines (appellant) for transport, but the goods were not delivered. The consignor insured the goods with New India Assurance Company Ltd. (respondent No. 2), which paid the loss and obtained a Letter of Subrogation and a Special Powe

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTDversusM/S HIRA LAL RAMESH CHAND & ORS.

2008 INSC 75113 June 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The complainants, exporters of rugs, insured multiple consignments shipped from India to the United States under "warehouse‑to‑warehouse" marine policies covering all risks. The buyer failed to pay and the original documents of title were not presented, leading the exporters to claim loss of the consignments before the

PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD.versusGAGANDEEP BRAR AND ANOTHER

2023 INSC 37013 April 2023Disposed off

Parsvnath Developers Ltd entered into a development agreement with the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) for the Pride Asia project, which included a flat buyer agreement containing clause 9(c) that provided compensation for delay. A dispute over land possession led to arbitration, where the sole arbitrator awarded liabil

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHARSOLIA MOTORS AND OTHERS

2023 INSC 36713 April 2023Dismissed

The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. denied fire‑insurance claims of Harsolia Motors, a commercial enterprise, which led the respondents to file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA 1986). The Gujarat State Commission held the respondents were not "consumers" because the insurance was for a com

BUDDHIST MISSION DENTAL COLLEGE. & HOSPITALversusBHUPESH KHURANA & OTHERS

2009 INSC 18313 February 2009Disposed off

The Supreme Court heard an appeal by Buddhist Mission Dental College & Hospital against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that held the college liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The college had advertised that it was affiliated to Magadh University and recognized

MRS. VISWALAKSHMI SESIDHARAN AND ORS.versusTHE BRANCH MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, BELGAUM

1997 INSC 13913 February 1997Dismissed

The petitioners obtained two loans from Syndicate Bank, but the bank disbursed only part of the amount. They claimed that this deficiency in service prevented them from conducting their business, leading to losses, and filed a consumer complaint for damages. The lower tribunals dismissed the complaint, holding that the

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusMIS ORIENT TREASURES PVT. LTD.

2016 INSC 4513 January 2016Disposed off

The respondent, a jewellery retailer, insured its stock under a jewellers block policy issued by United India Insurance. A burglary occurred at night, and the stolen items were kept in the shop's display window and out of the safe. The insurer denied the claim, relying on the notes to clauses 4 and 5 of the proposal fo

M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusDAVINDER SINGH

2007 INSC 106912 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The owner of a motor vehicle insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. suffered an accident while the vehicle was being driven by a driver whose licence was later found to be forged. The owner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service for the insurer's ref

SAVITA GARGversusTHE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HEART INSTITUTE

2004 INSC 59712 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Savita Garg filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging that her husband, A.K. Garg, died due to medical negligence at the National Heart Institute. The Commission dismissed the petition on the ground that the treating doctors and nurses were not impleaded as p

KALPAVRUKSHA CHARITABLE TRUSTversusTOSHNIWAL BROTHERS (BOMBAY) PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

1999 INSC 47312 October 1999

The Kalpavruksha Charitable Trust operated a diagnostic centre and purchased a CT‑scan machine, charging patients for its use while providing free services to only ten percent of them. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Trust was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 beca

DR. J.J. MERCHANT AND ORS.versusSHRINATH CHATURVEDI

2002 INSC 33012 August 2002Disposed off

The doctors filed a petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging that a complaint of medical negligence against them should be dismissed or stayed, arguing that the case involved complicated questions of law and fact and that a nine‑year delay in disposal rendered the consumer fo

UNITED INDIA INSURANCEversusAJMER SINGH COTTON AND GENERAL MILLS AND ORS. ETC.

1999 INSC 32212 August 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The insured, having procured multiple fire insurance policies, received claim payments after a fire loss and voluntarily executed discharge vouchers stating full and final settlement. He later filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking interest on the settlement amount; the State

LATA CONSTRUCTION AND ORS.versusDR. RAMESHCHANDRA RAMNIKLAL SHAH AND ANR.

1999 INSC 32612 August 1999Dismissed

The respondents entered into a 1987 agreement with Lata Construction for the purchase of a flat, paid substantial sums, but the flat was never delivered and was later occupied by another. In 1991 the parties executed a fresh agreement providing for compensation of Rs.9,51,000 in lieu of the flat, expressly stating that

T. FENN WALTER AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2002 INSC 29912 July 2002Disposed off

The case examined whether a sitting High Court judge appointed as President of a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could continue to function as a judge. A group of advocates challenged the appointment, arguing it created a master‑servant relationship and threatened judicial independence, while the governmen

SKYPAK COURIERS LTD. ETC. ETC.versusTATA CHEMICALS LTD. ETC. ETC.

2000 INSC 32012 May 2000

The Supreme Court examined the practice of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) referring consumer disputes to a retired judge for "consensual adjudication" and then treating the award as its own order. It held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not empower the Commission to delegate its

GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2000 INSC 33112 May 2000

Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) advertised several schemes for allotment of developed plots, collected deposits from allottees, and then failed to deliver possession within a reasonable time. The aggrieved allottees obtained orders from the MRTP Commission, Consumer Forum and High Court directing refund of their

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusPEARL BEVERAGES LTD.

2021 INSC 24712 April 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Pearl Beverages' Porsche, insured with IFFCO Tokio, was destroyed in a high‑speed crash on 22 December 2007. The driver, Aman Bangia, was reported to have smelled of alcohol and was later convicted under IPC 279 for rash driving, but no breath or blood test was conducted. IFFCO Tokio denied the claim invoking an exclus

OM PRAKASHversusASSISTANT ENGINEER, HARYANA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND ORS.

1994 INSC 15112 April 1994Appeal(s) allowed

Om Prakash booked a tractor on 12‑12‑1990, paying an advance and was first on the dealer's booking list. The dealer delayed delivery, supplied tractors to lower‑ranked customers, and when the tractor was finally delivered on 21‑9‑1991 the price had risen, causing a loss of Rs 40,690 to the consumer. The consumer filed

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusNATIONAL BULK HANDLING CORPORATION PVT. LTD.

2020 INSC 17512 February 2020Dismissed

National Bulk Handling Corp., a collateral management company, stored pledged commodities and had taken a fidelity guarantee insurance policy from Oriental Insurance. When 601 barrels of mentha oil were found to have been substituted with water, the company lodged a claim alleging employee dishonesty, which the insurer

COMMISSIONER, RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERSversusHIRALAL CHANDA

2021 INSC 86911 December 2021Disposed off

The Rajasthan Housing Board launched a hire‑purchase housing scheme in 1985 and registered the respondent after he paid a Rs 5,000 registration fee. The Board later demanded seed money in 1993, and after repeated notices the respondent failed to deposit it, leading to cancellation of his registration on 29 May 2000. Th

PUNJ LLOYD LIMITEDversusCORPORATE RISKS INDIA PVT. LTD.

2008 INSC 141611 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed

Punj Lloyd Limited, an engineering contractor, filed a consumer complaint against Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd., an insurance broker, alleging negligence that caused a loss of over Rs. 5.26 crore in securing insurance for a pipeline project. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint

M/S. NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.versusSTATE OF UP & ORS. ETC.

2021 INSC 71611 November 2021Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered appeals filed by Newtech Promoters and Developers challenging orders of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority that directed refund of home‑buyers' money with interest. The promoters argued that the authority, a single member, lacked jurisdiction, that the Real Estate (Regulatio

RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWALversusREGENCY HOSPITAL LTD. AND ORS.

2009 INSC 113111 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, diagnosed with spinal tuberculosis (Pott's disease), underwent three surgeries that left him handicapped and filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging medical negligence. The Commission dismissed the complaint, holding that negligence was not proved, bu

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusZORA SINGH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 35411 August 2005Dismissed

The Punjab State Electricity Board (the Board) was appealed against for refusing to supply electricity to a group of agriculturists (Zora Singh and others) despite receipt of security deposits and compliance with formalities. The District Consumer Forums, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis

SOVINTORG (INDIA) LTD.versusSTATE BANK OF INDIA, NEW DELHI

1999 INSC 31911 August 1999Case Partly allowed

Sovintorg (India) Ltd. deposited a cheque for Rs 1 lakh with State Bank of India in June 1983; although the cheque was cleared, the proceeds were not credited to its account for seven years. The company claimed compensation, damages and 24% interest under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The State Consumer Disputes R

HCMI EDUCATIONversusNARENDRA PAL SINGH

2022 INSC 69811 July 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent approached HCMI Education to secure admission to an MBBS programme in the Philippines for the 2007-2008 academic year. After admission was obtained, the Philippine Commission on Higher Education abolished the MBBS programme effective 2008-2009 and offered an alternative BS Biology course, which the respo

THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & ORS.versusM/S VINOD AND COMPANY

2019 INSC 75011 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Vinod & Co. exported goods between 1988-1993 and applied for a REP licence, which entitled it to a 20% premium on export value. The scheme was later discontinued, and the premium was not paid. The company filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

DR. JAGMITTAR SAIN BHAGATversusDIR. HEALTH SERVICES, HARYANA & ORS.

2013 INSC 45911 July 2013Disposed off

Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, a former medical officer of the Haryana Health Department, claimed that his retiral benefits, including gratuity and penal rent, were not fully paid after his voluntary retirement in 1985. He filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in 1995, which dismissed the

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARDversusNANDI COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

2007 INSC 74311 July 2007Case Partly allowed

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board allotted a 2.5‑acre plot to Nandi Cold Storage Pvt Ltd for a cold‑storage project. Subsequent litigation by the original landowners resulted in a High Court stay order, preventing construction, and the company's loan from Karnataka State Financial Corporation was cancell

K. SAGAR, M.D., KIRAN CHIT FUND MUSHEERABADversusA. BAL REDDY & ANR.

2008 INSC 74811 June 2008Case Partly allowed

The appellant, a chit fund, and the respondent, a prized subscriber, were involved in a dispute over unpaid amounts after the subscriber defaulted on payments. The subscriber approached the consumer dispute redressal machinery seeking a direction for the chit fund to pay a sum, leading to proceedings before the Distric

UPENDRA CHOUDHURYversusBULANDSHAHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS.

2021 INSC 7711 February 2021Disposed off

The petitioner, a single home buyer, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking cancellation of agreements, refund of monies, or completion of the Sushant Megapolis real estate project, along with directions for a monitoring committee, forensic audit, and investigations by various agencies. The

M/S DADDY’S BUILDERS PVT. LTD. & ANOTHERversusMANISHA BHARGAVA AND ANOTHER

2021 INSC 8111 February 2021

The petitioners, M/s Daddy’s Builders Pvt. Ltd., sought condonation of delay in filing a written statement beyond the 45‑day limit prescribed under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Both the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission rej

R V PRASANNAKUMAAR & ORS.versusMANTRI CASTLES PVT. LTD & ANR.

2019 INSC 17411 February 2019Disposed off

The flat purchasers entered into a purchase agreement that required possession by 31 January 2014, but the occupation certificate was only obtained on 10 February 2016. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) awarded compensation at Rs 3 per sq ft per month for the delay and interest at 6% per annum

SAMRUDDHI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.versusMUMBAI MAHALAXMI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

2022 INSC 3311 January 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a co‑operative housing society, booked flats from the respondent builder in 1993 and took possession in 1997, but the builder never obtained the required occupancy certificate. Because of this omission, the flat owners had to pay substantially higher property tax and water charges and could not obtain re

IREO GRACE REALTECH PVT. LTD.versusABHISHEK KHANNA & OTHERS

2021 INSC 1311 January 2021Disposed off

The case involved a dispute between IREO Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd., a real‑estate developer, and a group of apartment buyers over the delayed possession of flats in the "The Corridors" project. The buyers alleged that the developer had incorporated one‑sided clauses in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement, failed to obtain t

M/S. EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITEDversusAFTAB SINGH

2018 INSC 118410 December 2018Dismissed

Emaar MGF Land Ltd. (appellant) entered into a buyer's agreement with Aftab Singh (respondent) that contained an arbitration clause under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Singh filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) invoking the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and

M/S BAWA PAULINS PVT. LTD.versusUPS FREIGHT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER

2022 INSC 119410 November 2022Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Bawa Paulins Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, exported 234 packages of messenger bags to County Seat Stores, USA, under a Free on Board (FOB) contract and an irrevocable Letter of Credit (LC) opened by the consignee’s bank. The forwarding agents (respondents 1‑3) issued a Forwarder Cargo Receipt (FCR) that incorrectly lis

M/S. BHAGWATI VANASPATI TRADERSversusSENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, MEERUT

2014 INSC 70310 October 2014Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Bhagwati Vanaspati Traders, a sole proprietorship of B.K. Garg, bought a six‑year National Savings Certificate (NSC) in 1995. On maturity in 2001 the postal authorities refused to pay the Rs 10,075 due, contending that an NSC could be issued only in an individual’s name and the certificate was therefore invalid. Th

VADODARA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONversusPURSHOTTAM V. MURJANI AND ORS.

2014 INSC 61610 September 2014Dismissed

A boat operated by Ripple Aqua Sports under a licence from Vadodara Municipal Corporation was overloaded with 38 passengers (capacity 22) and capsized, killing 22. The victims filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service. The State Consumer Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

KANDIMALLA RAGHAVAIAH & CO.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. & ANR.

2009 INSC 90110 July 2009Dismissed

The appellant, a tobacco business, took a fire insurance policy for stock stored in a godown which was destroyed by fire on 22-23 March 1988. Although the insurer and the bank were notified, the appellant did not lodge a claim until 1992 and only sought claim forms, which the insurer refused, citing the claim as time‑b

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSURESH CHANDRA AGGARWAL

2009 INSC 90210 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The claimant purchased a comprehensive motor insurance policy from New India Assurance Ltd. for his car, which was involved in a fatal accident on 29 February 1992. The insurer denied the claim, alleging that the driver’s driving licence was not valid on the date of the accident because it had expired on 25 October 199

FAQIR CHAND GULATIversusUPPAL AGENCIES PVT. LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 80310 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a landowner, entered into a "collaboration agreement" with the builder to construct a residential building and share the constructed area. The builder allegedly deviated from the sanctioned plan, failed to obtain a completion certificate and C&D forms, and did not rectify defects, prompting the landowner

ANJUM HUSSAIN & ORS.versusINTELLICITY BUSINESS PARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 67310 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, a group of 44 buyers, had booked office and shop spaces in the Intellicity project and the builder failed to deliver possession within the agreed four‑year period. They filed a class action under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking refund, interest and compensation, but the Nat

DLF HOMES PANCHKULA PVT. LTDversusD.S. DHANDA, ETC. ETC.

2019 INSC 68210 May 2019Disposed off

The appellants, DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd., were sued by several flat buyers for failing to deliver possession of their flats within the contractual 24‑month period. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) ordered the builder to hand over possession, pay interest on the deposited amounts and award c

NAND KISHORE PRASADversusDR. MOHIB HAMIDI & OTHERS

2019 INSC 66810 May 2019Case Partly allowed

The appellant's 15‑year‑old son was admitted with abdominal pain, fever and eye haemorrhage and was operated on to remove roundworms despite a platelet count of only 35,000 per cu.mm. He later died after being transferred to another hospital. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held the operating surgeon n

VIBHA BAKSHI GOKHALE & ANR.versusM/S. GRUHASHILP CONSTRUCTIONS & ORS.

2019 INSC 67610 May 2019Disposed off

Vibha Bakshi Gokhale and another filed a consumer complaint in 2016 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging deficiency of service in a residential flat they had booked. The NCDRC gave them a final opportunity on 16 November 2018 to file a rejoinder and evidence within four weeks, fai

M/S. NARNE CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

2012 INSC 22410 May 2012Dismissed

Narane Construction Ltd marketed plots for sale, promising development of infrastructure, layout approvals and other amenities, and required purchasers to become members by paying fees. The purchasers alleged deficiencies in the promised services and contended that the company was a service provider under the Consumer

POONAM VERMAversusASHWIN PATEL & ORS.

1996 INSC 66910 May 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Poonam Verma, sued Dr. Ashwin Patel (a registered homoeopathic practitioner) and Dr. Rajeev Warty for negligence after her husband died following treatment with allopathic medicines prescribed by Dr. Patel, who was not qualified to practice allopathy. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission d

KUSUM SHARMA & OTHERSversusBATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & OTHERS

2010 INSC 9510 February 2010Dismissed

The appellants filed a complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence after the death of the husband who underwent adrenal surgery at Batra Hospital. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no negligence.

I. C. SHARMAversusTHE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2018 INSC 1910 January 2018Disposed off

Appellant I.C. Sharma bought a householder insurance policy from Oriental Insurance, initially an “as‑per‑list” policy which later was replaced by a consolidated‑amount policy. After a burglary, he claimed loss of various items; the insurer contended that many items were not insured and that the claim should be rejecte

JACOB PUNNEN & ANR.versusUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2021 INSC 8539 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants held an annual medical insurance policy with United India Insurance that was renewed each year. For the 2008‑09 renewal the insurer introduced a cap on coverage for certain procedures, notably angioplasty, without informing the policyholders, who believed they were merely renewing the existing policy on

M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUMversusKUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.

2023 INSC 9969 November 2023Dismissed

M/s Rajasthan Art Emporium (appellant) exported a large consignment of handicraft goods to the United States and booked air carriage with Kuwait Airways (respondent No.1) through Dagga Air Agents (respondent No.2), receiving a guarantee that the shipment would arrive within seven days. The goods were delayed by more th

M/S TEXCO MARKETING PVT. LTD.versusTATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

2022 INSC 11869 November 2022Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Texco Marketing Pvt. Ltd., bought a fire insurance policy from Tata AIG that excluded coverage for basement premises, yet the insured shop was located in a basement. After a fire, the insurer denied the claim relying on the exclusion clause. The State Consumer Commission held the insurer liable for defic

GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITEDversusASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR.

2014 INSC 6959 October 2014Case Partly allowed

The complainant purchased a Chevrolet Forester advertised as an SUV capable of off‑road travel, but the vehicle was a passenger car and not fit for the promised use, leading him to allege unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Forum, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes R

ACCOUNTS OFFICER, JHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR.versusANWAR ALI

2007 INSC 10249 October 2007Case Partly allowed

Anwar Ali filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging that his electricity supply was disconnected without prior notice. The Forum awarded him Rs 50,000 compensation with interest, an order upheld by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissi

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSHRL DHARAM VIR ANAND

1998 INSC 3919 October 1998Disposed off

The Life Insurance Corporation of India issued a life insurance policy on 31 March 1990, which the insured back‑dated to 10 May 1989 and paid premiums for that period. The insured’s minor daughter committed suicide on 15 November 1992. Clause 4‑B of the policy limits the insurer’s liability to the total premiums paid i

CHANDIGARH NURSING HOME AND ANR.versusSUKHDEEP KAUR

2022 INSC 9439 September 2022Disposed off

A minor, Sukhdeep Kaur, filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence by Chandigarh Nursing Home after a wrong diagnosis and treatment caused severe rashes. The District Forum awarded Rs 1 lakh compensation, which the nursing home appealed to the State Commission; the State Commission dismissed the appeal. The

PIONEER URBAN LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2019 INSC 8899 August 2019Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2018, which classifies home‑buyers/allottees of real‑estate projects as "financial creditors" under the Code, thereby permitting them to invoke Section 7 and to be

CHITRA SHARMA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2018 INSC 6819 August 2018Leave Granted & Disposed off

Jaypee Infratech Ltd (JIL) defaulted on a loan from IDBI Bank, prompting the bank to initiate a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). Home buyers filed a writ petition alleging that the CIRP ignored their interests and sought a pro‑rata refund of the Rs 750

ETHIOPIAN AIRLINESversusGANESH NARAIN SABOO

2011 INSC 5569 August 2011Disposed off

The respondent filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission alleging delay and damage to a consignment shipped by Ethiopian Airlines. The State Commission dismissed the complaint; the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside that order and remitted the case for f

INDIAN BANKversusM/S. SATYAM FIBRES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

1996 INSC 8619 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Indian Bank forwarded Bills of Exchange to a French bank on behalf of the respondent M/s. Satyam Fibres, which later went into liquidation. The respondent claimed the bank was negligent for not securing co‑acceptance of the bills, relying on a covering letter (letter No. 2776) that allegedly instructed th

M/S DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD.versusM/S CONTROLS & SWITCHGEAR COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2024 INSC 4969 July 2024

The Supreme Court examined whether a company’s purchase of luxury cars for the personal use of its directors fell within the definition of a "commercial purpose" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether defects in the cars entitled the buyer to compensation. It held that such purchases are for personal use

PUNJAB UNIVERSITYversusUNIT TRUST OF INDIA & ORS

2014 INSC 4809 July 2014Disposed off

Punjab University and Punjab Agricultural University invested in Unit Trust of India's Institutional Investors Special Fund Unit Scheme‑1998, expecting a guaranteed 13.5% return and repurchase at par. When the maturity proceeds fell short, they filed complaints before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

CONTROLLER, VINAYAK MISSION DEN. COL.& ANR.versusGEETIKA KHARE

2010 INSC 4019 July 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The student, Geetika Khare, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Controller, Vinayak Mission Dental College alleging deficiency in service because the college lacked recognition, forcing her to withdraw and causing loss of an academic year and mental harassment. The State Consumer Commissio

NEW ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusSHRI B.N. SAINANI

1997 INSC 5609 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. issued two marine insurance policies to cover consignment of computer waste from Antward to Bombay. The vessel was diverted to Muscat due to a port strike and the insurer stipulated that the goods must be re‑shipped within 60 days, otherwise liability would cease. The goods were not re‑ship

BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANYversusDHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIRFREIGHT LTD.

1996 INSC 6549 May 1996Dismissed

Bharathi Knitting Co. contracted DHL Worldwide Express to transport a cover containing export documents, which failed to reach the consignee in time, causing the buyer to pay a reduced amount and the appellant to claim a loss of Rs.4,29,392.60. The courier’s consignment note contained a limitation clause restricting li

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusPRADEEP KUMAR

2009 INSC 4729 April 2009Dismissed

The appellant, New India Assurance Co., insured a heavy truck owned by the respondent, Pradeep Kumar, which was damaged in an accident. The respondent repaired the vehicle using a bank loan and claimed the repair expenses plus interest from the insurer. The insurer relied on reports of two approved surveyors and offere

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPN. & ANR.versusASHOK IRON WORKS PVT. LTD.

2009 INSC 1319 February 2009Disposed off

Ashok Iron Works Pvt. Ltd., a private limited manufacturing company, filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (KPTC) for delay in electricity supply. The key issues were whether a private limited company qualifies as a ‘person’ under s.2(1)(d) of the Act

CHAIRMAN, THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusCONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL

1995 INSC 1079 February 1995Appeal(s) allowed

Shri K. Kumar died in a bus accident in 1990. The Consumer Protection Council, Tamil Nadu, filed a claim before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on behalf of his legal representatives, seeking compensation. The NCDRC awarded Rs. 5.10 lakh without addressing the question of its jurisdiction. T

ARUN KUMAR MANGLIKversusCHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

2019 INSC 439 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Arun Kumar Manglik, claimed that his wife died due to medical negligence by Chirayu Health & Medicare Private Ltd. and its director after being admitted with dengue. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) found negligence and awarded Rs.6 lakh, but the National Consumer Disputes Redress

A. SRIMANNARAYANAversusDASARI SANTAKUMARI & ANR.

2013 INSC 239 January 2013Dismissed

The wife of a deceased patient filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against two doctors who had performed an operation. The doctors contended that, per the Supreme Court’s decision in Martin F. D'Souza, a complaint could not be entertained without an expert opinion, and they sought to stay the proceed

TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD & ORS.versusSEA SHORE APARTMENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION

2008 INSC 269 January 2008Case Allowed

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board (the Board) entered into agreements with allottees for flats constructed on land acquired by the State, stipulating that the final price would be fixed after the land acquisition compensation was determined. The Board later demanded additional amounts, citing increased plinth area, ground a

MANJEET SINGHversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2017 INSC 12068 December 2017Disposed off

Manjeet Singh purchased a second‑hand Tata open truck on hire‑purchase and insured it for Rs 7,28,000. While being driven, the driver gave a lift to three stranded passengers on a cold night; the passengers later assaulted the driver, tied him up and stole the vehicle. The insurer denied the claim, alleging a breach of

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S KIRAN COMBERS & SPINNERS

2006 INSC 9768 December 2006Dismissed

M/s Kiran Combers & Spinners held a fire policy with an endorsement for flood covering its building, machinery and stock. In July 1993 heavy floods caused the building to collapse, allegedly due to subsidence of the land. United India Insurance repudiated the claim, relying on a surveyor’s report that subsidence was no

S.P. GOELversusCOLLECTOR OF STAMPS

1995 INSC 8638 December 1995Dismissed

S.P. Goel applied to register a will, but the Sub‑Registrar impounded it, deeming it a deed of conveyance that was not duly stamped. The Collector of Stamps required additional documents and payment of stamp duty before registration could proceed. Goel filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging

NANDLAL LOHARIYAversusJAGDISH CHAND PUROHIT AND ORS.

2021 INSC 7088 November 2021Dismissed

The petitioner filed three separate complaints against BSNL before the District Consumer Forum through three different advocates, and all three complaints were dismissed on merits. After those dismissals, he lodged complaints against the same advocates alleging deficiency in service and claimed Rs.15 lakhs in compensat

RAJIV SHUKLAversusGOLD RUSH SALES AND SERVICES LTD. & ANR

2022 INSC 9418 September 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The consumer booked a new Tata car and paid the full price, but the dealer delivered a used vehicle that had been used as a demo‑test drive car. The consumer filed a complaint before the District Forum, which ordered the dealer to replace the used car with a new one and awarded a small amount for mental agony; the Stat

ANJALI RATHI AND OTHERSversusTODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 4608 September 2021Disposed off

The petitioners, home buyers in a Gurgaon housing project, obtained a refund order with interest from the NCDRC, which was stayed by the Delhi High Court. An operational creditor later initiated a corporate insolvency proceeding against the developer (Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd) under Section 9 of the IBC, le

M/S. KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusSH. MASOOD AHMED KHAN & OTHERS

2010 INSC 5828 September 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard two separate appeals filed by a builder (Kranti Associates) and Corporation Bank against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) that dismissed their revision petitions without providing adequate reasons. The Court examined whether a quasi‑judicial bod

ARUN BHATIYAversusHDFC BANK & ORS.

2022 INSC 8048 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and his father opened a joint fixed deposit (FD) with HDFC Bank. After the FD matured, the appellant instructed the bank not to credit the proceeds to any individual account, but the bank credited the amount solely to his father's account, which the appellant claimed was a unilateral and unauthorized acti

DR. A. SURESH KUMAR & ORS.versusAMIT AGARWAL

2021 INSC 3258 July 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence against Dr. A. Suresh Kumar and others. The appellants filed their written statement 7 days after the 45‑day deadline prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and sought condonation of the delay. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Co

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusM/S. PROTECTION MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD.

2010 INSC 3898 July 2010Dismissed

The insured's factory suffered a fire and the insurer, New India Assurance Co., appointed a surveyor, joint surveyors, and later an investigator who alleged arson, before seeking the opinion of former Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud who concluded the fire was accidental. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissi

TOPLINE SHOES LTD.versusCORPORATION BANK

2002 INSC 2878 July 2002Dismissed

The appellant, Topline Shoes Ltd., challenged a decision of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that it had accepted a reply from the respondent, Corporation Bank, filed after the 45‑day period prescribed under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant argued that the pro

MRS. BHUMIKABEN N. MODI & ORS.versusLIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

2024 INSC 3958 May 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased submitted a life insurance proposal on 6 July 1996 and paid the first premium by cheque on 9 July 1996; he died accidentally on 14 July 1996. The insurer issued an Acceptance‑cum‑First Premium Receipt on 9 July, which the appellants (widow and children) relied on to claim policy benefits. The insurer argue

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusJ. MAHESHWARAMMA

2009 INSC 7728 May 2009Disposed off

The husband of the complainant had a valid accidental death insurance policy with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and died in a motorcycle accident. The insurer contested the claim, alleging that the deceased's driving licence for a motorcycle was fabricated and that he only possessed a licence for a tractor‑trailer, there

KISHORELALversusCHAIRMAN, E.S.I. CORPORATION

2007 INSC 5278 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Kishore Lal, an employee insured under the Employees' State Insurance (ESI) scheme, complained that his wife received negligent medical treatment at an ESI dispensary, leading to her condition worsening. He filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking compensation for negligence, but

NBCC (INDIA) LIMITEDversusSHRI RAM TRIVEDI

2021 INSC 1628 March 2021Case Partly allowed

The builder NBCC (India) Limited failed to hand over possession of a residential unit to Shri Ram Trivedi within the period stipulated in the allotment letter, which required completion within two and a half years and allowed a one‑year grace period before compensation became payable. The National Consumer Disputes Red

V. KISHAN RAOversusNIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & ANOTHER.

2010 INSC 1298 March 2010Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's wife was admitted to Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital with intermittent fever; the hospital failed to diagnose malaria and treated her for typhoid, leading to her death after being transferred to another hospital. The District Consumer Forum held the hospital negligent and awarded Rs. 2 lakh compensatio

MANOHAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITEDversusSANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS.

2021 INSC 8367 December 2021Case Partly allowed

The builders Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt Ltd and TDI Infrastructure Ltd appealed orders of the State Consumer Commission directing them to refund home‑buyers, arguing that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDC) should not require deposit of the entire decretal amount as a condition

RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS.versusDWARKADHIS PROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2018 INSC 11677 December 2018Disposed off

Nineteen allottees of a housing project filed a collective consumer complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging delayed possession and various deficiencies, but they did not obtain the permission of the District Forum as required by Section 13(6) and Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC. The Na

M/S. NAGPUR GOLDEN TRANSPORT COMPANY (REGD.)versusM/S. NATH TRADERS & ORS.

2011 INSC 8387 December 2011Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Nagpur Golden Transport Company, a common carrier, was ordered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to pay Rs.3,60,131 to the consignees (Nath Traders & Ors.) for damaged monoblock pumps. The consignees had already paid this amount to the consignor (respondent No.3), who retained the damaged

INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONversusCONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL, KERALA AND ANR.

1993 INSC 3837 December 1993

Dr. P. Kamalasanan obtained an LPG connection through Karthika Gas Agency, an authorized distributor of Indian Oil Corporation, but did not receive a subscription voucher. When he sought regularisation of the connection, the corporation refused, prompting a complaint before the Consumer Redressal Forum alleging deficie

M/S. KRISHNA FOOD & BAKING INDUSTRY P. LTD.versusM/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.

2008 INSC 12667 November 2008Disposed off

Krishna Food & Baking Industry Ltd. and its sister concern operated bakery units in Srinagar that were destroyed by a terrorist fire in 1991. The companies had three insurance policies covering terrorism and fire and claimed full loss for building, plant, machinery, raw materials and stocks. The National Consumer Dispu

ESTATE OFFICER AND ANR.versusCHARANJIT KAUR

2021 INSC 4577 September 2021Disposed off

The respondents, allottees of leasehold plots in Chandigarh, sought conversion of their sites to freehold by paying the conversion fee fixed under the 1996 Rules. The District Consumer Forum, State and National Consumer Commissions ordered the Estate Officer to convert the plots, treating the fee as a service charge an

MADAN KUMAR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.versusDISTT. MAGISTRATE, SULTANPUR & ORS.

2009 INSC 10267 August 2009Disposed off

Madan Kumar Singh purchased a truck at a public auction to use for his self‑employment. Although he paid the full consideration, the District Magistrate, Sultanpur and other officials delayed handing over the vehicle for six months and, more seriously, withheld the vehicle's registration documents for six years, preven

MALAY KUMAR GANGULYversusDR. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE AND OTHERS

2009 INSC 10257 August 2009Disposed off

The case concerned the death of Anuradha Saha, who was treated for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) by several doctors in Kolkata and Mumbai. The complainant alleged that the doctors prescribed excessive doses of the steroid Depomedrol and failed to provide essential supportive care, constituting criminal negligence un

M/S SHREENATH CORP. & ORS.versusCONSUMER EDUCATION & RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS.

2014 INSC 4737 July 2014Dismissed

Several complaints under Section 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were filed against Shreenath Corp. and others, leading the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to order the appellants to pay amounts with interest. The appellants appealed these orders to the National Consumer Disputes Redress

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIAversusRAM KISHORI GUPTA & ANR.

2025 INSC 4547 April 2025Disposed off

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) issued show‑cause notices to Vital Communications Ltd (VCL) and related entities for misleading advertisements, leading to a series of orders: a 2008 restraint order, a 2014 order imposing market bans, and a 2018 disgorgement order. The Securities Appellate Tribunal set

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PVT. LTDversusSUSHMA ASHOK SHIROOR

2022 INSC 4047 April 2022Disposed off

The developer Experion Developers failed to deliver possession of an apartment to the consumer, Sushma Ashok Shiroor, within the 42‑month period stipulated in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. The consumer filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ordered the developer to refund

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD.

2017 INSC 3207 April 2017Dismissed

Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. suffered flood damage in August 1992 and lodged insurance claims of about Rs 52 lakhs under two policies with National Insurance Co. Ltd. The insurer appointed two surveyors, but the surveys took more than two years and the insurer ultimately repudiated the claim in May 2001. The insur

SHODA DEVIversusDDU/RIPON HOSPITAL SHIMLA AND ORS.

2019 INSC 3347 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Shoda Devi, a 45‑year‑old woman from a poor rural background, was admitted to DDU Hospital for a minor gynecological procedure. A paramedic administered an intravenous injection of Phenergan directly into her right arm, causing excruciating pain that was ignored by the staff. The resulting acute arterial occlusion led

M/S ANJANEYA JEWELLERYversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS.

2019 INSC 3337 March 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, M/s Anjaneeya Jewellery, filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others. The Presiding Member dismissed the complaint in limine under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, without giving notice to th

PARDEEP SHARMAversusCHIEF ADMINISTRATOR HARYANA URBAN DEV. AUTHORITY & ANR

2016 INSC 267 January 2016Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was allotted a plot by HUDA but failed to pay the balance instalments, leading to non‑delivery of possession. He filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum seeking possession, and during the proceedings accepted a 10% refund of the amount paid, a fact he did not disclose. The Forum ordered re‑al

COMMON CAUSE REGISTERED SOCIETYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1993 INSC 27 January 1993Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the sluggish implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically the failure of many States and Union Territories to establish District Forums as mandated by Section 9. The petitioners, a registered society, sought directions under Article 32 to compel the governments to set up

MANMOHAN NANDAversusUNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR

2021 INSC 8266 December 2021Appeal(s) allowed

Manohan Nanda purchased an overseas mediclaim policy to travel to the USA. A medical examination disclosed his diabetes mellitus‑II, which he disclosed in the proposal form and supporting reports. After suffering an acute myocardial infarction in the USA, the insurer repudiated the claim, alleging non‑disclosure of a p

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITEDversusTELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS

2013 INSC 8086 December 2013Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) could entertain challenges to regulations made by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) under Section 36 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. It held that the power conferred on TRAI by Sectio

SGS INDIA LTD.versusDOLPHIN INTERNATIONAL LTD.

2021 INSC 6226 October 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant, Dolphin International Ltd., engaged SGS India Ltd. to inspect and certify groundnut consignments for export to Greece and the Netherlands. Disputes arose over the size/count of Java peanuts and aflatoxin levels at the destination ports, leading the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to fin

RICARDO CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.versusRAVI KUCKIAN & OTHERS

2024 INSC 7156 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order that barred it from filing a written statement in a complaint filed by Ravi Kuckian and 30 others. The appellant argued that it never received a copy of the complaint, only a notice, and therefore could not meet

DHARMENDRA SHARMAversusAGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2024 INSC 6676 September 2024Disposed off

The appellant, Dharmendra Sharma, purchased an apartment from the Agra Development Authority (ADA) and sought possession after paying the agreed price, but ADA's offer of possession on 4 December 2014 was made without a completion certificate or firefighting clearance certificate. The appellant filed a consumer complai

ROHIT CHAUDHARY & ANR.versusM/S VIPUL LTD.

2023 INSC 8076 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants sought to purchase a commercial office space in the Vipul World Commercial project and paid Rs 51,10,117, but the developer failed to deliver possession within the agreed 24‑month period. The appellants filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) claiming that the

CICILY KALLARACKALversusVEHICLE FACTORY

2012 INSC 3216 August 2012Dismissed

Cicily Kallarackal filed Special Leave Petitions challenging Kerala High Court judgments that entertained writ petitions against orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The Supreme Court examined two issues: (1) whether a High Court can entertain writ petitions under Article 226 against N

KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARDversusK. A. NAGAMANI

2019 INSC 6316 May 2019Disposed off

The Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) allotted a flat to K.A. Nagamani, who later sought a refund of the amount deposited after the Board demanded a higher price. A consumer complaint was filed and the District Forum awarded interest and compensation, which was upheld by the State Commission and later set aside by the Supr

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.versusKANTIKA COLOUR LAB & ORS.

2010 INSC 2826 May 2010Disposed off

The insured imported two machines and obtained transit insurance. During road transport only the printer machine was damaged; the film processor remained functional. Surveyor reports and the manufacturer’s engineer confirmed that the printer was extensively damaged and could not be repaired in India, while the film pro

N. KANNADASANversusAJOY KHOSE AND OTHERS

2009 INSC 7326 May 2009Dismissed

The appellant, N. Kannadasan, was an Additional Judge of the Madras High Court who was not confirmed as a permanent judge and later appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Writ petitions challenged his appointment on the grounds t

H.N. SHANKARA SHASTRYversusTHE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KARNATAKA

2004 INSC 3646 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The consumer purchased paddy seeds that failed to germinate, resulting in loss of crop. He sued the seller under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a refund and compensation. The District Forum ordered both refund and damages; the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission modified the order, granti

PASCHIM BANGA KHET MAZDOOR SAMIT!versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

1996 INSC 6216 May 1996Disposed off

The petitioners, members of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti, filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of Hakim Seikh, who suffered serious head injuries after falling from a train and was repeatedly denied admission in several government hospitals due to lack of beds and facilities, eventually receiving treat

SUMATIDEVI M. DHANWATAYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 2416 April 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an elderly woman, was assaulted and had valuables stolen during a mob attack on a railway train. She claimed the Railway administration failed to provide protection, constituting deficiency in service, and filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission, which awarded compensation. The

M/S NANDAN BIOMATRIX LTD.versusS.AMBIKA DEVI & ORS.

2020 INSC 2896 March 2020Dismissed

The appellant, a seed company, entered into a tripartite agreement with the respondent, a small landholder, to sell her wet musli seeds and to buy back the harvested crop at a guaranteed minimum price. When the appellant failed to honour the buy‑back, the respondent filed a consumer complaint, which was initially dismi

ITC LIMITEDversusAASHNA ROY

2026 INSC 1356 February 2026Case Partly allowed

The respondent, a model, complained that a haircut she received at the beauty salon of ITC Maurya Hotel was faulty, alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) awarded her ₹2 crore in compensation, relying mainly on photocopies of various documents

CANARA BANKversusM/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.

2020 INSC 1406 February 2020Disposed off

Farmers stored their chillies and other produce in a cold store that had taken a comprehensive insurance policy with United India Insurance. The cold store and the farmers obtained loans from Canara Bank, hypothecating the stored produce as security. A fire destroyed the cold store and the produce; the insurance compan

ARCHANA M. KAMATHversusCANARA BANK AND ANR.

2003 INSC 716 February 2003Dismissed

Archana M. Kamath, a current account holder of Canara Bank, challenged the bank's imposition of a Rs. 50 charge for issuing 50 MICR cheque leaves, alleging that the fee was unilateral, without her consent, and contrary to RBI directives. The Bombay Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum ruled in her favour, ordering a refun

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2014 INSC 9026 January 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the administration of the Sri Sabhanayagar Temple at Chidambaram, claimed by the Podhu Dikshitars, a Smarthi Brahmin community, as their religious denomination. The High Court had earlier dismissed the State's order appointing an Executive Officer under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow

M/S TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.versusM/S GANESH POLYTEX LTD.

2014 INSC 10235 November 2014Dismissed

The exporter, Ganesh PolytEx Ltd., alleged that Transport Corporation of India Ltd. failed to deliver four consignments of yarn fabric to Benapole Customs in Bangladesh, seeking compensation under the Consumer Protection Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ordered the transporter to pay the claimed

LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusM.K. GUPTA

1993 INSC 3655 November 1993

The Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) developed a housing scheme and allotted a flat to M.K. Gupta, who paid the full price but was not given possession because construction was incomplete. Gupta filed a complaint before the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service, delay

SMT. M. HEMALATHA DEVI & ORS.versusB. UDAYASRI

2023 INSC 8705 October 2023Dismissed

The appellants, a group of builders, entered into a sale agreement to construct a villa for the respondent, a home‑buyer, but failed to deliver possession and subsequently terminated the agreement. The buyer filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before the District Consumer Forum, while the builders

M/S PREM COTTEXversusUTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.

2021 INSC 6175 October 2021Dismissed

M/S Prem Cottex, a cotton yarn manufacturer, was issued a short assessment notice by Uttarakhand Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. alleging that the multiply factor (MF) used in its electricity bills was incorrectly applied, resulting in short billing of about Rs.1.35 crore. The appellant filed a consumer complaint under the Con

PRAKASH BANGversusGLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. & ANR.

2023 INSC 7945 September 2023Dismissed

The appellant, Prakash Bang, claimed that after receiving the hepatitis B vaccine Engerix‑B, he suffered myositis and permanent shoulder disability, seeking compensation from the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed his claim

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIAversusMANI RAM

2005 INSC 3355 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging that LIC should pay the death claim of his son, who was insured under a policy back‑dated to 28‑April‑1995. The first premium was paid on 21‑August‑1995, making the next premium due on 28‑April‑1996 with a one‑month grace period until 28‑May‑1996. No premium was paid

THE STATE OF GUJARATversusRAJESH KUMAR CHIMANLAL BAROT AND ANR.

1996 INSC 8205 August 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Gujarat appealed against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had upheld a Gram Panchayat's claim to a subsidised electricity rate. The appellant argued that the question of pricing did not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer redressal forums. The Supreme Court hel

NEERAJ MUNJAL AND ORSversusATUL GROVER MINOR AND ANR.

2005 INSC 2615 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed

A complaint was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) which the parties agreed to refer to arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed on 19‑May‑1995 and rendered an award on 19‑Aug‑1996, which the Commission accepted. The Supreme Court later held that the NCDRC could not refer the matte

M.R.F. LTD.versusJAGDISH LAL AND ANR.

1999 INSC 2255 May 1999Dismissed

The appellant M.R.F. Ltd. challenged a consumer complaint alleging a defect in a tyre and tube that had burst. The complainant had handed the tyre and tube to the dealer, who forwarded them to the appellant, and therefore the complainant no longer possessed the goods. The District Forum was required under Section 13(1)

TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. AND ANR.versusGAJANAN Y. MANDREKAR

1997 INSC 4755 May 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, G. Y. Mandrekar, purchased a commercial tipper truck from Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and, after running it for about 9,000 km, discovered several defects including worn tyres, improperly fixed front axle pins, and excessive vibration. Despite repeated complaints and repairs, the defects pe

BHANWAR KANWARversusR.K. GUPTA & ANR.

2013 INSC 2165 April 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's son suffered convulsions and was treated by respondent No.1, an Ayurvedic practitioner, who advertised a total cure and allegedly prescribed allopathic medicines while claiming they were Ayurvedic. The treatment, conducted between 1994 and 1997, worsened the child's condition, leading the appellant to f

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

2015 INSC 8904 December 2015Reference answered

The appeal concerned the interpretation of Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 regarding the time allotted to the opposite party to file its version after a complaint is admitted. The petitioner argued that the 30‑day period could be extended beyond the statutory ceiling of 15 days, relying on the lat

OM PRAKASHversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE AND ANR.

2017 INSC 10014 October 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant insured a truck with Reliance General Insurance, which was stolen on 23 March 2010. While assisting police in the search, the appellant delayed filing the insurance claim until 31 March 2010, citing an eight‑day gap due to police involvement. The insurer rejected the claim on the basis of a policy conditi

NARINDER SINGH.versusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

2014 INSC 6054 September 2014Dismissed

The complainant insured a Mahindra Pick‑up vehicle whose temporary registration expired on 11‑January‑2006, yet the vehicle was involved in an accident on 2‑February‑2006 while being driven without any valid registration. The insurer denied the claim, leading to proceedings before the District Consumer Forum, State Com

GURGAON GRAMIN BANKversusSMT. KHAZANI & ANR.

2012 INSC 3724 September 2012Dismissed

Smt. Khazani obtained a loan from Gurgaon Gramin Bank to purchase a buffalo and insured the animal for Rs.15,000 with New India Assurance. After the buffalo died, the bank failed to process her insurance claim, prompting her to file a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which ordered the in

BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARDversusSURESH PRASAD SINHA

2009 INSC 11084 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The father of a student who lost a year of schooling because his son's examination result was not published filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service by the Bihar School Examination Board and sought compensation. The Forum, State Commission and National Commission all upheld th

OM PRAKASH AHUJAversusRELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ETC.

2023 INSC 5984 July 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Om Prakash Ahuja, purchased a family health insurance policy in 2007 and renewed it for 2008‑2009. His wife was treated for ovarian cancer, and he claimed reimbursement, which the insurer rejected on the ground that the wife’s pre‑existing rheumatic heart disease had not been disclosed. The District Foru

KUMUD LALLversusSURESH CHANDRA ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 4434 May 2026Disposed off

The husband of a patient filed a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence by Dr. P.B. Lall, which was partly upheld by the District Forum awarding compensation. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the award, and the matter proceeded to the National Co

SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LTD.versusMUSIC BROADCAST PVT. LTD.

2012 INSC 2004 May 2012Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Copyright Board, under Section 31(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, could grant an interim compulsory licence while a complaint was pending. The Board had earlier held it lacked such power, but the Delhi High Court reversed that view and directed the Board to grant an interim lice

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusNATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP AND ORS.

2005 INSC 2554 May 2005Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the procedure for appointing the President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 16(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Court also considered whether the amen

LAXMI ENGINEERING WORKSversusP.S.G. INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTE

1995 INSC 2484 April 1995Dismissed

Laxmi Engineering Works, a small‑scale proprietary concern, bought a CNC universal turning machine from P.S.G. Industrial Institute and alleged it was defective, claiming Rs. 4 lakhs. The Maharashtra Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowed part of the claim, but the National Consumer Commission set it aside, hol

RAJESH MONGAversusHOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

2024 INSC 1624 March 2024Dismissed

The appellant, a home buyer, applied for a home loan from HDFC (respondent No.1) after being assured via email that the interest rate would be linked to the RBI's Prime Lending Rate. The loan agreement, signed on 11 January 2006, included an adjustable rate clause that allowed HDFC to vary its retail prime lending rate

ASSURANCE CO. LTD.versusHILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.

2020 INSC 2744 March 2020Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether a District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could extend the time for filing a response to a complaint beyond the 30 days plus a statutorily permitted 15‑day extension under s.13(2)(a), and where the 30‑day period begins. The Court held that s.13(2)(a) uses mandatory lang

VINIT BAHRI AND ANOTHERversusM/S MGF DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ANOTHER

2026 INSC 1144 February 2026Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants purchased a residential flat in 2005 and, after delayed possession and alleged changes to the layout, filed a consumer complaint in 2017 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The respondents contended that the flat was bought for commercial purposes because it was later leased to a th

MADHAV HARI JOSHIversusDIVISIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.

2019 INSC 94 January 2019Appeal(s) allowed

Madhav Hari Joshi paid Rs 1,75,000 as premium for LIC's Jeevan Aastha Plan but the insurer neither issued the policy nor refunded the amount for nearly five years. Joshi filed a consumer complaint seeking a refund with interest and compensation of Rs 5,00,000. The District Forum ordered a refund and Rs 4,25,000 compens

M/S KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINESversusDIRECTOR GENERAL OF INVESTIGATION & REGISTRATION

2008 INSC 11293 October 2008Appeal(s) allowed

M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines appealed against an order of the MRTP Commission that held it guilty of unfair trade practice for a deficiency in cargo service. The complainant alleged that two parcels were delayed, causing loss, and the Commission treated the delay as an unfair trade practice under Sections 36A(ii), (iv

M/S INDIA PHOTOGRAPHIC CO. LTD.versusH.D. SHOURIE

1999 INSC 3003 August 1999Dismissed

The respondent filed a consumer complaint alleging that India Photographic Co. Ltd., a distributor of Kodak film rolls, sold the rolls without printing the sale price on each package, contrary to Rule 6(1)(t) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. The District Consumer Forum, the S

SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWALversusBHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

2025 INSC 3143 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a real‑estate developer, was penalised by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) with 27 penalties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for failing to deliver possession of residential units. While insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Section 9

HEMIBEN LADHABHAI BHANDERIversusSAURASHTA GRAMIN BANK & ANR

2020 INSC 1263 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant's husband, an account holder of Saurashtra Gramin Bank, applied for a group accident insurance policy by submitting a form to the bank, which was to deduct a Rs 100 premium and forward it to the insurer. He died in an accident shortly after, and the insurer denied the claim, stating the premium had not be

RELIANCE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.versusJAYA WADHWANI

2024 INSC 103 January 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals challenging the decisions of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Commission and District Forum, which had held the insurer liable to pay the sum assured after the assured's suicide. The central issue was the date from which an insurance policy becomes

M/S. IMPERIA STRUCTURES LTD.versusANIL PATNI AND ANOTHER

2020 INSC 6252 November 2020Dismissed

The appellant, Imperia Structures Ltd., launched a housing scheme in 2011 and entered builder‑buyer agreements with the respondents in 2013. After the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) came into force, the respondents filed consumer complaints alleging delay and deficiency, seeking refunds with

RAVNEET SINGH BAGGAversusM/S. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES AND ANR.

1999 INSC 5112 November 1999Dismissed

The appellant booked a journey from New Delhi to New York with KLM (respondent No.1) and also secured an earlier connecting flight with TWA (respondent No.2). At Amsterdam, KLM staff, suspecting irregularities in his US visa (photocopy of photograph and dual bookings), delayed his onward travel for a verification proce

ASHOK GANGADHAR MARATHAversusORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

1999 INSC 3782 September 1999Appeal(s) allowed

Ashok Gangadhar Mara Tha owned a Swaraj Mazda truck classified as a light motor vehicle and insured it with Oriental Insurance. The vehicle was totally damaged in an accident, but the insurer denied the claim, alleging that the driver held only a licence for a light motor vehicle and not for a transport (goods carriage

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTDversusLEVIS STRAUSS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

2022 INSC 5002 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant United India Insurance issued a Standard Fire & Special Perils (SFSP) policy to Levi Strauss (India) for fire loss, while Levi also held a global Open Marine Insurance (STP) policy issued by Allianz covering the same goods. After a fire, Levi claimed under the SFSP policy, but the insurer denied liability

NARSINGH ISPAT LTDversusORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

2022 INSC 5022 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed

Narsingh Ispat Ltd. had a Standard Fire and Special Perils policy with Oriental Insurance. After a violent intrusion on 23 March 2010 caused extensive damage to its factory, the insurer denied the claim invoking an exclusion clause that barred loss caused by "acts of terrorism". The Consumer Commission upheld the denia

PIONEER URBAN LAND & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.versusGOVINDAN RAGHAVAN

2019 INSC 4582 April 2019Dismissed

Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. (the builder) launched the Araya Complex project and entered into an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement with Govindan Raghavan (the flat purchaser) to sell an apartment for Rs.4.83 crore, obligating the builder to obtain an occupancy certificate within 39 months of excavation plus a 18

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusPARAMJIT SINGH AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1342 March 2006Disposed off

The State of Karnataka and the Union of India appealed against a Karnataka High Court judgment that had struck down the proviso to Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the ground that it allowed tribunals to impose imprisonment or fine without prescribing a trial procedure, violating Articles 20 and 21 of

GODREJ PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT LIMITEDversusANIL KARLEKAR & ORS.

2025 INSC 1432 February 2025Case Partly allowed

The respondents booked an apartment with Godrej Projects and paid a 20% earnest money deposit as per the Apartment Buyer Agreement. After the developer offered possession in June 2017, the respondents cancelled the purchase citing a market recession and demanded a full refund of Rs.51,12,310 with interest. The NCDRC or

POLYMAT INDIA P. LTD. AND ANR.versusNATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 6851 December 2004Dismissed

Polymat India Ltd. and an associate insured their factory premises against fire under two policies issued by National Insurance Co. Ltd. The policies described the location as "factory‑cum‑godown" and the insured answered in the negative to a query about goods stored in the open. After a fire destroyed the building, pl

RAJEEV METAL WORKS AND ORS.versusTHE MINERAL METAL TRADING CORPN. OF INDIA LTD.

1995 INSC 8221 December 1995Dismissed

Rajeev Metal Works applied to the District Industry Centre for 300 MT of galvanized steel sheets, which were to be procured by the statutory agency MMTC Ltd. on its behalf. MMTC pooled requirements, placed a consolidated indent with a foreign seller, but could supply only a portion of the quantity; the appellant failed

M/S CHEEMA ENGINEERING SERVICESversusRAJAN SINGH

1996 INSC 12671 November 1996Appeal(s) allowed

Mis Cheema Engineering Services sold a brick‑making machine ("Brickman") to Rajan Singh. The dispute centered on whether Singh used the machine for self‑employment, i.e., exclusively to earn his livelihood, or for a commercial purpose, which would exclude him from the definition of "consumer" under Section 2(1)(d) of t

M/S. MAGMA FINCORP LTD.versusRAJESH KUMAR TIWARI

2020 INSC 5741 October 2020Case Allowed

M/S. Magma FinCorp Ltd., the financier, entered into a hire‑purchase agreement with Rajesh Kumar Tiwari for a vehicle. Tiwari paid seven instalments before the financier repossessed the vehicle without a notice addressed to his correct address and later sold it. Tiwari filed a consumer complaint alleging unfair trade p

DR. S. K. JHUNJHUNWALAversusMRS. DHANWANTI KAUR & ANR.

2018 INSC 9151 October 2018Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. S.K. Jhunjhunwala performed a laparoscopic cholecystectomy on Mrs. Dhanwanti Kaur, but intra‑operatively discovered inflammation and converted to an open gall‑bladder removal. The patient alleged she had only consented to laparoscopy, claimed negligence and post‑operative ailments, and was awarded Rs 2 lakhs by the

GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMversusM. KRISHNAN & ANR.

2009 INSC 11001 September 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a telecom authority, disconnected a telephone line for non-payment of the bill. The respondent filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which ordered reconnection and payment of Rs.5,000 compensation with interest. The appellant challenged the forum's jurisdiction via a wr

HOUSING BOARD HARYANAversusHOUSING BOARD COLONY WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

1995 INSC 5241 September 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Housing Board of Haryana issued additional price demands to allottee families after a land price escalation, which the allottee association contested before the District Consumer Forum. The Forum quashed the Board's demand and the Board appealed to the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal as time‑barred und

V KRISHNAKUMARversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

2015 INSC 4561 July 2015Disposed off

The appellant's premature baby, Sharanya, was not screened for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) despite being a high‑risk infant, leading to permanent blindness. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) found the State of Tamil Nadu, its government hospital and two doctors negligent and awarded Rs 5 

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusANIS AHMED

2013 INSC 3941 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether industrial/commercial electricity users could file complaints before a Consumer Forum against assessment orders under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 or actions under Sections 135‑140 of the same Act. The petitioners (U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others) argued that such p

DR. C.P. SREEKUMAR, M.S. (ORTHO)versusS. RAMANUJAM

2009 INSC 6571 May 2009Dismissed

The case arose from a road accident in which the respondent suffered a hairline fracture of the femoral neck. Dr. C.P. Sreekumar, the treating orthopaedic surgeon, initially immobilised the fracture but later performed a hemiarthroplasty after the fracture displaced. The respondent alleged medical negligence, claiming

DR. D.J. DE SOUZAversusMANAGING DIRECTOR CPC DIAGNOSTICS PVT. LTD.

2019 INSC 4451 April 2019Dismissed

Dr. D.J. De Souza purchased a TurboChem 100 analyzer from CPC Diagnostics, paying 50% of the price. The contract required the buyer to provide an efficiently air‑conditioned room, a 1 KVA online UPS, and broadband for remote diagnostics before installation. The service engineer rejected the buyer’s existing UPS and ins

GODFREY PHILLIPS INDIA LTD.versusAJAY KUMAR

2008 INSC 4381 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed

In 1999 Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. ran a newspaper and magazine advertisement for its "Red & White" cigarettes featuring actor Akshay Kumar and the slogan "Red & White smokers are one of a kind". Ajay Kumar filed a consumer complaint alleging that the ad constituted an unfair trade practice by detracting from the stat

OBERAI FORWARDING AGENCYversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR.

2000 INSC 421 February 2000

The appellant, Oberai Forwarding Agency, was hired to transport a consignment of broken rice, which was lost in transit. The consignee (second respondent) claimed the loss from New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (first respondent), which paid compensation and obtained a "Letter of Subrogation" and a Special Power of Attorney

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search