The Jalandhar Consumer Commission directed a restaurant to pay Rs 15,000 compensation to a lawyer after finding that a mandatory service charge of Rs 151.53 was added without consent. The forum held that such automatic charges amount to an unfair trade practice.
The Consumer Commission in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar held postal authorities liable for delaying money transfer to an 80-year-old retired man’s widowed sister. The Commission ordered Rs 3,000 compensation and Rs 2,000 costs for hardship caused.
The District Consumer Commission, Kaithal, held ICICI Bank guilty of deficiency in service for freezing a customer’s account without sufficient proof of fraud. The Commission found no valid legal basis for the lien and ordered relief in favour of the account holder.
A consumer court ordered Airtel to refund Rs.592 and pay Rs.5,000 compensation after a customer paid for 5G services that were never provided. Rejecting Airtel’s defence, the court noted the company failed to prove it had ever personally verified the complainant’s handset.
The Pathanamthitta Consumer Commission directed KSBC to compensate a customer for charging more than the printed MRP on a beer bottle. Holding the practice to be an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, the Commission awarded refund, compensation, and costs totaling Rs 25,000.
The Puducherry Consumer Commission held a restaurant guilty of deficiency in service after a customer found a dead fly in a plate of biryani. The Commission ordered compensation for mental distress and directed the restaurant to provide ten plates of fresh Hyderabadi chicken biryani free of cost.
A District Consumer Commission directed FirstCry to compensate a customer after finding that it arbitrarily cancelled an order, withheld payment, and labelled the customer a “fraud user” without inquiry or due process. The Commission ordered refund with interest and compensation for mental distress.
The Baramulla Consumer Commission held Physics Wallah guilty of service deficiency for denying NEET course access despite payment, ordering refund of Rs 35,000, Rs 50,000 compensation for academic loss, and Rs 10,000 litigation costs to the affected student
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (East), Delhi held Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for deficiency in service after wrongly rejecting Anuradha Narang’s health insurance claim, ruling that incidental diagnoses cannot justify denial when treatment was for a covered illness.
The South Mumbai Consumer Commission ruled that court registries do not provide commercial services under consumer law. It held that delays in supplying certified copies relate to judicial administration and cannot be examined by consumer forums.
