Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath (Presiding Member) while addressing the complaint reiterated the settled position of law, expressed that,

Section 58 of the Act provides that the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint where value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crores.

Complainant submitted that he was given a cash credit limit of Rs 25 lakhs by the State Bank of India.

It was submitted that OP/SBI had committed deficiency of service as an interest of Rs 18,66,719 had been demanded from the complainant against the outstanding loan of Rs 23 lakhs.

What was the prayer made by the complainant?

  1. Pass an award directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs 19,85,27,562 to the Complainant towards compensation and damages for negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practices;
  2. Pass an award directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs 5,00,000 to the Complainant for pain and mental agony;
  3. Pass an award directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs 4,00,00,000 to the Complainant for loss of closing of the industry of the complainant;
  4. Pass an award directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs 4,00,00,000 to the Complainant for the loss of reputation;
  5. And directing the Opposite Party to pay the cost of entire proceedings; rectification and
  6. Pass such further or other orders as this National Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.


Bench remarked that Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for a hierarchy of the Consumer Fora to deal with consumer complaints, depending upon the pecuniary value of the complaint.

In the instant case, the complainant had demanded disproportionate compensation to inflate the value of the complaint and reach the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission which is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

Hence, the complaint was dismissed in view of the above discussion, since it did not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the National Commission.[M.V. Madhu Sudhana v. SBI, 2020 SCC OnLine NCDRC 845, decided on 06-04-2021]

Case BriefsDistrict Court

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi: The Coram of Rekha Rani (President) and Kiran Kaushal (Member) allowed a case filed against the opposite party Global Alliance Matrimony (OP) under Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainant, Saurabh Rai filed a complaint in this forum against the OP, a marriage bureau, alleging them of unfair trade practices and deficient in providing services. The complainant had paid Rs 31,000 to the OP for premium matrimonial service. Neither did he found a perfect match nor a single meeting. OP also didn’t provide any customised service as promised at the time of registration. The complainant also stated that after some time OP stopped taking his and his aunt’s calls. Notice was duly served upon the OP but none appeared on its behalf to contest the case of the complainant. Hence, OP proceeded ex-parte.

The Tribunal was of the opinion that OP was grossly deficient in service and allowed the complaint, and directed OP to refund Rs 31,000 paid by the complainant along with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of registration till realization. Additionally, the Tribunal also directed OP to pay Rs 5,000 towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.[Saurabh Rai v. Global Alliance Matrimony, Complaint Case No. CC/196 of 2017, decided on 05-12-2019]

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Competition Appellate Tribunal: Deciding a transferred case under the erstwhile MRTP Act, 1969, the Competition Appellate Tribunal held that the delay in delivery of possession of constructed apartment by the builder and non-disclosure of progress of construction to the buyer amount to unfair trade practice under section 36-A (1); of the Act.  The tribunal observed that unilateral cancellation of allotted flat for the reason the buyer did not pay the demanded instalment is illegal and arbitrary if the buyer has reasonable cause for not to pay.

In this case, the complainant had already paid four instalments but the builder did not complete the stipulated construction of the flat on time and did not inform the buyer about the progress of the construction. The builder in its brochure had promised to hand over the flat in three years but it could not do even in 15 years. The Tribunal taking note of the decisions by consumer courts against the same builder ruled that activities of the builder were unfair trade practices. The tribunal also rejected the plea that delay was caused by litigations involving the builders and the real estate market was down due to non-payment of instalments by the buyers and demand of refunds.

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ved Prakash Aggarwal, (2008) 7 SCC 686, the tribunal rejected the prayer of the complainant for directing the builder to deliver possession of allotted flat. The Supreme Court had held in that case that MRTP Commission did not have power of civil court to order specific performance of contract. However, for serving the ends of justice the tribunal directed the builder to repay the amount paid by the buyer with compound interest of 15% per annum. Manjeet Kaur Monga v. K.L. Suneja, (2015) Comp AT 3, decided on 03.08.2015