Consumer Law

On January 2, 2024, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Uttar Pradesh delivered a ruling in the appeal case of S.M. College of Veterinary Science & Animal Research vs. Ketan Kumar Singh. The case arose from a decision made by the District Consumer Forum in Mathura on July 23, 2019, which favored the complainant, Ketan Kumar Singh, who had filed a complaint against the college for failing to refund his fees despite promises made by the institution. In 2009, Ketan Kumar Singh enrolled in a BVSc & AH course at the college after being promised that the course would be recognized by the university, with nationwide validity. However, in 2011, the college informed him that the course had lost its affiliation and would not continue. Despite assurances, the college failed to refund the fees of Rs. 4,00,000 or deliver the promised degree, leading Ketan to file a case. The District Forum ruled in Ketan’s favor, ordering the college to refund the fee along with interest and compensation for mental distress. The college, represented by advocate Isar Hussain, appealed against the ruling, but the State Commission upheld the original decision, confirming that the district forum’s judgment was legally sound. Advocate Isar Hussain on behalf of S.M. College and Advocate Mohit Dhingra on behalf of Ketan Kumar Singh argued the case during the appeal. After reviewing all documents and hearing both sides, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and reaffirmed the order of the District Forum, instructing the college to comply within one month. The case highlights the importance of consumer rights and accountability in educational institutions, particularly in cases where promises are not fulfilled, leading to financial and emotional distress for students.

Chica Loca by Sunny Leone Faces Stay Order Amid Violations by Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow, January 30, 2025 – In a landmark decision, the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has issued a stay on the construction and operation of the controversial commercial establishment “Chica Loca by Sunny Leone.” The ruling comes as a major blow to Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd., which has been found guilty of carrying out illegal construction and violating residential norms, thereby jeopardizing the security and well-being of residents and neighboring institutions. The Complaint & Allegations The case was brought before the commission by Smt. Prema Sinha, a resident of Tower- 3 at Experion Capital, Vibhuti Khand, Lucknow. Represented by counsels Shri Manu Dixit and Shri Saurabh Singh, the complainant highlighted several serious grievances against the developer, including: Court’s Strong Stance on Violations Justice Ashok Kumar, Chairperson of the Commission, expressed grave concern over the activities of Experion Developers. He emphasized that the conversion of a residential community space into a commercial bar posed a direct security threat to the nearby Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, and the Indira Gandhi Pratishthan, which regularly hosts high-profile national events attended by top dignitaries, including the Hon’ble President and Prime Minister of India. Further, Justice Kumar pointed out that the project’s approval by the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) was in clear violation of: Additionally, the court noted serious lapses in fire safety norms and Environmental Assessment regulations. The unauthorized construction not only endangered the lives of residents but also compromised emergency pathways for fire tenders, increasing the risk of disasters. Directives Issued by the Court To ensure swift corrective action, the court has ordered: What’s Next? The matter is scheduled for further hearing on February 19, 2025. The court has warned that any failure to comply with its directives will invite stringent legal consequences, including demolition orders. A Landmark Decision for Urban Accountability This ruling serves as a wake-up call for developers and urban authorities, reaffirming that unauthorized constructions and commercial encroachments in residential spaces will not be tolerated. The judiciary’s firm stance highlights the importance of compliance with approved plans, ensuring the safety, privacy, and well-being of residents over commercial interests. As this case unfolds, it sets a precedent for future disputes, reinforcing the rule of law in urban development and consumer rights protection.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: Justice Ashok Kumar Ji (President) and Shri Vikas Saxena Ji (Member) expressed that the bank liable for deficiency in service due to security lapses. That the issue of bank locker services has been brought to the forefront. The case involves a consumers who suffered a significant loss due to a theft in a bank locker facility. Let’s delve into the details of the case and the implications it holds for consumers and banking institutions alike. Understanding the Case: The consumers opened a joint savings bank account with Union Bank of India and availed a locker facility at their branch in Kanpur Nagar. Despite assurances of high security, the bank failed to prevent a theft where 32 lockers. The loss amounted to a substantial sum of Rs.26,74,959, comprising valuable items and family heirlooms.The Allegations: The consumers alleged negligence on the bank’s part, citing inadequate security measures and a breach of guidelines set by the Reserve Bank of India. Despite a police investigation leading to the apprehension of culprits and partial recovery of stolen goods, the consumers sought restitution for his losses. Legal Analysis: The Hon’ble SCDRC examined the case, considering the duty of care owed by banks for locker holders. While the bank disputed liability, citing lack of evidence regarding the locker’s contents, lapses in security were undeniable. However, the exact value of the lost items remained contentious, necessitating further civil action for proof. Implications and Verdict: In a landmark decision, the Hon’ble SCDRC held the bank liable for deficiency in service due to security lapses. While not fully conceding to the consumers claims, the authorities awarded damages of Rs.10,00,000 as a measure of accountability. This verdict highlights the importance of banks ensuring robust security measures and upholding their duty of care towards consumers. Conclusion: The case underscores the significance of consumer protection laws in holding financial institutions accountable for lapses in service. It serves as a reminder for banks to prioritize the security of locker facilities and diligently manage customer assets. Ultimately, it reinforces the principle that consumer trust must be safeguarded, and any breach of this trust warrants appropriate redressal. The Union Bank of India has challenged the judgment and order passed by the SCDRC before the NCDRC , Hon’ble NCDRC founds nothing material to interfere in the judgment and order and held reasonable in the eyes of law. Advocates before the Commission:Counsel for Complainant: Pramendra Verma, AdvocateCounsel for Opposite Party: Rajesh Chadha, Advocate