Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While upholding the repudiation of the claim of the complainant by LIC on the ground of suppression of material facts, as proper, NCDRC observed that a contract between the parties falls in the category of contract uberrimae fidei, meaning a contract of utmost good faith on the part of the assured. When information on a specific aspect is asked for in the proposal form, an assured is under a solemn obligation to make a true and full disclosure of the information on the subject which is within his knowledge. It is not for the proposer to determine whether the information sought for, is material for the purpose of the policy or not. Earlier the deceased obtained LIC policy of Rs.1,00,000/- which commenced from July 9, 1994. He passed away due to cerebro-vascular accident in the hospital on 14.11.1994. The parents of the deceased filed the claim before LIC, which repudiated the claim stating that the assured was suffering from infective hepatitis and was hospitalized for treatment prior to his taking the policy. Feeling aggrieved, the parents filed complaint before District Forum, which directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 11.11.1994 till the date of payment. Cost of Rs.500/- was also awarded. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum. While hearing the revision petition filed by LIC challenging the said orders, NCDRC observed that it is the fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties know. The opinion of the assured, whether or not a material fact is material, is irrelevant. Even if the assured fails to disclose a fact because he does not think it is material when in fact it is, does not avail him. “The time when the proposal form is filled in, irrespective of the fact whether the risk started earlier or not, is the crucial, main pillar and the foundation upon which the whole case rests. This fact is most important, single determinant of this knotty problem. In 01.08.1994, it was in the knowledge of the assured that he was suffering from above said diseases. It was the bounden duty of the assured to disclose the facts at that time. He had no qualms about lying. Consequently, his nominee or LRs are not entitled to any compensation,” noted the Commission. While holding that, “the duty of the Consumer Fora is not to find out whether there is a nexus between the accidental death and disease suppressed by the insured. That has nothing to do with the grant of compensation. The nexus point has to be eschewed out of consideration otherwise the uberrimae fidei shall stand violated,” NCDRC set aside the orders passed by District Forum and State Commission. LIC v. Ramamani Patra, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 1741 , decided on August 3, 2015

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A person who is involved in purchasing and selling of flats for profits, he does not fall within the purview of “consumer” and is not entitled for compensation from the construction firm for delay in handing over possession of the flats, observed NCDRC while rendering relief to a construction firm. The Commission was hearing a revision petition filed by Magrath Property Developer challenging the order of Karnataka State Commission vide which the order of District Consumer Forum passed in favour of the Complainant was upheld. Earlier, Complainant had booked six flats in the project floated by Magrath Property Developer and alleging delay in possession of the said flats, he approached District Consumer Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint and Magrath Property Developer was directed to pay Rs 8,86,347 as interest, Rs 1 lakh as compensation and Rs 10,000 as cost to the Complainant. In appeal filed by the Construction Firm, State Commission upheld the order of District Consumer Forum. In its defense, the Firm contended that the Complainant had purchased six apartments in the project and had sold five apartments and generated profit, hence he does not fall within the purview of “consumer”. After hearing both the parties and perusing the relevant documents, NCDRC observed that, “There is nothing on record that complainant booked six flats to accommodate all his family members and Learned State Commission without any basis assumed that flats were booked for his family members. Had it been so, he would not have sold five flats and generated profit. But, it is admitted fact that complainant booked six flats, so, he does not fall within the purview of “consumer.” While holding that once complainant does not fall within the purview of “consumer”, District Forum committed error in allowing the complaint filed by him, NCDRC set aside the orders of State Commission and District Forum, Magrath Property Developer v. A.S.Veeranna, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 16, decided on June 26, 2015

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): NCDRC has directed Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. to deposit Rupees Twenty five lacs as compensation in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Government of India. Said order of the Commission came upon a complaint filed by a person who booked air tickets for travelling from Delhi to Bhubneswar and Bhubneswar to Delhi on a regular / premier airline and was forced to travel on a low cost airline. It was alleged in the complaint that when the complainant reached the Airport and sought issue of the Boarding Pass of the booked Flight, he was told that Kingfisher Airlines did not operate any flight from Delhi to Bhubneswar and he was directed to take flight operated by Deccan Aviation Ltd. It was further submitted that Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. claimed to be a five-star airlines, rendering premier services to its flyers, whereas Deccan Aviation Ltd. was a Low Cost Airline and the fares on the flight of Deccan Aviation were far cheaper than the fares on the flights operated by Kingfisher Airlines. Thus, the complainant alleged that Kingfisher Airlines were indulging in unfair trade practices by booking tickets on its website and giving flight numbers of the Kingfisher Airlines but making the passengers travel in the flights operated by a Low Cost Airline, thereby, deceiving the flyers by representing to them, that they would be travelling on Kingfisher Airlines, whereas in fact, they were to travel on Deccan Airways. After perusal of material on record and hearing both the parties, NCDRC observed, “ The unfair methods and unfair or deceptive practices enumerated in Section 2(1); (r) of the Consumer Protection Act are not exhaustive, and the method and practice adopted by opposite party No.1 Kingfisher Airlines would be specifically covered in sub-clause 1(ii), since a person purchasing tickets of the flights operated by opposite party No.2 (Deccan Airways) from the website or the offices of opposite party No.1, or from the agents appointed by the opposite party No.1, is likely to believe that he will get the services, including facilities and amenities, which a regular/premier airlines provides on its flights, and it is on account of the aforesaid belief generated in his mind due to the misleading statements contained on the tickets, that he pays a price higher than the price charged by a Low Cost Airlines.” While noting that, “we do not know as to how many tickets of the flights operated by opposite party No.2 (Deccan Airways) were sold by opposite party No.1 (Kingfisher Airlines) in the aforesaid manner; it cannot be disputed that the number of such tickets must be very large.  Though, it is not known how much amount opposite party No.1 collected from the fliers in the aforesaid manner, it can be safely said it has to be huge amount,” NCDRC directed Kingfisher Airlines to deposit Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation in the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Government of India. The Commission also directed that a copy of this order must be sent to Director General, Civil Aviation and Secretary to Government of India, Department of Civil Aviation, to consider taking adequate steps to ensure that such unfair means and practices are not adopted by other Airlines operating from India. J. K. Mittal v. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7, decided on April 9, 2015

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While observing that a construction company which purchased four units in a complex purely for commercial purpose cannot be called as “consumer”, NCDRC dismissed a complaint filed by a construction company before State Commission seeking refund of the amounts deposited by it as sale consideration for the units, noting that the said complaint was not maintainable before consumer foras. The Commission further gave liberty to the Complainant to approach any appropriate forum, except a Consumer Fora, for redressal of its grievance against the appellant EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. Said order of the Commission was pronounced in an appeal filed by EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. challenging an ex parte order of Delhi State Commission passed in favour of Banga Constructions Pvt Ltd. which not being satisfied with the progress in construction of a complex, in which four units were purchased by it, filed complaint before State Commission and sought for refund of sale consideration. “We are of the opinion that the said units had been acquired by the Respondent Company purely for commercial purpose and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the Respondent Company could be said to be a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1); (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is trite that the words ‘for any commercial purpose’ used in the Section means that the goods purchased or services hired are used or proposed to be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit.  It is manifest that the four units booked by the Respondent Company with the Appellant were meant to be used in some activity directly intended to generate profit.  We are unable to hold that the four units were acquired by the Respondent for earning its livelihood by means of self-employment falling within the ambit of explanation to the said Sub-section,” the Commission noted. (EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. v. Banga Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 8, decided on March 24, 2015)

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): NCDRC has directed Air India to pay a compensation of one lakh along with the payment of price of the ticket to a harassed woman passenger, who in spite of having an open air confirmed ticket was not allowed to board a London-Delhi flight on the ground that the validity of her ticket had expired. Earlier, the complainant had purchased an open air ticket from Air India through its agent for Delhi-London-Toronto-London-Delhi and she was given a confirmed status. On November 2, 2001, she informed Air India that she would travel from London to Delhi on December 7, 2001. Confirmation of her ticket for that day was also conveyed to her. But when she was returning, she was not allowed to board the flight on the ground that the validity of her ticket had expired. As she was not having sufficient funds for another ticket, she was forced to borrow the amount from another passenger. Later, she approached Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service and sought compensation for enduring mental and physical torture. The Forum allowed the complaint awarding compensation and also directed Air India to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- , the price of the Air ticket, along with interest @ 9% p.a., from 07.12.2001, till the date of payment. An appeal filed by Air India in the matter was also dismissed by State Commission. Before NCDRC, Air India filed revision petition contending that the complainant suffered due to deficiency in service on the part of Air Canada, which is not Air India’s agent and complainant should have made it a party to the proceedings. The commission rejected the said contention and noted that there is always an arrangement between Air India and Air Canada for such like flights and if any omission or commission was committed by Canada Airlines, Air India could claim compensation from Air Canada. NCDRC lashed Air India for its arrogance, highhandedness and despotic attitude and also noted that instead of accepting its mistake, Air India wasted precious time of the parties and fora for more than a decade in pursuing this hopeless case. While dismissing the petition, NCDRC also imposed a costs of Rs.25,000/- upon Air India. (Air India v. Geetika Sachdeva, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 9, decided on March 9, 2015)

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): In a landmark judgment, while observing that Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 1999 (MPID Act) does not provide for an adequate redressal of the grievances of a person who suffers on account of the fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment, where such defaults also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider to its consumer, NCDRC held that investors and depositors have a right to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in such cases. The Commission was hearing a complaint filed by 373 investors who invested their hard-earned savings into attractive schemes related to goat farming and allied activities, offered by Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms Pvt. Ltd. It was alleged in the complaint that the Company assured minimum expected return on the investment, additional bonus if targets were achieved and also pre-mature withdrawals by giving 45 days’ notice, but after making initial payments of some installments, the Company did not fulfill the terms for repayment to investors. It was further alleged that when the investors applied for pre-mature withdrawals, the company failed to honour its commitment. The investors prayed for refund of invested amount with interest and compensation. The Director of the Company, in its defense, contended that in view of the provisions contained in the MPID Act, the NCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the Act provides complete machinery for recovery of investors’ deposits. After perusal of material on record and hearing both the parties, Commission noted that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy; whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy available to the victim of a fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment. While observing that the provisions contained in MPID Act shows that the designated court has no power to grant compensation to a person who is a victim of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment, NCDRC held that as the complainants were consumers of Shivaji Estate Livestock within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is not excluded in a case where fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment also constitutes deficiency in the service rendered to a consumer. While allowing the complaint, the NCDRC directed the Company to refund to investors, money deposited in different schemes along with an interest of 9% from the date of filing complaint. “We also direct the said opposite party to pay 10% of the amount invested by the complainants as compensation and Rs.1,000/- each as the cost of litigation to each of the complainants,” the Commission added. (Adelkar Pratibha B. v. Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 7, decided on 16-02-2015)

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While holding the doctors of one of the government hospitals, guilty of medical negligence, NCDRC has directed Delhi Government to pay a compensation of Rs 8 lakh to the legal heirs of a person who died due to excessive dose of radiation field applied on his body during radiotherapy. Said order of the Commission was pronounced on a revision petition filed by wife and children of deceased who were dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs 5 lakh awarded by the State Commission. Another revision petition was also filed in the same matter by Delhi Government seeking reprieve from the liability to pay compensation. Earlier, the deceased had undergone an operation for removal of a malignant tumor cell of D-7 Vertebra in G.B. Pant Hospital but as he developed the same symptoms again, he was referred to Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narain (LNJP) hospital for some tests and Radiotherapy. In LNJP, due to lack of proper monitoring and excessive heat on the affected portion of the body during Radiotherapy, he suffered paralysis below the chest and ultimately passed away. Complaint was filed before District Forum alleging medical negligence in the matter by the legal heirs. The Forum awarded Rs. 8 lakh for compensation which was later reduced to Rs. 5 lakh by the State Commission. After careful perusal of material on record, NCDRC observed that there was not only lack of proper supervision on the part of the treating doctor when the deceased was being subjected to Radiotherapy, even the dose prescribed for radiation was excessive, which was the cause of the death of the deceased. Commission noted that as the negligent doctors were on pay rolls of the government hospital, Government is liable to pay compensation. NCDRC further noted that “the deceased was employed as an Assistant Engineer in a private company; at the time of his death he was the sole bread earner in the family consisting of four members; the loss of dependency on his death at the young age of about 46 years; we are of the view that restoration of the amount of compensation of 8,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum would be just and adequate compensation”. Himanchal Kumari v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 6, decided on January 27, 2015

 

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): NCDRC has upheld a repudiation of claim by an insurance company on the ground that complainant failed to prove that the cause of death of the insured was the injury caused by the accident. Earlier, complainant’s mother obtained insurance cover from HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. upto Rs. 25.00 lakhs for the period from 04.01.2011 to 03.01.2012. On 05.05.2011, complainant’s mother fell from a bus and was admitted in hospital. Later, on 16.05.2011, she expired. The complainant being the nominee submitted the claim before insurance company but the claim was repudiated on the ground that the claim did not fall within the policy coverage because the death was not as a result of accidental injuries. By that time the Claims Settlement Commissioner, Public Vehicles Department, Kolkata passed an order for payment of a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the accidental death of deceased. Feeling aggrieved by the repudiation of her claim by the insurance company, complainant approached West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for direction to insurance company to make payment of Rs.25.00 lakhs alongwith interest as the post mortem report described the cause of death as “Cerebral Odema” which is sort of internal brain haemorrhage. Before State Commission, insurance company submitted that no external grievous injuries had been noted in respect of the deceased person either in the treatment case papers or at the time of conducting the post mortem and hence the insurance company did not accept the death to have occurred on account of accidental injuries. It was also pointed out that the treatment documents had not been produced by the complainant and in the absence thereof, the allegation of death due to accident could not be proved conclusively by the post mortem or any other document. After perusing the material on record, NCDRC noted, “Before the claim could be admitted by the insurance company, it was incumbent on the part of the complainant to provide proof to establish that the death was accidental. No doubt, the insured person fell from the bus which obviously would constitute an accident but, it could not be established that the cause of death of the insured was the injury caused by the accident. This aspect is required to be established by clear evidence and the plea taken by the appellant to the effect that Settlement Commissioner of the State Government had sanctioned payment of Rs.25,000/- on account of death of the insured by the accident, cannot provide necessary proof to establish the fact that the death of the insured person could actually be attributed to the accident and the injury caused in that accident, since there was a gap of 11 days between the accident and the death. Under these circumstances, we do not find any basis on which the finding of the State Commission can be faulted with.” (Madhumita Bose v. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 4, decided on February 2, 2015)

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While upholding the views of District Forum and Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, NCDRC has directed Hindustan Motors Ltd. to replace the car which got burnt due to manufacturing defect and provide a new one. Earlier, the complainant, who works as Executive Engineer of Dhule Irrigation Department, Maharashtra, had purchased four Ambassador Cars for his department from the car company in June 1998. While traveling, one of the four cars suddenly caught fire in the engine and got totally burnt and was reduced to ashes. Complainant approached the car company to replace the car, but his claim was denied on the ground that the complainants selected the car after conducting the road test before buying the same and the car was free from defect. It was also contended that the burning of the car was not covered by the terms of warranty and the car might have caught fire due to reason, other than manufacturing defect i.e. the negligence on the part of the complainant or any other employee. However, when the complainant approached District Forum, it rendered relief to the complainant. An appeal against the said order was also dismissed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. After perusing the material on record and hearing both the parties, NCDRC noted, “The incident took place after 4 months’ after the purchase of the car.  It travelled only upto 14 kms.  The vehicle was under warranty in those days. The record also reveals that the complainant had sent a number of reminders to OPs to come to the spot to find out what had happened to their car. Counsel for the petitioners/OPs contended that there was no need to go there because the car had been reduced to ashes. The arguments urged by the counsel for the petitioner are contradictory. On the one hand, he submits that no expert’s evidence was filed; on the other hand he submits that they did not send the expert because the vehicle was reduced to ashes. This fact also shows negligence on the part of the petitioner.” While observing that there can be no other reason except of manufacturing defect in burning of a new brand car, NCDRC dismissed the revision petition filed by Hindustan Motors Ltd. and directed the firm to provide a new Ambassador car to the department and added that in case it has stopped manufacturing it, it will pay the current price of the car. (Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Ashok Narayan Pawar, 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 3 , decided on January 9, 2015)

 

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): NCDRC has awarded a cumulative compensation of Rs two crore to the relatives of a person, who died in a Government Swimming Pool, while he was learning to swim. The deceased who was a 27-year-old Application Engineer, drowned in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palika swimming pool at Jayanagar in Bengaluru in 2008. Legal Representatives of the deceased filed complaint against the Municipal Corporation of Bangalore City and owner of the Corporation Swimming Pool, Jaya Nagar, Bangalore, as the Municipal Corporation of Bangalore City, leased out the said swimming pool to PM Swimming Centre on contract basis for a period of 35 years. PM Swimming Centre used to conduct coaching camps in the said swimming pool and the deceased got registered himself there for learning swimming. It was contended in the complaint that though the swimming pool was quite crowded on the said day, there were no coaches/ life guards or other employees of PM Swimming Centre. It was further alleged that due to gross negligence and deficiencies in the service of Swimming Center, deceased got drowned in the swimming pool. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was also made party as the said swimming pool was insured with the insurance company. After perusing the material on record, the Commission observed that, “The evidence on record reveals that only one Expert the coach was present there. It is difficult for one coach to control the entire pool.  It is well settled that love of money is the root cause of all evil.  In order to save money the OP2 (Swimming Center) did not either provide the experts or life guards or a qualified doctor. If it cannot keep a qualified doctor permanently, it should have bond with him who could be available at its beck and call.  Unfortunately, OP No.2 could not name a doctor or emergency doctor appointed for this purpose.” While also upholding the liability of Bangalore Mahanagara Palika, Commission observed, “They (Bangalore Mahanagara Palika) have never bothered to see whether, all the terms and conditions of the lease deed were complied with.  They do not care a fig for the swimmers. They  are so negligent  that  they  did not  bother  to  appear  in this case to know  what is the fate of this case.  They cannot wriggle out of the liability. They should have granted the lease deed for a year or two.  They should have seen, whether, the terms and conditions are being followed or not.  They should have produced before us the Register, maintained by them depicting that safety measures were being taken by OP2.  They cannot get rid of vicarious liability.” While awarding a cumulative compensation of Rs two crore in the case, the Commission ordered PM Swimming Centre to pay Rs 1.35 crore and the Bangalore Mahanagara Palika to pay Rs 50 lakh to the family members of the deceased and also directed that the balance Rs 15 lakh has to be paid by Oriental Insurance Company. (Niranjan Nath Sharma v. Bangalore Mahanagara Palika, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 545, decided on December 2, 2014)

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): While reiterating that if any litigant approaches any Judicial Fora by making false assertions in its complaint and tries to mislead the Judicial Fora, then such litigant is not entitled to any relief in equity and such petition should be thrown away at the threshold itself, NCDRC imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on a man for making false averments in the complaint and also for casting uncalled aspersions on the State Commission. Earlier, the complainant had approached district forum alleging “deficiency in service” on the part of a company Anklist Exim Inc. in removing the defects of a gold testing machine purchased from the company. In its defense, the Company contended that the complainant had taken the contradictory stand with regard to the receipt of gold testing machine in question by him. It was averred, that in the complaint it has been claimed that the complainant had already received the gold testing machine but it was not working properly, whereas in the legal notice sent by the complainant, it has been pleaded that the Company has not supplied the gold testing machine after having received the full amount of consideration money. Deciding in favor of the complainant, District forum directed the company to replace the machine and also to pay Rs 55,000 to the complainant. In appeal filed by the Company, State Commission modified the said order and directed the Company to only pay Rs 55,000 to the complainant. Challenging the State Commission’s order, complainant filed revision petition before NCDRC, blaming his counsel for deliberately misleading the state consumer commission by wrongly submitting that the company had replaced the defective machine. After perusal of material on record, NCDRC held the complainant guilty of misleading the Court by making false and contradictory averments as it was submitted by the complainant before the state commission that he had received the machine and the legal notice sent by his counsel to the firm showed that it was yet to be received. While dismissing the revision petition, NCDRC also directed the complainant to pay for punitive damages. (Noor Islam Mondal v. Anklist Exim Inc.2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 344, decided on November 11, 2014)

Tribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Unless any amount is claimed in the complaint for mental agony and harassment, compensation for the same cannot be granted, observed NCDRC while setting aside an order passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarding an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant. Earlier the complainant who had booked flat with JTPL Township (P) Ltd. had requested the real estate firm to refund the amount due to delay in construction, but amount was not refunded. When the complainant approached District Forum, it allowed complaint and directed JTPL Township (P) Ltd. to refund Rs.3,00,000/- with interest along with Rs.5,000/- as expenses incurred in personal visits, etc. and Rs.4,000/- as litigation cost.  Appeal filed by the complainant was also allowed by the State Commission, which further allowed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant. After hearing both the parties, NCDRC observed that, “Unless any amount is claimed in the complaint for mental agony and harassment, learned State Commission ought not have allowed compensation of Rs.50,000/- on this count”. While confirming the order of District Forum, NCDRC set aside the order of State Commission awarding compensation. (JTPL Township (P) Ltd. v. Rana Ranjit Singh Dhillon, 2014 SCC OnLine NCDRC 342, decided on October 17, 2014)