The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) imposed a ₹8 lakh penalty on Raising Superstars Enterprises Pvt Ltd for unsubstantiated claims regarding its "Prodigy Framework Program."

The startup claimed that enrolled infants could crawl at three months and develop a 200-word vocabulary by 18 months. The CCPA found these promotional assertions lacked scientific evidence and violated consumer rights.

It directed the firm to cease publishing such advertisements and ensure full compliance with the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

The investigation, triggered by an ASCI reference, concluded that infant development varies significantly and cannot follow a uniform, guaranteed trajectory as advertised by the company.

The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) has issued a new rules to protect air passengers in India.

Under the mandate, passengers can cancel their flight ticket free of cost within 48 hours of booking without any extra charges, provided the flight is at least 7 days away (domestic) or 15 days away (international).

Additionally, airlines are now mandated to process all refunds within 14 working days, whether booked directly or via travel agents.

The new rules also prohibit charging fees for name corrections made within 24 hours of booking, significantly reducing arbitrary charges and improving consumer rights in air travel.

The SC directed the CBI to inquire into alleged irregularities in DLF’s “The Primus DLF Garden City” project in Gurugram, after homebuyers challenged NCDRC orders in their complaints.

The Court observed a prima facie mismatch between representations made to buyers and the ground reality, including issues relating to access roads, amenities, and statutory compliance. It also said the role of regulatory authorities requires examination.

The CBI will constitute a dedicated team, issue notice to the developer and authorities, and submit a report by April 25, 2026.

The Court clarified it has not expressed any final opinion.

[Swarnpreet Kaur & Anr v. DLF Home Developers Ltd. & Ors.]

The Supreme Court ruled that builders cannot use one-sided clauses in flat buyer agreements to deny or limit compensation to homebuyers when possession is delayed.

In a case involving Parsvnath Developers, buyers paid almost the full price, but the builder failed to complete construction on time and did not obtain the required Occupancy Certificate.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had ordered the builder to finish the project and pay compensation and interest.

The Supreme Court while upholding the same stated that consumer rights and statutory protections override unfair contract terms, and that delayed delivery is a deficiency in service.

[Parsvnath Developers Ltd & Ors. v. Mohit Khirbat & Ors.]

The Consumer Commission has held that screening commercial advertisements after the scheduled movie time breaches contractual obligations.

In this case, the complainant’s 10:00 PM show began at 10:09 PM due to advertisements. The Bench ruled that the time printed on the ticket forms a binding contract, and any deviation without the consumer’s consent amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Accordingly, PVR INOX Limited was directed to pay ₹5,000 as compensation and ₹3,000 as costs, and to strictly adhere to show timings.

BookMyShow was not held liable, being merely a ticketing intermediary.

[Harsha Vardhan Gujjeti v. M/s. INOX Leisure Ltd. & Ors.]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a ₹15 lakh penalty on Delhi-based coaching institute Vajirao & Reddy for publishing misleading advertisements regarding UPSC CSE 2023 results.

The Authority found that claims such as “645 selections out of 1016 vacancies” created a false impression among aspirants.

Investigation revealed that 431 of the claimed successful candidates were not enrolled in any programme offered by the institute, and many others were only part of limited interview guidance courses.

Holding the conduct to be a subsequent contravention under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the CCPA directed the institute to pay the penalty, cease misleading advertisements, and file a compliance report within 15 days.

The Supreme Court of India questioned Indian Railways on why accident insurance is available only for passengers buying tickets online, not for those purchasing physical tickets at counters.

Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran highlighted this unfair difference, asking Additional Solicitor General Vikramjit Banerjee to explain.

The court reviewed a railway safety report and directed focus on fixing tracks and railway crossings first, as these are key to preventing accidents. It asked Railways to submit a detailed update with timelines on these safety steps and the insurance issue.

The matter is listed for January 13, 2026.

[UOI v. Radha Yadav]

The Supreme Court sought responses from the Union Ministries of Health and Consumer Affairs on a plea seeking to exclude doctors from the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The PIL was filed by the Association of Healthcare Providers (India), challenging the treatment of medical services as “services” under consumer law.

The petition argued that applying consumer law to healthcare promotes defensive medical practice and undermines the trust-based doctor–patient relationship. It stated that medical treatment involves professional judgment in uncertain situations and should not be equated with commercial services.

The plea further contended that doctors are already regulated through medical councils, civil courts and criminal law, which are better suited to examine allegations of medical negligence.

The Central Consumer Protection Authority has directed Barbeque Nation to discontinue levying service charge at its restaurants.

The order followed a consumer complaint alleging the collection of a service charge in January 2025.

The Authority noted that while the levy was then protected by an interim Delhi High Court order, the amount was fully refunded and the practice was discontinued after the High Court’s March 2025 ruling holding service charge to be voluntary.

Finding no unfair trade practice, the CCPA closed the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court held that merely leasing out a residential flat does not exclude a homebuyer from the definition of “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Setting aside an NCDRC order, the Court ruled that a buyer remains a consumer unless it is proved that the dominant purpose of purchasing the property was commercial profit-making.

It observed that the burden to establish a commercial purpose lies on the developer.

Finding no material to show a direct nexus between the purchase and profit-generating activity, the Court restored the consumer complaint and directed the NCDRC to decide it on merits.

[Vineet Bhari v. MGF Developers]

The Karnataka High Court has stayed a ₹10 lakh penalty imposed on Flipkart by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) for allowing the sale of walkie-talkies without mandatory licensing and regulatory disclosures.

Justice BM Shyam Prasad also stayed the direction requiring Flipkart to conduct periodic self-audits.

The CCPA had held Flipkart and Meta Platforms liable for misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Flipkart argued that it acted merely as an intermediary and that compliance obligations lie with sellers.

Taking note of these submissions and product removals, the Court granted interim relief.

[Flipkart v. CCPA]

The Delhi District Consumer Commission held that Air India was guilty of deficiency in service for failing to provide basic facilities on an international flight.

It observed that broken seats, unhygienic washrooms, poor food quality and non-functional in-flight entertainment caused mental agony and harassment to the passengers. 

The Commission held that airline passengers are “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and are entitled to services mandated under DGCA regulations. 

While it declined a ticket refund since the journey was completed, the Court directed Air India to pay ₹1.5 lakh as compensation and litigation costs, noting the airline’s failure to rebut the complaints adequately.

[Shailendra Bhatnagar v. Air India & Anr.]

The Gauhati High Court has held that a settlement recorded in a Lok Adalat must be arrived at with the free consent of the parties, and that counsel cannot enter into a compromise without written authorisation.

The case arose from a challenge to a settlement recorded in a National Lok Adalat in an appeal pending before the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The Court found that no authorised representative of the company was present and no authority letter was produced.

Holding that such a settlement defeats the object of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it set aside the Lok Adalat order and directed the Commission to decide the appeal on merits.

[Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd v. Hakim Uddin]

The Belagavi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that redBus and Pauls Travels were jointly liable for deficiency in service after the bus booked by the complainants broke down mid-journey and no alternate transport was provided.

The Court held that redBus could not escape liability as there existed a clear commercial tie-up and privity of contract between the booking platform and the bus operator.

The Commission directed a full refund of the ticket amount with interest at 8 percent per annum, awarded ₹20,000 as compensation for mental agony, and granted ₹5,000 towards litigation costs.

The Court held that online booking platforms share responsibility when services booked through them fail.

[Ashok Kadam & Ors. v. redBus India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]