The Supreme Court issued notices to the Central government and state excise departments regarding a Public Interest Litigation seeking an immediate ban on selling alcohol in "inconspicuous packaging" like tetra packs and sachets.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant termed the practice "very deceptive" after the petitioner highlighted that these alcohol containers carry fruit imagery, such as apples or mangoes, closely resembling ordinary juice boxes without prominent health warnings.

The petitioner, argued that this packaging facilitates public concealment, encourages underage consumption, and eases cross-border smuggling, demanding a uniform national policy restricting bottling to visibly distinct glass containers.

[Community Against Drunken Driving v. The UOI]

The Chandigarh District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Air India Express liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice after an IAS officer and his family were allegedly denied boarding despite reaching the gate before closure time.

The Commission observed that airlines cannot arbitrarily classify passengers as “No Show” once check-in formalities are completed and passengers arrive within the stipulated time.

The family, travelling from Dubai to Amritsar, was forced to book alternative tickets at substantial additional cost.

The Commission directed reimbursement of expenses along with compensation for mental agony and litigation costs.

The Supreme Court has ruled that electricity consumers cannot be burdened with the depreciation costs of a power plant that has ceased supplying electricity to them.

The Bench set aside an APTEL order that allowed Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited to recover costs for the full 15-year technical life of a gas-based plant.

The Court emphasized that since the plant only served Delhi consumers for six years (2012-2018), TPDDL cannot claim depreciation for the remaining period.

The judgment clarified that a plant's technical life does not grant an absolute right to tariff recovery if no service is rendered.

[Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission v. Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.]

The Supreme Court ruled that compensation claims for medical negligence can be pursued against the legal heirs of a deceased doctor.

The Bench clarified that while personal liability for professional negligence does not pass to heirs, financial claims can be satisfied from the assets inherited by them.

The Court distinguished between personal injury claims, which may abate upon death, and claims involving financial liability against a person’s estate.

Under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, proceedings survive if they affect the deceased's property. This principle applies to the Consumer Protection Act, allowing heirs to be impleaded to represent the estate.

[Kumud Lall v. Suresh Chandra Roy & Ors.]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority penalized Motion Education and Career Line Coaching (CLC) Sikar for publishing misleading advertisements regarding competitive exam results.

Motion Education was fined ₹10 lakh, while CLC Sikar received a ₹5 lakh penalty for violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CCPA found that both institutes concealed material information, such as the specific courses taken by successful candidates and whether those programs were paid or free. Furthermore, the authority flagged unsubstantiated success rate claims and the use of student photos without proper consent. 

Both institutes must now discontinue these ads and ensure future compliance with 2024 coaching sector guidelines.

[CCPA v. Motion Education Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Bombay High Court recently held that insurance companies cannot reject genuine health insurance claims merely because the claim was filed beyond the time limit prescribed in the policy.

A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande observed that such “time-bar” clauses restricting a policyholder’s right to claim benefits are hit by Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

The Court directed United India Insurance Company to reimburse the claimant’s hospitalisation expenses along with 6% interest, holding that procedural technicalities cannot override substantive rights under an insurance contract.

[C.P. Ravindranath Menon v. United India Insurance Company]

The Thrissur Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ordered DTDC Express Limited to pay ₹55,000 in compensation and costs for losing a box containing paintings.

The complainant had dispatched eight boxes from Hyderabad after an exhibition, but only seven were delivered.

The Commission found this to be a deficiency in service, emphasizing that customers should be able to rely on couriers for safe delivery.

While specific valuation for the lost art was not awarded due to lack of documentation, the panel granted ₹50,000 for mental hardship and ₹5,000 for legal costs, along with interest.

[Pratheeksha Subin v. J. Anjaneyulu (Channel Partner, DTDC Express Ltd.) & Anr.]

A District Consumer Forum in Faridabad directed Haldiram Marketing Pvt. Ltd. to pay over ₹20,000 in damages to a customer for selling expired sweets.

The complainant showed that the sweets were sold two days after their expiry date and that the staff allegedly tried to conceal this by tampering with packaging.

The forum found the company guilty of “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices,” rejecting its defence of strict quality control.

It awarded compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs, emphasising that selling expired food violates consumer rights and safety standards.

The Rajasthan High Court stayed proceedings against actor Salman Khan regarding alleged surrogate advertising for Rajshree Pan Masala.

The Court passed the order after Khan challenged a District Commission’s directive that restrained the ads and issued bailable warrants.

The complaint alleged that the "Rajshree Elaichi" campaign was a misleading front for pan masala, violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Khan’s counsel argued the actor only endorsed "silver-coated elaichi" and that the District Commission lacked jurisdiction, as misleading ads fall under the CCPA's domain.

The High Court has now halted the consumer proceedings and the warrants, seeking a response from the complainant by May 12.

[Salman Khan v. Yogendra Singh Badiyal]

The NCDRC dismissed a consumer complaint against Jaguar Land Rover alleging a manufacturing defect due to non-deployment of the driver’s airbag during an accident.

The Commission accepted the manufacturer’s technical explanation that airbag deployment depends on factors like seatbelt usage and crash severity.

Data from the vehicle showed that the threshold for deploying the driver’s airbag was not met, while the passenger airbag deployed due to different conditions.

The Commission noted absence of contrary expert evidence and held that no defect or deficiency in service was proved, rejecting claims for replacement and compensation.

[HS Bhullar & Ors. v. Jaguar Land Rover & Ors.]

The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a manufacturing defect complaint against Mercedes-Benz after airbags failed to deploy during an accident.

The Commission accepted the manufacturer’s technical explanation that the incident was an "under-ride collision." Since the car slid beneath a lorry, the impact occurred on the upper, softer structure rather than the rigid chassis members that trigger sensors.

The Court observed that the complainant failed to provide independent expert evidence to rebut the company’s scientific report. 

The Court held that speculative assertions cannot substitute the concrete proof required to establish defects in technologically sophisticated products.

[MGG Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. Mercedes-Benz India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) issued an advisory, prohibiting hotels and restaurants from adding separate "LPG charges" or "fuel surcharges" to bills.

Amid a global LPG supply crunch, the regulator clarified that input costs like fuel and electricity must be factored into menu prices rather than charged as mandatory extras.

The CCPA labeled these levies as unfair trade practices under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, noting they often attempt to circumvent existing service charge bans.

Consumers were advised to request the removal of such charges or file complaints via the National Consumer Helpline.

[CCPA v. Hotels & Restaurant Industry Bodies]

The Supreme Court ruled that consumer forums lack jurisdiction to adjudicate banking disputes involving allegations of fraud, forgery, or unauthorized pledges.

The Bench held that while a company can be a "consumer," complex factual disputes requiring detailed evidence must be tried in civil or criminal courts.

The Court noted that proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature and ill-equipped for cases involving criminal wrongdoing.

Although the court clarified that parking surplus funds for interest does not automatically make a transaction "commercial," the serious nature of the fraud allegations in this case necessitated dismissal of the consumer complaint.

[Sant Rohidas Leather Industries v. Vijaya Bank]