The Baramulla-Bandipora District Consumer Commission has held the Kashmir Power Distribution Corporation Ltd. (KPDCL) liable for negligence after it issued false and inflated bills to a consumer.

Despite paying regularly under a monthly Rs. 357 agreement, Lone received erroneous bills of Rs.23,964 in 2018 and Rs.1,30,373 in 2023.

KPDCL created three different consumer IDs for the same household and disconnected his electricity when he sought corrections.

The Commission ordered KPDCL to cancel erroneous bills, maintain proper billing records, and pay Rs.30,000 compensation. KPDCL failed to file written replies despite appearing in proceedings.

[Nisar Ahmed Lone v Assistant Executive Engineer KPDCL & Anr]

The Bombay High Court ordered the Maharashtra Government to file an affidavit detailing the steps undertaken to implement the 2023 Government Resolution (GR) by which bike taxis were prohibited from plying across the State.

The Chief Justice further said that in the next hearing, scheduled after three weeks, the bench will put up some "inconvenient questions" to the petitioners as they (judges) have prima facie opined that this is a Personal Interest Litigation.

Meanwhile, government counsel informed the bench that already directives have been issued to the traffic department across the State not to permit such bike taxis and to stop them and impose fines if found plying.

The Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana has invited advocates, affected persons, and the public to submit complaints or evidence via email or WhatsApp regarding bench hunting or forum shopping.

The move follows its Privilege Committee’s suo motu inquiry into alleged manipulation of judicial bench allocations in the high-profile Roop Bansal case.

Sixteen lawyers, including two senior advocates, were summoned, while Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi were also asked to respond for comprehensive adjudication.

Notifications were issued through the Delhi Bar Council to two Delhi-based lawyers, seeking personal appearance and written submissions.  The Council emphasised its duty to uphold professional ethics and the integrity of the justice system.

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, held Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. and Credit Rating Agencies Credit Analysis & Research Ltd. and Brick Works Ratings India Pvt. Ltd. liable for failing to safeguard investor interests in DHFL’s default on secured debentures.

The bench found that the trustee failed to enforce securities and maintain statutory reserves, while rating agencies misled investors by continuing 'AAA' ratings despite DHFL’s financial crisis.

The Commission directed a payment of Rs. 2,04,880/- with 9% interest, Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 33,000/- for litigation costs to be paid jointly.

[Jyoti Khemka v Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. & Ors]

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) fined VLCC ₹3 lakh for misleading advertisements about its Lipolaser and CoolSculpting fat-loss treatments.

VLCC claimed clients could lose “up to 6 cm and 400 g in one session” with Lipolaser, but failed to provide scientific proof or regulatory approval. Ads for CoolSculpting falsely suggested permanent size reduction based on a limited foreign trial without Indian participants.

The CCPA directed VLCC to disclose treatment limits, remove unfair contract clauses negating accountability, and stop such ads. VLCC agreed to discontinue the CoolSculpting advertisements complained of but denied having misled its customers.

The CCPA, in its final ruling, however, concluded that VLCC had violated consumer rights.

The Supreme Court held that final orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, between 2003 and 2020 directing developers to execute sale deeds or deliver possession are enforceable as civil court decrees under Section 25(1).

The Court clarified that the phrase "an interim order" in Section 25(1) should be read as "any order," correcting a legislative gap caused by the 2002 amendment.

This retrospective judgment benefits flat buyers who faced enforcement hurdles and directs the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to expedite pending execution petitions, ensuring consumers receive effective relief beyond mere paper judgments.

The Delhi High Court questioned how restaurants can charge above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for food items while also levying a separate service charge.

A Division Bench led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya raised concerns during an appeal by NRAI and FHRAI against a single judge ruling that held service charges and tips to be voluntary.

The Court observed that ambience and hospitality should fall within the service charge, not as an additional price over MRP.

The matter, involving the 2022 CCPA guidelines prohibiting automatic levy of service charges, will be heard finally on September 22. 

[National Restaurant Association v. Union Of India & Anr]

A Public Interest Litigation filed by Advocate Akshay Malhotra challenges the Union Government’s Ethanol Blending Programme mandating 20% ethanol-blended petrol (E20) and demands the continued availability of ethanol-free petrol (E0).

The petitioner argues that forcing E20 petrol, without consumer choice or adequate public awareness, violates fundamental rights and the Consumer Protection Act.

He highlights compatibility issues with older and some recent vehicles, leading to engine corrosion, reduced fuel efficiency, higher pollution, and increased repair costs.

The PIL seeks clear labelling on fuel pumps, consumer information, enforcement of protection rules and a nationwide study on E20’s impact.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh issued notice on a PIL filed by Advocate Mir Umar, highlighting the unchecked sale of rotten and unhygienic meat and poultry in the Union Territory.

The petition accused authorities of negligent enforcement of food safety and municipal laws, citing a local exposé titled “Meet the Meat Mafia” that revealed a cartel supplying unsafe meat in Kashmir.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Arun Palli directed the Commissioner of Food Safety be added as a respondent.

The court granted time for the respondents to file their objections and scheduled the next hearing for August 25, 2025.

The Kupwara District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Bajaj Allianz General Insurance and its authorised officer liable for unfair trade practice for failing to settle Irfan Ahmad's genuine insurance claim. 

Ahmad’s insured TATA Sumo met with an accident on 19 March 2016, and despite submitting all required documents, the insurer did not process the claim. 

The insurer alleged the absence of a valid permit, but provided no proof of policy breach. The Commission ruled this as a violation of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, directing payment of the assured sum, ₹1 lakh compensation for mental agony, and ₹20,000 litigation costs.

[Irfan Ahmad v Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company]

The Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held Sukh Sagar Hotels Pvt Ltd. accountable for serving food containing stone particles, which resulted in the complainant's tooth crown breaking.

On September 28, 2022, the complainant dined at the hotel, where he encountered a large stone-like particle in his meal, leading to significant dental pain and damage.

Despite the hotel's apology and the complainant's dental treatment costing approximately ₹16,000, the hotel denied compensation.

The Commission found the hotel negligent, unfair trade practice, violating consumer protection laws, and ordered compensation for the complainant.

The District Consumer Commission in New Delhi has held IndiGo Airlines liable for deficiency in service after a passenger was given a stained and unhygienic seat on a Baku-Delhi flight.

The passenger was shifted mid-air, but complained of mental harassment and discomfort. The airline argued the issue was resolved and claimed the complaint was misdirected.

However, the Commission found merit in the complaint, citing photographic evidence, lack of cleaning records, and non-compliance with Civil Aviation norms.

It awarded ₹1.5 lakh for mental harassment and ₹25,000 in legal costs, holding Indigo accountable for failing to meet hygiene standards and consumer expectations. 

[Pinki v. Indigo Airlines]

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted interim relief to Sony India Managing Director Sunil Nayyar by staying all criminal proceedings against him in a consumer fraud case.

The FIR alleged conspiracy and cheating related to a Sony TV repair/replace dispute.

Nayyar argued he was wrongly made a defendant solely due to his position, without any evidence of direct involvement or guilty intent. He contended that the dispute was civil in nature and not suitable for criminal prosecution.

The Court agreed to stay the case, noting the absence of material connecting him to the allegations and reserving the matter for further hearing.

[Sunil Nayyar v. State of Andhra Pradesh]

The Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Paytm officials liable for delivering a poor-quality T-shirt instead of a laptop ordered in 2021. 

The Commission found this to be a grave deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and noted negligence in not processing the refund despite repeated complaints.

Emphasizing the accountability of e-commerce platforms, the bench said consumers must be treated with dignity, and platforms must ensure fair and timely redressal rather than viewing buyers as mere transactions.

[Dr. Gejo Anna V. Paytm & Ors]