Delhi Consumer Commission held Apple guilty of deficiency in service for failing to disclose essential conditions for its “Find My” feature.

The Commission observed that the message “iPhone findable after power off” misled users into believing the device remained traceable automatically after being switched off. In reality, the feature requires the “Find My” function to be pre-activated and the device to be connected to a network.

The Commission noted the absence of any disclaimer informing users of these preconditions.

While Apple argued it has no legal dutThe y to trace stolen phones, the Court focused on the misleading communication that created a false sense of security.

[Shan Mohmmed v. Apple India]

The Competition Commission of India held that while BookMyShow is a dominant player in the online movie ticketing market, it has not abused its position.

The ruling followed a complaint by the proprietor of Showtyme, alleging that exclusive agreements and convenience fee sharing foreclosed market access.

The Commission defined the relevant market as "online intermediation services for booking movie tickets," noting the platform's early entry and vast network. However, it found no evidence of market foreclosure, highlighting that competitors like Paytm and Amazon remain active.

The CCI concluded that commercial arrangements with cinemas did not violate the Competition Act, 2002.

[In Re: Showtyme v. Big Tree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.]

The Supreme Court directed the Union Health Ministry to formulate a no-fault compensation policy for individuals suffering serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination.

The Bench clarified that the policy allows claims without proving negligence and does not imply an admission of liability by the Government.

The Court further directed that adverse event data must be periodically placed in the public domain. While the bench refused to appoint a separate expert body, it noted that the existing monitoring framework would continue.

The order ensures that affected persons can still pursue other legal remedies for vaccine-related injuries.

[Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. UOI & Ors.]

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, South Delhi, directed Malaysia Airlines to refund ₹65,802 with interest to a traveler whose flights were cancelled during the pandemic.

The Commission also penalized MakeMyTrip for deficient service and providing false assurances regarding refunds. Criticizing both entities for forcing the customer to shuttle between them for years without resolution.

The Commission held that while the pandemic was beyond the airline's control, they could not retain the fare when passengers were not at fault.

Consequently, the airline must refund the fare, while MakeMyTrip was ordered to pay ₹25,000 for its failures, alongside additional compensation for mental agony.

[Karan Pradeep v. MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd.]

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]