National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission abbreviated as NCDRC was a
commission set up under C0nsumer Pr0tection Act 1986 in the year 1988. The head
office of NCDRC is situated in New Delhi. The Consumer Protection Act 1986
targets at providing fast and cheap protection for any complaints of the
consumers related to acquisitions from markets and conduct meted out to them by
the shop keepers.
The act visibly identifies the rights a consumer has in market
against duplicitous trade practices of traders and thus forms the maxim "Caveat
Emptor" (let the buyer beware). COPRA makes it obligatory to establish a dispute
resolution mechanism at the center and state level.
At the Central Level, it is
supervised by the Minister in-charge for consumer affairs and at the State
Level; it is regulated by the Minister in-charge for consumer affairs. It has
established a three-tier dispute resolution mechanism, the District Forum, the
State Commission and the National Commission.  NCDRC is a quasi-judicial
commission in India.
The District Forum comprises of a Prėsident and tw0 other members, 0ne 0f which
ought be a female. A grievance can be filed in the District Forum if the worth
of the good does not surpass Rs. 20 Lakh. After the complaint is filed, the
article is sent for testing to the laboratory and on the footing of the report
from the laboratory a verdict is made. If the complainant is not contended with
the decision made by the District Forum, then he can pertain to the State
C0mmissi0n within a peri0d of 30 Days. Likewise, State Commission involves a
President and not fewer than two other members one of which shall be a female.
complaint can be filed to the State Commission when the value of the goods in
interrogation exceeds Rs. 20 Lakh but is less than 1 crore. After receiving the
complaint, the Commission passes an order based on the result of the laboratory
and if the complainant is not satiated with the order then he can apply t0 the
National C0mmission within 30 Days of the 0rder. St�te C0mmission also, has to
look after complaints approved on from the District Forum.
The National Commission was recognized in 1988 and involves a President who
should be a judge of the Supreme Court and more than two other affiliates, one
of which shall be a woman. A grievance is filed in the National Commission when
the price of goods and services in question surpasses Rs.1 crore.
is made based on the results of the laboratory test and if the litigant is not
placated with the decision, then an appeal in the Supreme Court of India can be
filed within 30 days of the order. National Commission also, has to look after
the complaints carried onward from the State Commission. Currently, the National
Commission is headed by Justice R.K. Agrawal and is known as National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The main aim of NCDRC is to provide quick
and economical redressal to the grievances of the consumers from partial trade
practices carried out in the market place and for this NCDRC has a set of
standards required to be followed by every dealer and if one does not follow
them, then the dealer might have to face severe penalties.
In order to demonstrate this, the NCDRC has essentially taken certain steps
toward the assistance of consumer. Certain judgements were passed involving the
major issues and they proved to be landmark cases in consumer redressal for the
future. Some of the landmark cases in the field of consumer welfare are
- To understand the Dispute Redressal Mechanism as given under COPRA.
- To study the effects of the redressal mechanism in the daily lives of
both the consumer as well as the seller.
- To study the various landmark cases under NCDRC and know whether they had
any change in the consumer-seller relationship.
- To study whether the changes brought out after the landmark cases proved
to be negative or positive.
- To understand whether the seller actually follows the rules given under
COPRA and doesn't fool the consumers.
For the purpose of research, the researcher went to the website of National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to know what the commission is all about
and also took assistance from the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 to understand
the provisions under which the commission was formed. The researcher also
referred to the verdicts passed out in the various landmark cases which were
found by using various database like Manupatra and SCC Online. COPRA 1986 was
used to get a clear view of the Dispute Redressal Mechanisms.
- Whether the primary purpose of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission has been attained or not?
- Whether the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has helped the
consumers in any way?
The research paper begins with the declaration and the acknowledgement. The
research paper is divided into two chapters. The first chapter is the synopsis
and it gives the introduction regarding the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission and also the various sections of COPRA. The second chapter discussed
the landmark cases in some detail. Lastly, there is conclusion. In the end,
there is bibliography and also a list of the cases that are being discussed and
referred to in it
For this research paper, the researcher had to refer to a lot of cases and to
find out the latest and most crucial cases in this field, the researcher took
assistance from e-databases like Manupatra and SCC Online. Both the e-databases
gave a never-ending list of cases but the researcher filtered out the most
important ones and the ones that truly showed an impact in the society.
researcher also went to the website of NCDRC to know more about the commission
and get a clear view of the role of the commission and also refereed to COPRA
1986 to comprehend the act and the commission better.
The Landmark Cases
Nestle India v The F00d Safety and Standards Authority
The dispute vented from Barabanki district of Uttar Pradesh where testers of
Maggie Instant Noodles were gathered by Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug
Administration and the same was found to comprise of lead, MSG. Relevantly, the
order dated 5th June released by FSSAI has categorized the issue with respect to
The first is the existence of lead in surplus of maximum accepted levels
of 2.5 ppm, deceptive classification information on the package reading
"n0 added MSG" i.e. M0n0 S0dium Glutamine and lead.
The Acts that were relating
to the case are The C0nsumer Protection act of 1986, The Preventi0n of Food
Adulterati0n Act of 1954, the Food Safety and Standard Act of 2006 and the
Competition Act of 2002.
The entire controversy revolving around Maggi had caught everyone's attention.
The government had filed a complaint against the Nestle issue before NCDRC under
the Section 12(1D) of the Consumer Protection Act. Rs.640 Crore was sought as
compensation. The issue was such that each packet of Maggie was labelled by
FSSAI but not even once during this whole issue did it give any explanation as
to how were the violations permitted to take place at such a large scale.
also never identified the list of items which were in violation. It was a
surprise when media was flooded with the news that FSSAI had not executed any
food recall technique to date. Also, there were labelling violations. The
defense taken by Maggie was that they don't add MSG but the raw materials may
contain naturally added MSG which cannot be confused with commercially produced
MSG and therefore it was not harmful as it is found in everyday material such as
tomatoes, peas, onions, cottage cheese, milk.
A twist for the case was when FSSAI claimed that it had never banned the instant noodles by Nestle and instead
had only sent a show-cause notice. It also said that the company straightaway
moved to the Bombay HC and claimed that it was unjustified to ban the noodles
without even giving them an audi alterem partem.
Almost after a year it got into controversy, Maggie passed all the safety test
prescribed by the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission. All the tests that were conducted on the instant noodles failed to
find any excess of lead and MSG in it. Due to the ban on Maggie Instant Noodles,
the company had suffered a huge financial loss for the first time on seventeen
Air India Ltd. v Tej Shoes Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and Another
In the given case, Tej shoes gave a shipment to Air India for a delivery in
Germany worth 1,50,152 deutsche mark. Air India further gave it to Lufthansa
Airlines as Air India confided in the carriers and was into business with them
for quite a while. This was finished by printing the terms and c0nditions on the
back 0f the aviation route b�ll.
Be that as it may, Lufthansa Airlines
erroneously conveyed the whole dispatch to Militzer Und Munch without getting
the aviation route bill. Lufthansa Airlines likewise approved Air India to
settle the case of Tej Shoes as US$ 39,780 according to the Maximum Liability
Rule. Not happy with the sum Tej Shoes filed a complaint before NCDRC under
Section 21 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Commission asked Air India to pay the imperative sum itself of US$ 39,780 and
nothing else. Yet, Air India stayed unsatisfied and recorded a Special Leave
Petition which was rejected. Tej Shoes after a gap of over three years filed a
suit in the Supreme Court of India challenging the order of the National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and requested a remuneration of
Rs.48,86,784. Air India argued that the suit was time barred and that they
shouldn't pay a sum more than that predefined in the carriage via Air Act.
argue this Air India referred to Sailesh Textile Industries V. English Airways
, wherein it was determined that any case for any misfortune must
be set aside a few minutes of two years according to the Limitation Act. On
account of improper conveyance of products, activity lies under proviso 29 and
30 of the restriction demonstration and subsequently according to this activity
will be started if a grumbling is recorded inside two years of the protest.
any case, these provisos separate period from the time of confinement and hence
make the suit time banished. In this way, the intrigue was permitted. This case
determines profound dispute as to there will be no cure if a suit is time barred
and no exclusion will be allowed. Additionally, it determines that just
reasonable sums ought to be redressed and unnecessary cases ought to be set off. NCDRC permitted just the total upto which Air India may have endured the
misfortune with some pay, yet in addition it didn't permit any further case via
Air India to give them additional pay.
Likewise, it was referenced that each
suit should be documented inside the time indicated under the Limitation Act for
example two years and any case crossing that period will be viewed as void and
not taken up in the court. Thus, this judgment made it extremely clear onto
the determinations of the court and that no one can go about according to their
wish without following the requests of the court.
Kolkata and Others v Shri Apurba Konar
In this case, the opposite party had to board a train from Katwa Junction on 4th
But when he reached the station he found that his train was to boarded from
platform 2 rather 1. Subsequently so as to get to platform 1, he chose to cross
the tracks since the overhead bridge was under maintenance. While endeavoring to
cross by means of the tracks, the individual fell getting a crack in his right
leg since his right leg stalled out between the rock and the railroad track.
individual filled a complaint before the Calcutta Disputes Redressal Commission
asking for Rs.3 lakhs as compensation and also Rs.29.585 for the medical costs
he had to pay and Rs.5000 as expense of procedures.
The District Forum permitted the guarantee giving Rs.18,900 as costs brought
about on medical treatment, Rs.2000 as costs on suit and Rs.1 Lakh as
remuneration. The Railway Authority was not contended with the decision and
therefore it filed a revision Petition before the State Commission but the
verdict given by the District Forum was carried on since the State Commission
rejected the claim.
Thus, the case went to the National Commission where the Railway Authority
pleaded that the claim didn't fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer
Protection Act and it should be appealed before Railway Tribunal since the
mishap which took place had no association with the services or the quality that
is provided by the Railway Authority.
It was also claimed by the authority that
it was a fault on the part of the person since he did not bother checking any
notice boards that demonstrated a way to get to platform 2. Railway Authority
claimed that the "untoward act" falls within the ambit of Section 13 and 15 read
along with Section 123 and 124A claiming that the case could only be filed
before the Railway Tribunal.
They also said that they took instantaneous actions to relief the person and
also presented Rs.5000 for treatment expenses as per Railways Act. Therefore,
the court nullified the orders passed by the District Forum as well as the State
Commission and disposed-off the claims.
This case had a very far-reaching impact
in the people since they got a clear view regarding the jurisdiction of the
courts and also gave them the knowledge that filling a case before the wrong
authority would provide them with no compensation or remedy. Also, if a person
gets injured due to his own negligence then a particular authority cannot be
held liable for that very injury.
National Insurance Company Ltd. v Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.
In this case, the question that arising was that whether the claim of the
respondent for goods insured was rightly accepted by the National Commission.
And the court said that it found no reason to interfere with the decision of the
National Commission. The respondent Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd had taken
out two policies with the appellant National Insurance Company for a period of
one year dated 29th August 1990. The first policy was for Rs. 4.9 Lakh and
second one was for Rs. 5.7 crore.
There was no conflict on 6th August 1992 after
there was heavy rainfall in Calcutta resulting in accumulation of rain water
both inside and outside of the factory which cause a huge loss and therefore
claims were filed by the insured on 7th and 8th August 1992 for around Rs.52 Lakh. NT Kothari was appointed as the surveyor by the National Insurance and
submitted a report indicating a loss of Rs.24 Lakh.
But National Insurance
didn't accept that report and instead appointed Seascan Services Pvt Ltd as a
surveyor and the loss accessed was Rs.26 Lakh. The damage incurred was reduced
to about Rs.24 Lakh by the insured but nothing was paid to the National
The Supreme Court in this landmark case held that in a conflict
regarding a consumer, it is a necessity for the court to take a convincing view
of the rights of the consumer predominantly since it is the consumer who is
placed at the inconveniency in comparison to the supplier of services of g00ds.
Also, it is to overcome this drawback that a law which is considerate towards
people in the form of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 was passed by the
Therefore, in the Judgement the Apex Court has ratified the spirit
of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986
under which the protection of
was the primary goal and not to let the practical provisions of
limitation in the Act to be interpreted in the manner which puts consumer on the
disadvantageous position thereby divesting them of their rights. The above Judgement of the Apex court comes as a major reassurance to the consumers
whereby the large corporations and companies will not be able to utilize the
period of limitation to their advantage and the "Little man" will be able to
claim his right without any trouble whatsoever.
A Consumer can file a complaint
even after two years (which is the limit according to the law) from the date on
which his right was infringed if the consumer can prove that it was the service
provider or the company that was responsible for the emerging delay. Where
supplier is accountable for causing a delay in the arrangement of the consumer's
claim the consumer shall be authorized under law to file a complaint in the
Consumer's Court even after expiry of two years.
Chief Administrator H.U.D.A & Anr v Shakuntala Devi
In the present case, the respondent Shakuntala Devi was allotted a plot in Sector 8, Urban
District of Karnal on 3rd April 1987, but was not given the physical possession of the
property. Due to the lack of authorities in granting the physical possession of the property to
Shakuntala Devi, she filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
The State Commission on 21st December 1998 held H.U.D.A accountable for
the deficiency in service of allotting the plot to the respondent and thereby allowed the
complaint of Shakuntala Devi ordering H.U.D.A to pay interest at the rate of 12% of the
deposited amount and also pay Rs.2 lakhs as compensation on account of an increase in the
cost of production.
Also, H.U.D.A was asked to pay Rs.20,000 on account of monetary loss
and mental harassment suffered by the respondent. H.U.D.A was not satisfied with the order
of the State Commission and hence filed an appeal before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission. Before the aforesaid authority, the appellant submitted a building
plan on 14th February 2006 which clearly proved that the respondent had no intention in
constructing a house over the allotted plot in contradiction to the claim by the respondent of
an increase in construction charges between April 1989 and January 2000 to Rs.18,67,000.
Therefore, after considering the fact that the respondent was not interested in constructing a
house on the property until 2006, the compensation to be granted was reduced from Rs.18,67,000 to Rs.15lakhs. Therefore, on 25th September 2007, the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the claim by H.U.D.A and went ahead with its
The case was further taken to the Supreme Court who said that for entitlement of
compensation, one should prove the loss or injury that might have been incurred. Thus, as a
result of the proof, the appropriate authority shall decide the amount of compensation as per
the Consumers Protection Act of 1986.
The Supreme Court referred to Ghaziabad
Development Authority V. Balbir Singh
, wherein it was contended that compensation for
harassment shall be less since the opposite party will be receiving extra amount as
compensation due to an increase in the value of property that the party shall be getting.
Further, the court said that an order to provide possession is already an advantage to the
opposite party and the compensation also rose since the value of the land/property shall go
up with time. In the present case, the court feels that whether the order passed by the State
Commission and confirmed by the National Commission to give Rs.15 lakhs as
compensation was correct or not.
The court agrees that the respondent got affected due to a
rise in prices of construction between April, 1989 to January, 2000. But the court felt that the
State Commission ignored an important fact that the respondent intentionally delayed
construction for 6 years and because of which it felt that the amount granted in the form of
interests were sufficient to compensate the respondent and there was no need to provide
further 15 lakhs. Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the orders by the State Commission
and the National Commission to grant Rs.15 lakhs as compensation.
Such a case plays an important role in warning consumers that they cannot misuse the law
and take undue advantage of the law. The act carried out by Shakuntala Devi to get possession of the property and also receive compensation in order to get double benefits was
inspected by the Supreme Court and condemned by striking off the compensation order.
brought out the point that no one can take undue advantage of the law and fool the law on
account of personal benefits, such acts are condemned by the court and not supported at any
instance. Thus, the case becomes important since it warns the consumers that they should not
indulge into practices involving misuse of the law since such an act can have repercussions
that may lead to disadvantages instead of a certain advantage.
Charan Singh v Healing Touch Hospitals and Others 
In this case, the appellant Charan Singh went to Healing Touch Hospital for treatment of
stomach ache and burning sensation while passing urine, at the hospital he was diagnosed by
Dr. Juneja who admitted him and asked him to undergo a surgery for removal of stone from
his body on 12th January 1993. At the time of the operation, Charan Singh was given spinal
anesthesia by Dr. Seth.
After the operation, Charan Singh felt that there were some major
changes in his body, his right side of the body was paralyzed and blood came from his urine.
Therefore, he was asked by the doctors to take some medicines after being told that the
disorder was for a limited time. But even after a few days the problem continued and Charan
Singh again went to the hospital where was again asked by Dr. Juneja to be admitted in order
to carry out a surgery to stop the flow of blood while passing urine.
At the time of the
operation, after being given anesthesia, Charan Singh contends that in his drowsy state he had
forcefully been made to sign on certain documents. After the operation, the right side of his
body still remained paralytic but he was made to believe that he should continue taking
medicines that would help him get over the problem.
But, the state of his body continued
because of which he went to another hospital where he was told that his left kidney was
removed. In a fit of shock, Charan Singh went back to the Healing Touch hospital to ask
about the situation, but found that nobody was interested in talking to him and he was made
to get out of the hospital.
Therefore, Charan Singh filed a complaint before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with a claim of Rs.34lakhs which included the
cost of operations and medicines, compensation for illegally removing his kidney without
consent, he lost his job because of his paralytic state and a certain compensation for the state
of body he was made to enter.
The National Commission after looking into the salary of Charan Singh found that the claim was made before the wrong court and dismissed it
suggesting the counsel to file a case before the District Forum or State Commission. But the
learned counsel argued that Charan Singh had lost his job, he had become paralyzed from one
side of his body, his left kidney was removed without his consent because of which he was
incapable of doing anything and he suffered a lot of pain and suffering because of which he
should have been given a chance to present his claim but his claim was dismissed after being
termed as unrealistic and exaggerated.
The Supreme Court said that it was unhappy with the decision given by the National
Commission since the Commission did not give a chance to the appellant to present his claim
even after suffering so much, which makes the National Commission wrong in dismissing the
claim by calling it to be an exaggerated one.
The court said that the National Commission has no pecuniary jurisdictional limits in granting compensations beyond its jurisdictions, whereas
the District Forum or the State Commission have a certain jurisdictional limit. Thus, in the
present case, the court feels that the National Commission after carrying out the proceedings
for 6 years should have had brought the case to a proper conclusion that might have involved
an proper mathematical calculation of the compensation amount keeping in mind the salary
of the appellant instead of dismissing the claim by calling it to be unreasonable.
Supreme Court asked the National Commission to work as per the motive of the Consumer
Protection Act which is to provide speedy redressal to the consumer instead of carrying out
the cases for long years, 6 years in the present case. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal
of the appellant and directed the National Commission to set aside its order.
Lucknow Development Authority v M. K. Gupta 
M.K. Gupta had booked a flat with the Lucknow Development Authority but due to
some reasons did not get the delivery of the flat on time, because of this he brought
up a suit before the appropriate consumer forum. In response to it the Lucknow
Development Authority contended that M.K. Gupta was not a consumer under
Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act since construction activities did not
come under the category of services.
The court said that the expression 'consumer' is a wide definition, it includes a
variety of activities like corporation, shops etc. Its definition has two parts, one deals
with goods whereas the other deals with services, both the parts show the meaning
of the goods and services. Another side taken is that the definition of service has
three parts, the main clause, the inclusive clause and the exclusive clause.
clause is very wide and applies to a host of services made available to consumers.
Therefore, it fulfils the purpose of including activities which involve professional skills.
Thus, the act of constructing houses comes under the clause of providing services
since it includes varies activities like allotting houses, building sites, constructing
houses etc. and in return the builder gets appropriate monetary benefit, therefore this
act of builders is termed as 'Benefit made available to potential users'.
person who applies for allotment of a building or a flat and enters into an agreement
with any authority or builder or contractor becomes a potential user and gets his
transaction covered under the category of 'Service of any Description'.
per the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, M.K. Gupta was
entitled to the delivery of flat since he entered into an agreement with the Lucknow
Development Authority for receiving a flat and this agreement made him a consumer
under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the Lucknow Development Authority
was asked to give M.K. Gupta the possession of the flat and some compensation in
order to make for his loss.
National Seeds Corporation V. M. Madhusudan Reddy 
National Seeds Corporation was setup by the Government of India in order to
arrange for good quality seeds that help in better agriculture. Its main task is to
arrange for sees of different varieties and supply them to farmers in order to get
better and efficient production. The respondent owns lands in various parts of
Andhra Pradesh, they filed a complaint against the petitioners on the ground that
they were delivered bad quality of seeds that had damaged their land and the crop
was also not grown on time.
The respondent arranged for horticulturist who
inspected the land and made a report stating that the crop failed because the seeds
were defective. The respondent therefore filed a complaint before the consumer
forum asking for a compensation of Rs 1,38,322 and another rs 1lakh for the losses
suffered. The District Forum asked to pay Rs 1lakh as compensation and Rs 10,000
in lieu of the losses suffered.
Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed a revision
petition before the State Commission and the National Commission but it was
dismissed and therefore, the complaint was brought before the Supreme Court.
The Court read that the Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act shall be read
along with other provisions and not in derogation to any other provision for the time
being in force.
The court mentioned that the appellant should have applied for
arbitration remedy under the Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and
that District Forum had no authority to entertain the complaint. And if the respondent
files a complaint under the Consumer Forum, he cannot deny remedy under the
Arbitration clause. Seeing the reports of the horticulturist, it could be concluded that
the seeds were defective and the crop failed because of them, and therefore
because of the report there was no need to invoke Section 13 of the Consumer
Also, the appellant had promised the respondent to buy the crop and
on that ground the respondent purchased the seeds. Therefore, since the
respondent was under the promise of the appellant, he did not purchase the seeds
for resale or any other commercial purpose and was therefore termed as a consumer
under the Consumer Protection Act and was eligible for remedy. Thus, the court
dismissed the appeal of the appellant and directed them to pay a cost Rs 25,000 to
When Consumer Protection Act was established in 1986, its primary purpose was to
protect the consumers from the biased and fraudulent activities that were
carried out by the traders, shopkeepers etcetera. It not only provided
protection and rights to the consumers but the shopkeepers as well and coined
out the maxims 'Caveat Emptor' and 'Caveat Venditor'. Former means 'Let the
Buyer Beware' and the latter means 'Let the Seller Beware'.
Protection Act also specifies the role of the various courts and has laid down
the duties of the three courts which are the District forum, the State Forum and
The Central Forum. When the complainant is still not satisfied from the
three, then the case can be filed in the Supreme Court of India.
The Act has assisted the consumers in getting respect and safety from the
sellers. They are provided with good material products and are not deceived by
the sellers. There are various landmark judgements that have been passed at
different level forums which distinctly postulate the roles and obligations that
are to be followed by both the seller as well as the buyer. it has become a
platform where the consumers can file their grievances in regard to any fault in
products or if they get any defective services from the service provider.
The act has fulfilled its motto of providing quick redressal to the complaints
of the consumer and also providing the basic protection rights to the consumers.
It has unchained the consumers for raising their voices in case they feel that
they are being betrayed by the seller or the service provider which was not
present before the act was established. By taking all the cases given above
together, it can be said that both the seller as well as the buyer have the
rights against each other and they cannot be violated.
This act has brought a
major positive change in the market and due to this, the buyer feels safe while
purchasing any product. The decision of creating a independent body for such
consumer related problems was an appropriate one. It gives the consumers a sense
of reassurance. They are now being offered superior quality products and it has
also created a struggle among the sellers to provide enhanced services to the
consumers at an affordable price.
The mistreatment of the consumers has been
almost eliminated due to this act and the suspicion of the consumers have been
overcome due to this speedy redressal mechanism under the Consumer Protection
Act of 1986.
List of Cases:
- The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Portal
- Nestle India v The Food Safety and Standards Authority WPL/1688/2015
- Air India Ltd. v Tej Shoes Exporters Pvt. Ltd and Another
- Kolkata and Others v Shri Apurba Konar
- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. and
- Chief Administrator Huda and Another v Shakuntla Devi
- Charan Singh v Healing Touch Hospitals and Others
- Sailesh Textile Industries v British Airways and Anr
- Vij Sales Corporation v Lufthansa Airlines
- Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh
- Lucknow Development Authority v MK Gupta
- National Seeds Corporation v M. Madhusudan Reddy
- The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- Section 21 COPRA 1986
- The Consumer Protection Act 1986
- M/S Nestle India Limited v The F00d Safety and Standards Auth0rity of
- Air India Ltd. v Tej Shoes Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and Another
- Sailesh Textile Industries v British Airways and Anr 2003 (69) DRJ 683
- Vij Sales Corporation v Lufthansa Airlines ILR 1981 Del 749
- Kolkata and Others v Shri Apurba Konar MANU/WB/1370/2009
- National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd
(2009) 5 SCC 121
- Chief Administrator HUDA & Anr v Shakuntala Devi Civil Appeal No. 7335
- Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh, (2004) 4 SCC 65
- Charan Singh v Healing Touch Hospital and Ors (2000) 7 SCC 668
- Lucknow Development Authority v M. K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787
- National Seeds Corporation V. M. Madhusudan Reddy, MANU/SC/0038/2012
- Consumer Protection Act of 1986