Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: July 2026

Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Against Company Doesn't Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters, Directors : Supreme Court Cause Title: TEJAS J. SHAH & AMISHA T. SHAH & ORS. VERSUS MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS BUOYANT TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT.LTD.) & ORS. Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 723 The Supreme Court on Monday (July 27) observed that an operation of a moratorium under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against a residential project development company would not be a ground to reject the consumer complaints against its promoters/directors. Supreme Court Supreme Court Holds OTIS Liable For RAW Officer's Death Due To Lift Malfunction, Says Elevator Makers Have High Duty Of Care Cause Title: M/S OTIS ELEVATOR CO. (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS RASHMI HANDA & ORS. (with connected case) Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 734 The Supreme Court on Wednesday (July 29) upheld the liability of OTIS Elevator Company (India) Ltd. for the death of a Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) officer who was crushed to death in a lift malfunction at the RAW headquarters in New Delhi in 2003. Dismissing OTIS's appeal against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held OTIS, being a manufacturer as well as comprehensive maintenance contractor, liable for the officer's death due to malfunction of the lift caused by fluctuation in the voltage, which remained unaddressed by the Elevator company for about eight months. Supreme Court States With Less Than 1000 Consumer Cases May Abolish Some District Commissions : Supreme Court Case Title: In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021) The Supreme Court recently clarified that States where the total pendency of consumer cases is below 1,000 may abolish some District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and entrust their work to serving judicial officers, subject to the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional High Court. The direction was issued in continuation of the Court's February 11, 2026 order, which had permitted States and Union Territories with very low consumer case pendency to devise alternative arrangements for consumer dispute redressal instead of maintaining full-fledged Consumer Commissions. Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Can't Be Sued For 'Deficiency' In Service Under Consumer Protection Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Case Title: A.S.S.K. Durga Prasad v. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission & Others Case No.: Writ Petition No. 29425 of 2025 The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that complaints alleging deficiency in legal services rendered by advocates are not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 observing that the services of an advocate are rendered under a contract of personal service, which stands excluded from the definition of "service" under the Act [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 120]. A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Subhendu Samanta dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent orders of the District, State and National Consumer Commissions dismissing a consumer complaint against an advocate. Kerala High Court Employee Cannot Invoke Consumer Forum For Gratuity Claims Against Employer: Kerala High Court Case Title: The Tirur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v Moideen M Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 359 Case No: WP(C) 45358/ 2024 The Kerala High Court has held that an employee claiming gratuity from an employer cannot be treated as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and, therefore, consumer commissions lack jurisdiction to entertain such disputes. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A delivered the judgment in a petition seeking to quash an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram, which had directed the bank to pay the balance gratuity on a complaint by the respondent employee. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Misleading Ad Row: NCDRC Criticises District Commission For Issuing Bailable Warrants Against Salman Khan Without Hearing Him Case title: Salman Salim Khan v/s Yogendra Singh Badiyal & Ors. Dy No. 7520/NCDRC/2026 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission critcized the District Consumer Redressal Commission Jaipur, (DCRC) for issuing bailable warrants as well as other orders against Salman Khan, over an alleged misleading advertisement by Rajshree Pan Masala starring the actor, without making a "minimum effort" to explore distinction of a misleading ad from shadow marketing. The commission said that the district forum had passed order as if the appellant (Khan) and the company (Rajshree) had already committed a violation or a breach without a trial having proceeded. National...

Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: July 2026

Apoorva Pandita

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Apoorva Pandita

Consumer Cases Monthly Digest: July 2026

Apoorva Pandita

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Apoorva Pandita

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers