Thursday, 15 October, 2026

Tag: Chandigarh consumer commission


Consumer Protection

May 4, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh has held Air India Express guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for wrongfully denying boarding to an IAS officer and his family despite their timely Read more…


Consumer Protection

March 16, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh has held Punjab Government authorities guilty of deficiency in service for arbitrarily restricting medical reimbursement of a retired Deputy District Attorney, Ajaib Singh, without proving that he had been Read more…


Consumer Protection

March 16, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh has held the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) guilty of deficiency in service for an inordinate delay of nearly ten years in transferring a subscriber’s provident fund, directing it Read more…


January 30, 2026 : In a detailed ruling reaffirming consumer rights in health insurance matters, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh has directed Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. to reimburse a maternity claim, holding that the insurer’s Read more…


January 21, 2026 : The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has dismissed a consumer complaint filed against Qatar Airways, holding that no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice was established in relation to a special repatriation flight operated Read more…


January 08, 2026 : The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh, has held that where a vehicle is found to suffer from inherent manufacturing defects, the liability to refund the purchase consideration rests with the manufacturer and not the Read more…


December 23, 2025 : The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has held real estate developer Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd., now known as Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd., guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice Read more…