Topic
The Delhi State Consumer Commission ruled that charging EMI bounce penalties is unlawful if the loan contract permits payment up to the 7th and the borrower keeps enough balance, ordering Axis Bank to refund the charges for all 24 EMIs. This protects borrowers from unfair trade practices tied to premature ECS presentment.
The Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Commission ruled that a complainant’s absence abroad and her advocate’s failure to appear do not constitute sufficient cause to condone a delay of over a year in filing an appeal. The ruling reinforces that litigants bear ultimate responsibility for pursuing their cases, even when represented, and cannot shift liability for procedural lapses onto external factors without demonstrable due diligence.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismisses an appeal filed 109 days late, ruling that relocation for employment and reliance on legal aid without documentary evidence do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The decision underscores the need for appellants to substantiate delays with verifiable proof to avoid dismissal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismisses an appeal filed 194 days late, ruling that unverified claims like family illness or advocate change do not constitute 'sufficient cause' under the Consumer Protection Act. The Commission emphasizes that condonation of delay demands strict documentary evidence, reinforcing procedural compliance in consumer disputes.