1. NCDRC vide order dated 07-07-2006 in the case of Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak V/s Ms Parul Midha revision petition No. 1933-34 of 2005 held that performance of statuary duty by university or college in laying down Rules / Regulations in conducting examinations and eligibility criteria to appear in the examination and such other activity cannot be consider to be hiring of services or fees.

But it has also been observed that giving of admissions to the students by recovering fees and in such cases if there is any disputes regard in the validity of such admissions or irregularity by such institution in giving admission, disputes would be covered under the Consumer Protection Act.

2. NCDRC vide its order dated 21-08-2006 in the case of Shri J.L.Sethi and Others V/s Seniors Citizens Home Complex, Greater Noida in revision petition No. 3129 of 2005 and directed the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 6,30,000/- with interest @ 12 % per annum from the respected date of deposits and also the litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-.

I this case the complainants have sought of refund of amount as the opposite party would not construct a flat within stipulated period

3. NCDRC vide its order dated 03-12-2004 in the case of M/s Harsolia Motors V/s M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. in Appeal No. 159 of 2004 held that if the goods are purchased for resale or for commercial purpose only than consumer would be excluded from the Consumer Protection Act. Whereas goods are purchased for his use at his residential or even his office, it cannot be held to be for commercial purpose. Meaning thereby profit is the main aim of the commercial purpose.

Concerning all this it was held that a person who takes insurance policy to cover the risks does not take the policy for commercial purpose. Policy is only for actual loss and it is not intended for generate of profit

4. NCDRC vide its order dated 25-04-2005 in the case of Shri Pravat Kumar Mukerjee V/s Ruby Journal Hospital in original petition no. 99 of 2002, observed that once the treatment has started it would mean that the complainant has hired the services may be at the relevant time the consideration was not fix or paid but it was promised in emergency cases.

In this present case treatment has started and withdrawn and the withdrawal can not be justified on any ground. There was not justifiable ground for this discontinuing the treatment. The court found that the patient was refused treatment only on the ground that the persons who brought him in the hospital were not in the position to deposit the amount of Rs. 15,000/-
The Apex Court directed responded to pay in all Rs.10,00,000/- to complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony.

5. NCDRC vide its order dated 22-09-2006 in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation V/s Shri Mukhtyar Singh in revision petition No. 2349 of 2006 has confirmed the order of state commission which ordered DTC to compensate complainant for harrassment and mental agony.

In the present case a very old a sick person was manhandled by the staff of DTC on the ground that he failed to produce the certificate that he was a senior citizen. When even a weak eye sight can say that his age would be above than 70 years. The senior citizen pass was snatched by DTC Staff from him and he was asked to purchase a ticket.

6. NCDRC vide its order dated 09-10-2006 in the case of Union Government of India V/s Shri Subhash Chand Jasuja and others in revision petition No. 78 of 2001 held and confirmed the order of State Commission and directed the Union Government of India to compensate the complainants by refunding Rs. 1,240/- being the difference of railway fair and also pay Rs 10,000/- as compensation to each of the complainants and also Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

It was alleged that complainant were given confirmed reservation but while on journey no first class compartment in the train was available. Complainant requested for second AC and paid extra fair but they were shocked to know that did not figure in the reservation list.

The Apex Court held that the Railways Authorities were liable for reservation.

7. NCDRC vide its order dated 10-10-2006 in the case of Shri Shiv Kumar Gautam V/s Ms Alima B and others in revision petition No. 586 of 1999 held that there has been clear deficiency in Service and negligence on the part of petitioner in giving allopathic treatment while it is admitted that the petitioner is a homeopath doctor. The complainant was administered allopathic treatment negligently and the petitioner left the patient when his condition deteriorated.

The Apex Court confirmed the award of compensation of Rs. 62,600/-

8. Delhi State Commission headed by Justice J.D. Kapoor has held as illegal the practice informing a consumer about his monthly bills through SMS and directed that they should do so by sending letters giving details of such services. The court reiterated and told TRAI to devise a mechanism so that mobile services providers share the identity of callers.

The Commission directed all mobile services providers to write to individual consumers informing them DND (Do Not Disturb) Service. The state consumer commission has thus imposed a ban on unnerving Calls and SMS and violation may result to punishment.

9. NCDRC vide its order dated 06-09-2006 in the case of Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal V/s Nagar Palika Parishad, Haldiwani. The complainant deposited Rs 200/- for cleaning of septic tank, but despite several inquires and request nobody turned up. The complainant had to get tank cleaned on his own.

The Apex Court held that Nagar Palika Officers are not only responsible for providing amenities but also to behave properly.

10. NCDRC vide its order dated 12-12-2006 in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress V/s M/s Aggarwal Jewellers in revision petition No. 3020 of 2003 held that in future respondent shall emboss a mark indicating its Quality and Purity before selling ornaments

The Apex Court directed the Government that only awareness among consumers will not be sufficient, hall marking should be make compulsory.

11. NCDRC vide its order dated 12-12-2006 in the case of Mrs. Sheela Hirba Naik Gaunekar V/s Apollo Hospitals Ltd., Chennai in Original petition No. 103 of 1997 held that the patient died due to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of Apollo Hospital Staff, the patient had giddiness and had fallen in the bathroom and was restless. These all mere indication seriousness but doctors and staff of hospital did not care which resulted into dead of Mr. Gaunekar.

The Apex Court directed the Apollo Hospital to pay a nominal amount of Rs 2,00,000/- along with interest as compensation to the wife of the decrease.

12. Supreme Court of India in its decision in case Lucknow Development Authority V/s M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, observed that development authorities also come under the preview of Consumer Protection Act and construction of plot and houses are covered within the definition of Consumer Act

The Apex Court held that for better administration/governance the aforesaid law is required to be implemented so that the welfare schemes framed by the Government reach the common consumer and the objects of such schemes are not frustrated. The court further directed the department concern to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionaries.