CONSUMER MATTERS

12.02.2026 

Supreme Court slashed a ₹2‑crore ‘faulty haircut’ award to ₹25 lakh, insisting large consumer compensation must rest on solid proof, and earlier upheld the 2019 Act’s pecuniary‑jurisdiction scheme based on consideration paid, not compensation claimed. 

Salon compensation ruling: Supreme Court in ITC Ltd v. Aashna Roy (Feb 6, 2026) set aside a ₹2 crore salon-haircut award, stressing large damages must rest on credible, proven evidence, not presumptions 

 IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT - Supreme Court: Homebuyer Still a “Consumer” Even If Flat Is Leased

Case: Vinit Bahri & Anr v M/s MGF Developers Ltd (2026 INSC 114) – judgment dated 4 February 2026.
Court/Bench: Supreme Court of India, Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria.

Core holding

Supreme Court confirmed flat purchasers remain “consumers” unless a dominant commercial purpose at purchase is shown; mere later leasing is insufficient, so a dismissed complaint was restored to the NCDRC for decision on merits. 

• The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC erred in dismissing a flat purchaser’s consumer complaint on the ground that the unit was leased out and therefore purchased for “commercial purpose.”

• It ruled that merely leasing or renting a residential apartment does not, by itself, prove that the buyer falls within the exclusion for “commercial purpose” under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The onus to prove commercial purpose lies on the opposite party seeking to deny consumer status.

Key reasoning

• The appellants bought a residential flat in a housing project “The Villas” (Gurgaon) and later leased it out, but maintained that the dominant purpose of purchase was personal/residential use.​

• The NCDRC treated the leasing as evidence that the purchase was for commercial use and dismissed the complaint.​

• The Supreme Court held that:

  • The exclusion for “commercial purpose” is to be construed narrowly; the dominant intention at the time of purchase is decisive.

  • Occasional leasing or renting for income does not automatically negate consumer status; respondents must bring cogent material to show that the property was purchased principally as a commercial venture.

  • The burden of proof is on the builder/developer or other opposite party to establish that the buyer falls within the exclusion clause.

Operative directions

• The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order dismissing the complaint.

• It restored the consumer complaint to its original number and directed the NCDRC to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.

Practical significance for consumer practice

• Flat purchasers who have leased out or temporarily rented their residential units retain consumer status unless the developer proves a dominant commercial intent.

• Builders cannot rely solely on the fact of leasing to oust jurisdiction of consumer fora under the “commercial purpose” exclusion

------------------------

Chandigarh District Commission – maternity insurance claim (reported 6 Feb 2026)

Forum: District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission‑II, Chandigarh.​

• The Chandigarh District Commission (President Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member B.M. Sharma) held Max Bupa Health Insurance Co. liable for wrongful repudiation of a maternity claim.​

• It directed reimbursement of the claim and compensation, holding that the insurer cannot arbitrarily deny a claim on alleged non‑disclosure where the policy terms and record did not support such repudiation

------------------------------

1. Implementation of amended pan masala packaging requirements (effective 1 February 2026)

   • A recent National Consumer Day‑related PIB note mentions that, from 1 February 2026, all pan masala packets, irrespective of size, must display retail sale price with other statutory declarations, strengthening pricing transparency and consumer information rights.​

   • The note explains that this and related amendments in packaged commodities and medical‑device labelling aim at reducing ambiguities, strengthening disclosure norms and enhancing consumer protection.​

2. Continuing push for consumer‑law process reforms (context from late‑2025 consultations)

   • The Department of Consumer Affairs has proposed amendments aimed at stricter disposal timelines and technology‑driven processes (AI‑enabled tracking, virtual hearings, multilingual access) to tackle backlog in Consumer Commissions; these reforms and consultations held in Delhi in November 2025 are still being cited in policy and budget discussions in early 2026.