Articles

 

EXECUTION OF CONSUMER FORUM ORDER-PART-1

The matter then went up to National Commission and then to Supreme Court which held- 1. Consumer forum has no power to review its own order or to set aside order passed by it. Order so passed cannot be declared null and void by the same district forum. 2. Further the order passed by the District Forum in favour of the complainant was not challenged by the opposite party and hence had finality under section 24 of the act, cannot be made in- executable on technical grounds. 3. The execution of the decree in the aforesaid terms is permissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 13(4), (6) and (7) of the Act, as the provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32 of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the District Forum to follow the procedure for execution of the order passed by it 4. In addition to above, the alternative remedy is also available to the appellant to take penal action against the concerned officers of the Navchetna Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. under Section 27 of the Act. In the present case it is clear that some mischief had been played by the officers concerned resulting into this situation...

WHETHER COMPLAINANTS ARE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION WHEN DIES BEFORE CONTRACT CONCLUDED

(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 21(a)(ii) — Insurance — Housing loan — Death of loanee — Coverage under policy disputed — Proposal pending for medical requirements — Claim repudiated — Alleged deficiency in service — State Commission allowed complaint — Hence appeal — No insurance policy was issued by appellant infavour of deceased — In absence of insurance policy, no concluded contract comes into force between deceased and appellant — Merely on basis of delay in considering proposal by appellant for want of medical check-up of deceased, liability cannot be fastened on appellant for payment of housing loan — Repudiation justified....

CAN A TRUST BE A CONSUMER BEFORE HE CONSUMER FORUM

Further, we also take the issue under test looking into the definition of ‘person’ also if trust could be treated as person to find out if a trust could be a complainant as ‘ Section 2(m) defines a person as follows :- (m) "Person" includes, - (I) a firm whether registered or not; (ii) A Hindu undivided family; (iii) A co-operative society; (iv) Every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer....

COMPLAINT AFTER SETTLEMENT NOT TENABLE

Indu Bala Satija Vs.Haryana Urban Development Authority, III (2013) CPJ 475 (NC). Under these circumstances, the complainants were not entitled to interest and compensation, as claimed by them. The Opposite Parties were, thus, neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice....

उप्भोक्ता अदालत के आदेश की अनुपालन-याचिका;समय सीमा का प्रश्न

उप्भोक्ता अदालत के आदेश का अनुपालन ना किये जाने की स्थिति मे तीस दिन के बाद उप्भोक्ता एक याचिका दायर कर अनुपालन करवाने की प्रार्थना कर सक्ता है, ऐसा प्रावधान उप्भोक्ता संरक्षण अधिनियम मे है. किंतु कही भी स्पष्ट रूप से यह विहित नही किया गया कि ऐसी याचिका किस समय सीमा तक स्वीकार की जा सक्ती है. इसलिये जब कभी भी ऐसी स्थिति सामने आयी जब उप्भोक्ता कई वर्षो बाद याचिका ले कर साम्ने आया, यह प्रश्न उठ्ता रहा कि इस विषय मे कानून क्या है . नेश्नल कमीशन ने बार बार अपनी कठिनाई व्यक्त की किंतु लगभग माम्लो मे उप्भोक्तओ के हित को ध्यान मे रख कर फैसला किया गया . अभी हाल ही मे ऐसा प्रश्न फिर नेश्नल कमिशन के सम्ने आया जिस्मे नेश्नल कमिशन ने यचिका दयर केरने की समय सीमा पर अप्नी कोइ राय ना देते हुए इस प्रश्न को अनुपालन करवाने वले कोर्ट पेर छोड दिया जसटिस डी. के. जैन की खड्पीठ ने जे.एच.फाले बनाम विजय पोड्वाल के 1(2018)सी.पी.जे.632(एन.सी.)के माम्ले मे अप्ने 17 जनवरी के आदेश मे तीन बिंदुओ पर अप्नी राय दी- १.रिकवरी सेर्टिफिकेट मे व्याज दर को आदेश की भाषा के अनुसार ठीक किया जाये २. एक उप्भोक्ता की कोर्ट प्रक्रिया के दोरान म्रित्यु से आदेश पर प्रभाव नही पडेगा ३.अनुपलन यचिका के आदेश की तिथि 1.8.2002 से 12 वर्ष बाद दायर करने का प्रश्न अनुत्तरित रह्ने दिया –अर्थार्त यह विषय भी अनुपालन कर्ता कोर्ट मे उठाया जयेगा ....

JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER COURTS IN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT CASES (Impact of amendment in section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act)

APPLICATION OF SECTION 3 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986 Referred Cases-Hon’ble Supreme Court - !)Skypack Couriers Ltd. (Through order by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J.) !!) National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr. (2012) 2 SCC 506 !!!)Rosedale Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aghore Bhattacharya [(2015) 1 WBLR 385 (SC)], !V)Lt. Col. Anil Raj & Anr. Vs. M/s. Unitech Ltd., Consumer Complaint No. 346 of 2013, decided on 02.5.2016, V)Secretary, Thirumugugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (through LRs) & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC305 wherein it had been authoritatively opined that the existence of an arbitration clause will not be a bar to the entertainment of aComplaint by a Forum under the Consumer Act....

THE NEW CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW -NEW ERA FOR CONSUMERS

Consumer forums and commissions do not have employees with separate cadre exclusively for the court and it results in transfer of employees to the other departments in the state. Consumer courts have different style of functioning in compare to other ministerial work. By the time employee understands the functioning of court and steno learns to type orders, he or she is transferred with relieving order. New posting is often delayed for many reasons which hamper the functioning of consumer courts. The new act has made a provision that employees in the consumer courts shall work under the supervision of Presidents of the respective consumer commissions which shall be a great relief to the consumer commissions....

MAINTAINABILITY OF CONSUMER COMPLAINT WHEN CASE ALREADY PENDING IN CIVIL COURT ON THE SAME ISSUE

4. REFERENCE TO THE DECIDED CASES ON THE ISSUE- !)The National Commission in M/s. Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., as reported in I (1991) CPJ 78, held that ‘when the subject matter of a complaint was sub-judice before a Civil Court, the Commission could not interfere.’ !!)A similar view has been taken in ‘Lilly Chaoyin v. CMD, Tamilnadu Industrial Investment Corporation & Ors. by the Tamilnadu State Commission, as reported in II (1995) CPJ 209. In view of the above discussions ,it stands clear that no one can opt for two remedies for the same cause and cannot be benefitted twice for the same loss....

LAW SOON TO ENSURE DOCTORS PRESCRIBE CHEAPER GENERIC DRUGS (Professionals deviating from ethical values)

While National Commission had held in the matter of D.K.Gandhi V M.Mathias 2007 CTJ 909 (CP) NCDRC that services rendered by an advocate to his client in the course of litigation is to be covered under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, bench comprising Justice L.S Panta and Justce B Sudershan reddy stayed the ruling of Apex consumer commission holding that lawyers rendered legal assistance and not service to the client. In spite of a good reasoned order pronounced by National Commission after detailed discussion in the case of D K Gandhi v M Mathias on the issue, large number of advocate bodies ,bar of Indian lawers,Delhi High Court bar association and Bar Council of India approached the Hon’ble SC and got the order stayed ....

WHEN PRAYER IS NOT MADE FOR COMPENSATION; QUESTION OF ACTUAL LOSS

The main question raised in these appeals is whether in the absence of any prayer made in the complaint and without evidence of any loss suffered, the award of punitive damages was permissible.. Final operative order passed by the Supreme court reverses the order of National Commission in which compensation was awarded “ Compensation can be granted only in terms of Section 14(1)(d) of the Act. Clause (d) contemplates award of compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered due to negligence of the opposite party. In the present case there was no allegation or material placed on record to show negligence." Thus, mere proof of "unfair trade practice" is not enough for claim or award of relief unless causing of loss is also established which in the present case has not been established. There was no prayer for any compensation’....

Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

Become a Member of the new revolution "Consumer Awakening" and instantly expand your knowledge with the Important Landmark Judgements, Laws Laid down by the Supreme Court for Consumer Rights, Get access to hundreds of Featured Articles in 2 different Languages; English and Hindi - a valuable professional resource to draw upon, and a powerful, collective voice to advocate for your protection of rights as a consumer nationwide.

Thank you for your interest in becoming a "Consumer Awakening" Member!
You will find information on Customer Rights, what we're doing and how to become a member. If you are looking forward to become a member of our portal and gain access to Hundreds of Featured Articles which will clearly give you an insight of yoru rights as a Consumer, then Read Further. more detail on our technologies and technology process,