Articles

 

Flipkart not liable as intermediary for any inaction by a vendor/seller

Issue in the case The issue of the case is whether an intermediary as defined under Section 2(1) (w) of the IT Act, 2000 would be liable for any action or inaction by a party or a vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of buyers/sellers terms of use of the company. The division bench of Suneet Kumar and Syed Waiz Mian, JJ. while quashing the FIR, has observed that an intermediary is not liable for any third-party information, data or communication link made available or posted by it, as long as it complies with Sections 79(2) or 79(3) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), Flipkart is an intermediary providing merely access to sellers/buyers and has exercised ‘due diligence’ under Section 79(2) (c) IT Act, 2000, thus, it is exempted from any liability under the IT Act...

An error in procedure makes an order Null &Void

It’s the most painful thing for a consumer who wins the case after putting all efforts, energy and time and it becomes null and void due to an error in understanding the real person who is to be punished. It happened with a complainant in the matter of H.K. Singla vs. Avtar Singh Saini & Ors.Decided On 14th December 2018 who had filed a complaint against secretary Chandigarh State Bank of Patiala Employees Co-operative USE Thrift & Credit Society, claiming maturity amount along with interest on his deposit with the Society...

Joint complaint & Class action are not the same but accepted both: Re-confirms SC

On the second point of eligibility of association to file complaint Court noted ‘that the issue of registration and byelaws of the association had no relevance in the proceedings before the Commission in light of the fact that individual affidavits were filed, the complaint would fall under Section 12(1)(a) (Manner in which complaint shall be made by a consumer) of the 1986 Act and that there was no need to go into the issue of whether the case would come under Section 12(1)(b) of the 1986 Act (Manner in which complaint shall be made by a consumer association “The 2019 Act facilitates the consumers to approach the forums by providing a very flexible procedure. It is meant to encourage consumerism in the country. Any technical approach in construing the provisions against the consumer would go against the very objective behind the enactment.” the Court observed...

RERA’ emerging as a powerful law in builders matters

Referred case Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni and Another held that Section 18 confers an unqualified right upon an allottee to get refund of the amount deposited with the promoter and interest at the prescribed rate, if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment as per the date specified in the home buyer’s agreement...

A wrong medical certificate by a clinic causing loss of job opportunity in Saudi Arabia; Deficiency in services held

Art 16(6)’guarantee that medical fitness certificate given to the expatriates should be authenticated and validated ‘ Article 16(11) All issued certificates will be stamped with the seal of the centre after a medical examination has been carried out...

Consumer courts cannot decide complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts involving tortious acts fraud or cheating

...

Attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step;Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that attachment of bank accounts is a draconian step and the action can only be taken in case conditions specified in Section 83 of the GST Act, are fully satisfied....

The concept of “deficiency in service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be distinguished from the criminal or tortious acts.

Difference between fraud and deficiency in services...

Non-compliance of statutory provisions by builder is no excuse for delay in possession (One cannot take advantage of one’s own wrong)

Force majeure clause not acceptable on both counts-non approval and direction to stop work. Non approval should have been foreseen by builder when taking up such project. Direction to stop construction by the state was done because of accidents taking place on the site for safety negligence ,this was due to insufficient safety measures and due to builders default · Mere offer to exit option with interest at 9% would not disentitle the flat purchasers from claiming compensation...

The concept of “deficiency in service” under C P Act, must be distinguished from the criminal or tortious acts.

There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it”, a Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi explained....

Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 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,