Articles

 

REAL ESTATE REGULATORS AND DEVELOPERS BILL 2016 (MAIN FEATURES OF THE NEW LAW )

PENALITIES FOR VOILATION • The De-Registration of the Project • 5-10 per cent of the project cost • Imprisonment of up to three years in case of promoters and up to one year in case of real estate agents and buyers for violation of orders of the appellate tribunals or monetary penalties, or both....

SECOND COMPLAINT AFTER FIRST COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED BEFORE THE CONSUMER FORUM IS PERMITTED SAYS SUPREME COURT

There is no provision of filing complaint for the same cause on the same issue once complaint has been dismissed in default for non-prosecution but at the same time there is no prohibition also for the same in the consumer protection act 1986. 2. The prohibition clause of order 9 rule 9 is not applicable to consumer matter as consumer forums follow summery procedure and not CPC 3. Apex court in number of cases has directed that interpretation of clauses should be made looking into the purpose of law and consumer protection act being consumer welfare act,consumer should not be deprived of natural justice. 4. Rules 15(6) made by National commission do not prohibit second complaint if dismissed in default....

MEDICLAIM POLICY AND INTERPRETATION OF EXCLUSION CLAUSE

position of law was stated that three conditions must fulfil for application of exclusion clause and for bringing the case under pre-existing disease. Second part of Section 45 is: (a) The statement must be on a material matter or must suppress facts which were material to disclose; (b) The suppression must be fraudulently made by the policy holder; and (c) The policy holder must have known at the time of making the statement that it was false or that it suppressed facts which it was material to disclose....

WHETHER TIME FOR FILING WRITTEN STATEMENT BY OPPONENT CAN BE EXTENDED

Further in context with consumer protection act, civil procedure is not followed Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [(2005) 2 SCC 673], (1) The law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or co-equal strength. (2) A Bench of lesser quorum cannot disagree or dissent from the view of the law taken by a Bench of larger quorum. In case of doubt all that the Bench of lesser quorum can do is to invite the attention of the Chief Justice and request for the matter being placed for hearing before a Bench of larger quorum for consideration. Hence now conclusion is that time granted for written statement under consumer protection act cannot be extended beyond 45 days in any case....

JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORUMS

Jurisdiction of fora in purchase of houses in commercial purpose National commission has decided a case in the matter between DLF Limited&others and Abdul Azam, Abdul Basit, Abdul Waseem, 11(2015) CPJ344 (NC) on 05.02.2015 on the above issue wherein appeals in six cases decided by the honorable State Commission of Delhi had been filed. The question of jurisdiction of the consumer courts is the main plea contending complainant is not a consumer as the purchase of flat was meant for commercial purpose...

RE-LOOK REQUIRED ON INDIAN POSTAL ACT 1898 SAYS APEX CONSUMER COMMISSION

‘We deem it appropriate to observe that since the Government of the day is keen to repeal all antiquated legislation , a legacy of Colonial Era, it’s high time to have a re-look at Indian Postal Act 1898,in particular on section 6 therein ,in order to infuse accountability ,competitiveness and efficient governance.’ This was the observations made by the National Commission in a case where entry letter for examination does not reach to a candidate resulting him to miss the exam but none could be held liable because willful act or default or fraud on the part of post office employees could not be proved and employees are protected under section 6 of Indian postal act reads as hereunder-...

PROHIBITION OF CARRYING WATER IN CINEMA HALL (LEGAL VIEWS)

It is further held by the Hon’ble commission that mere availability of the drinking water from the cafeteria would not be sufficient to enforce prohibition of carrying drinking water inside the cinema halls.If the drinking water is available for purchase from the Cafeteria of the cinema hall, that would not be enough, considering the high cost of the drinking water sold in the cinema halls. Not everyone may be in a position to afford drinking water at such a huge price, which normally is many times more than the price at which such water is available in the market outside the cinema halls. Therefore, he will be compelled to pay an exorbitant price for a basic necessity such as drinking water. The huge profit which the Cafeteria makes on sale of drinking water at such a price would obviously be shared with the owners of the cinema halls, in the form of license fee for the cafeteria. If the owner of the cinema halls himself is running the cafeteria, the entire profit from sale of drinking water, at such an exorbitant price, would obviously go to him....

ELEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IN HOUSING MATTERS UNDER SCAN

n a matter of Kavita Ahuja v/s Shipra Estate Ltd v/s Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd 1(2016)CPJ 31 (NC) & GVSN Murthy v/s Ms Suchir India Infratechp. Ltd. FA NO.65 of 2014 decided on 11.8.2015 it was held by the Hon’ble National commission as hereunder - “the general rule is that the consumer can purchase only one house ,if he is asking for exception , in that event, it is the complainant and nobody else who is carry the ball in proving that he has not purchased the same for commercial purpose “ In the above case complainant is stationed at Panipat and he is purchasing the flat six in number in kundli Panipat. During the arguments, complainant could not give any reason or motive for purchasing such flats....

ELEMENT OF COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IN HOUSING MATTERS UNDER SCAN

n a matter of Kavita Ahuja v/s Shipra Estate Ltd v/s Jai Krishna Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd 1(2016)CPJ 31 (NC) & GVSN Murthy v/s Ms Suchir India Infratechp. Ltd. FA NO.65 of 2014 decided on 11.8.2015 it was held by the Hon’ble National commission as hereunder - “the general rule is that the consumer can purchase only one house ,if he is asking for exception , in that event, it is the complainant and nobody else who is carry the ball in proving that he has not purchased the same for commercial purpose “ In the above case complainant is stationed at Panipat and he is purchasing the flat six in number in kundli Panipat. During the arguments, complainant could not give any reason or motive for purchasing such flats....

WHEN A MONEY DEMAND BY THE BUILDER IS INVALID

It stands a landmark order in favour of consumers when builder threats to the customers for cancellation of unit and forces him to go on making payment inspite of the fact no work done ....

Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 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,