Landmark judgements

 

PADMINI MALHOTRA N-212, GREATER KAILASH, PART-1, NEW DELHI-110048 Versus M/S. ERA LAND MARKS (INDIA) LTD. B-24, SECTOR-3, NOIDA-201301

Instant complaint has been filed with a clear attempt to inflate the value of the relief which amounts to abuse of process of law being an attempt to short circuit the hierarchy of the consumer foras. Complaint is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the appropriate fora....

(BREACH OF CONTRACT WHEN DOES NOT CAUSE ACCIDENT)LAKHMI CHAND VS. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE

It becomes very clear from a perusal of the above mentioned case law of this Court that the insurance company, in order to avoid liability must not only establish the defense claimed in the proceeding concerned, but also establish breach on the part of the owner/insured of the vehicle for which the burden of proof would rest with the insurance company....

I (2017) CPJ 649 (NC) SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant VERSUS D. SRINIVAS & ORS.—Respondents (INSURANCE; DEATH OF LOANEE PENDING MEDICAL EXAMINATION :NO POLICY )

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(r), 20(1)(iii) — Insurance — Housing loan — Death of loanee — Coverage under policy disputed — Proposal pending for medical examination — Claim repudiated — Alleged deficiency in service — Acceptance of premium before the mandatory medical examination not amounts to unfair trade practice — Non-compliance of 15 days period for processing of proposal by Insurance Company will not come in way of Insurance Company to repudiate insurance claim — Repudiation justified....

LAKHMI CHAND VS. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE [Civil Appeal Nos.49-50 of 2016 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37534-37535 of 2013] ( ISSUE ;VIOLATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE POLICY)

If those six workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased risk from the point of view of the Insurance Company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the pose, keeping apart the load it was carrying. In the present case the driver of the vehicle was not responsible for the accident. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification...

GENERAL MOTORS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VS. ASHOK RAMNIK LAL TOLAT & ANR. [Civil Appeal Nos. 8072-8073 of 2009] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (WHEN PRAYER IS NOT MADE FOR COMPENSATION; QUESTION OF ACTUAL LOSS)

National Commission and the appellant having no notice of such a claim, the said order is contrary to principles of fair procedure and natural justice. We also make it clear that this order will not stand in the way of any aggrieved party raising a claim before an appropriate forum in accordance with law....

D.K. CONSTRUCTION—versus ARUP BANERJEE & ORS.—

when a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances, in which he came to sign the documents needed to be established.Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharti Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Courier, II (1996) CPJ 25 (SC)=(1996) 4 SCC 704, while coming to the said conclusion. The State Commission also noted that when a party to the contract disputes the binding nature of the signed document, it is for him to prove the terms in the contract or circumstances, in which he came to sign the documents needed to be established....

MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY—Appellant versus SURJEET KAUR—Respondent

The appellant is an autonomous body and the decision of the appellant and the statutory provisions have to be implemented through its officers. This also includes the implementation of all such measures which have a statutory backing and if they are implemented honestly through a correct interpretation, the same, in our opinion, cannot extend to the degree of torture or harassment. The appellant had to be battle out this litigation upto this Court to establish the very fundamental of the case that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint and, in our opinion, they have done so successfully....

OMAXE LTD. & ANR.—Appellants/Respondents versus DR. AMBUJ CHAUDHARY—Respondent/Appellant

Similar issues have been discussed in a number of landmark judgments made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission as well. As stated already, in the case, “Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh” (supra), it has been made clear that rate of interest @18% p.a. cannot be granted in each and every case and the same has to be determined according to the facts and circumstances of each case. It is to be seen, therefore, whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant is entitled for the grant of higher rate of interest....

SBI LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Appellant versus D. SRINIVAS & ORS.—Respondents

20. Thus, the deficiency on the part of the appellant is proved and the State Commission has decided the compensation for this deficiency relying on the judgment of State of Gujarat v.Shantilal Mangaldas reported in 1969 (SLT SOFT) 422=AIR 1969 SC 634. In the case of SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. v. Asha Lata Parida & Anr. (supra), this Commission has also allowed the payment of full loan amount by confirming the order of the District Forum. 21. Based on the above discussion, we find no error in the order dated 16.7.2012 of the State Commission, which is based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law. Accordingly, we find no force in the First Appeal No. 560 of 2012 and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the liability of the appellant would be limited to unpaid loan amount on the date of death of insured i.e. 17.12.2009, subject to the limit of the policy amount, which is Rs. 30,00,000 only. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member Mr. Prem Narain, Member 3rd February, 2017...

MRINMOY DUTTA—Appellant versus DR. ANUPAM GOLASH & ANR.—Respondent

Taking into consideration that the Complainant underwent several procedures on his nose subsequent to the Rhinoplasty performed, and had undergone a lot of mental agony, we find it a fit case to award a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakh towards the mental agony suffered. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant had not filed any comprehensive statement bills of all the medical expenses incurred towards the treatment rendered till date. However, having regard to the fact, that admittedly the Complainant had undergone more than 5 procedures/surgeries, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 is being awarded towards medical expenses incurred. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the Complainant did not substantiate by any documentary evidence, the type of medical treatment that may be required to be taken abroad or in the near future, which could be necessary to improve his condition. Hence, the prayer for Rs. 15 lakh towards medical treatment abroad is hereby disallowed....

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD &OTHERS V/S DAIMLER CHRYSLER INDIA PVT. LTD&OTHS

If a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the use/personal use of its directors or employees, such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose, irrespective of whether the goods or services are used solely for the personal purposes of the directors or employees of the company or they are used primarily for the use of the directors or employees of the company and incidentally for the purposes of the company....

LOURDES SOCIETY SNEHANJALI GIRLS HOSTEL & ANR. versus H & R JOHNSON (INDIA) LTD. & ORS

Purchase of goods namely tiles are for the purpose of their hostel and it cannot be said that tiles is subject matter of their business. Whenever any person purchases goods for carrying out business for commercial or for livelihood then only question regarding purchase of goods or availing any activities from trader or professional arises. The complainants are not carrying on business of purchase from opponents. Otherwise also hostel premises can be constructed and there is no direct relation between commercial activity....

M/S AGGARWAL PACKERS VERSUS ALOK CHATURVEDI

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another (2000) 1 Supreme Court Cases 66, in which it was observed as under; “The deficiency in service cannot be alleged without attributing fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”...

ISSUE- IN JOINT VENTURE WITH BUILDER ,WHETHER CONSUMER ,WHETHER COMMERCIAL PURPOSE

the words ‘joint venture’ or ‘collaboration’ in the title of an agreement or even in the body of the agreement will not make the transaction a joint venture, if there are no provisions for shared control of interest or enterprise and shared liability for losses. The only point considered by the state commission and national commission for considering the case under joint venture was the words used collaboration agreement and sale of four flats by the complainant which is clarified by the court it is actually consideration for construction but not an arrangement of sharing profit and was in no way joint venture....

ATM Transactions-JUDGMENT

ATM TRANSACTIONS-HOW FAR SAFE...

PROPRIETOR OF ZUBER TRANSPORT v RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.

(A) Except in the case of total loss of the vehicle insured the insured shall not be liable under section of the policy for loss or the damages to lumps, tyres, tubes, mudguards, bonnet side parts, bumpers and paint work ….”...

V. Kishan Rao ..Appellant(s) Versus Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital ..Respondent(s) & Another

V. Kishan Rao ..Appellant(s) Versus Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital ..Respondent(s) & Another expert opinion not required before summoning doctors in medical negligence cases...

NEHA SINGHAL VS , M/S. UNITECH LIMITED/QUESTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

However, that fact alone cannot suffice to oust the territorial jurisdiction of the (Delhi) State Commission to adjudicate upon the complaint, in view of the specific provisions of section 11 (2) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’). To emphasise, the clause relating to jurisdiction of “courts” in the agreement between the parties cannot by itself over-ride the statutory right of the appellant/ complainant conferred by the above-mentioned provision of the Act – that would defeat the purpose and object of the Act. This view is also in accord with the provisions of section 28 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (as amended with effect from 8th January 1997)....

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. … APPELLANTS Versus ANIS AHMAD … RESPONDENT

Therefore, acts of person in indulging in 'unauthorized use of electricity', do not fall within the meaning of "complaint", as we have noticed above and, therefore, the "complaint" against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The Commission has already noticed that the offences referred to in Sections 135 to 140 can be tried only by a Special Court constituted under Section 153 of the Electricity Act, 2003. In that view of the matter also the complaint against any action taken under Sections 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum....

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION V/S M/s Hotel Hyatt Regency

If the hotel authorities cannot keep the car safely they should have put a big board at the entrance of the hotel proclaiming “Beware giving car keys to the valet of this hotel does not ensure safety of your car, Management is not responsible for theft of the car”. This has not been done by the hotel....

Previous 1 2 3 4 Next