Choose a Category... Advertisements Airlines / Air Cargo Banking / Finance Compensation Consumer Definition Defective Goods Education Electricity Housing Insurance Interim Orders Jurisdiction Medical Negligence Others Railways

Year 2019 was a table - turning year when Consumer Protection Act 1986 was repealed and was replaced by the Act 2019. It was further a new chapter opened when it came into force in July 2020. Consequently year 2021 was full of queries ,debates and implementation problems arising out of new situations that emerged from repeal of old consumer protection act. Supreme Court has tried to solve all the matters which came before it for adjudication. It also took cognigence of some vital issues which were affecting the consumer rights in some or the other way and in spite of having such good law in their favour, they were sufferer at the end. Certain cases decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the year 2021 are bench-mark judgments which will ever be remembered history making law...

!!!)Previous decisions of the NCDRC which had interpreted amendments that enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction, with prospective effect. The NCDRC, in Southfield Paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.58 construed amending Act 62 of 2002 by which the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction were enhanced with effect from 15 March 2003 as prospective by relying on its earlier decision in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Dr Manoj Ramachandran, where the NCDRC held that the amendments enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective in nature v)Section 6 of General clauses act 1897 makes it clear that pending proceedings will not be impacted in any manner...

This debate started with Amrapali Sapphire Developers v/s Amrapali Sapphire Flat Buyers Welfare Association amrapali builders case in 2019 when 43 consumers filed consumer complaints together before the National Commission Flat Buyers Welfare Association, filed the complaint against the builder in May 2016, for delay in handing over possession of their flats.and it was contested by Builders raising following points 1. Number of consumer cannot file cases together 2. The pecuniary jurisdiction of Commission should be considered on the basis of amount involved in each case separately 3. RWA cannot be a complainant on behalf of residents...

Writ Petition Deepak Raj Singh V/S Union of India "To assume that each death due to Covid-19 took place due to negligence is too much. Courts cannot have a presumption that all Covid deaths happened due to medical negligence", the Court said. A writ petition filed by Deepak Raj Singh seeking compensation for families of Covid victims who died due to lack of oxygen & essential healthcare facilities The petitioner, submitted that the petition raised a different point relating to deaths caused by negligence and mismanagement. Hence the above order by Apex Court...

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.& others V/s Anis Ahmad & others 2013 along with eight more cases of similar nature in Electricity matters The issues before the court were as to- · Whether complaints filed by the consumers against Electricity Boards are maintainable before the consumer courts constituted under Consumer Protection Act · Whether the consumer forums have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed by a consumer or a person against assessment made for unauthorized use of electricity under section 126 of the Electricity act 2003 or action taken by billing with penal rates under sec. 135 to 140 of the Electricity act 2003....

Whether the transaction between a Financier and a purchaser/hirer is a hire purchase transaction, or a loan transaction, might be determined from the terms of the agreement, considered in the light of surrounding circumstances. However, even a loan transaction, secured by right of seizure of a financed vehicle, it confers licence to the Financier to seize the vehicle....

"blood donor guidelines need to be based on an individualized system for all donors based on and not perceived risk and not based on identities. The present impugned Guidelines are stigmatizing as they are not based on how HIV transmission actually works, nor are they based on the actual risks involved in specific activities but are based only on the identities of donors such as, whether they are transgender, gay or bisexual men or female sex workers." Now ball is in the court of central Government to take stand-whether to defend their stand or to change it . It appears it is going to be an issue of fundamental right and may call for a debate on the issue ....

In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi 1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties caused on account of a practice by the adjudicating authorities including High Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative part of the orders without supporting reasons. 2. This was later again discussed by this Court in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar 2001(7) SCC 318. “Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized. It indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved to challenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.”...

In the said case, ultimately, this Court came to the conclusion that provision contained in Section 13(2)(a) of the Act is procedural in nature. According to the said judgment, the object behind enactment of the Act is speedy disposal of cases pending before the District Forum and therefore, it has been provided that reply should be filed within 30 days and the extension of time may not exceed 15 days. It has been further observed that no penal consequences have been provided in the case of extension of time beyond 15 days and therefore, the said provision with regard to extension of time beyond a particular limit is directory in nature and that would not mean that extension of time cannot exceed 15 days....

Section 18 of the RERA Act specifies that the remedies are ―without prejudice to any other remedy available‖. We place reliance on this judgment, in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni and Anr, wherein it has been held that Proviso to Section 71(1) of the RERA Act entitles a complainant who had initiated proceedings under the CP Act before the RERA Act came into force, to withdraw the proceedings under the CP Act with the permission of the Forum or Commission and file an appropriate application before the adjudicating officer under the RERA Act. The proviso thus gives a right or an option to the complainant concerned but does not statutorily force him to withdraw such complaint nor do the provisions of the RERA Act create any mechanism for transfer of such pending proceedings to authorities under the RERA Act...

Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next