Landmark judgements

 

Union of India & Anr .... Appellant(s) Versu N K Srivasta & Ors ....Respondent(s) (The Supreme Court Of India

Situation leading to this appeal The appeal arises from an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 7th October 2016. The Union of India, through the Secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and Safdarjung Hospital have challenged the order of the NCDRC. The first respondent was the original complainant in a consumer complaint instituted before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – II New Delhi. The complaint alleged medical negligence against Sarvodaya Hospital and Safdarjung Hospital. The NCDRC allowed the revision of Sarvodaya Hospital. While exonerating it of the finding of medical negligence, it held Safdarjung Hospital liable to pay the compensation of Rs 2 lakhs imposed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission4...

M/S. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. V/S . National Insurance Company Ltd. & 3ors

7. In the present case a preliminary point arises as to how this Consumer Complaint is maintainable before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission because the value of the consideration paid in the present case i.e. premium paid for taking the Insurance Policies was only Rs.3,20,525/- and Rs.1,23,037/- the total of which comes to Rs.4,43,562/- (Rupees Four Lac forty three thousand five hundred and sixty two only), which is less than the consideration paid of more than Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten crores) as provided under Section 58 (1) (a) (i) of the Act of 2019....

MANU SOLANKI & 8 ORS V/S VINAYAKA MISSION UNIVERSITY&24 OTHERS

(a) Incidental activities of an educational institution not amount to rendering service Revision Petition No. 1731 To 1733 of 2017 ” Defect or deficiency which may arise on account of a student drowning in a swimming pool ,Defect or deficiency in the transportation, Excursion trip not deficient in services...

Neena Aneja & Anr. Versus Jai Prakash Associates Ltd (SC)

The Consumer Protection Act 20191 was published in the Gazette of India on 9 August 2019. By S.O. 2351(E) dated 15 July 2020, the provisions of the Act of 2019 were notified to come into force on 20 July 2020. By S.O. 2421(E) dated 23 July 2020 several other provisions were brought into force, with effect from 24 July 2020. Since the act was passed on 9th of August 2019 some of the commissions started accepting cases on the basis of new pecuniary jurisdiction set under the act and in some other cases after notification date of enforcement of the act 2019 . This is how this case has come up before the honourable Supreme Court clubbing together many cases Hon’ble Supreme Court has analysed about the Position of law on change of forum through various previously decided cases by this Supreme court benches comprising two judges bench ,three judges bench and constitutional benches and also cases decided by the various High Courts on this particular issue for coming to the logical conclusion about the Legislative Scheme of the jurisdictional provisions...

Vikrant Singh Malik & 25 Ors. Versus Supertech Limited & 2 Ors (Through its M.D.)

A case before the Hon’ble Supreme court was in the matter of Vikrant Singh Malik & 25 Ors.Versus Supertech Limited & 2 Ors (Through its M.D.) Consumer Case No. 1290 OF 2015 The issue involved was as to whether the complaint by 26 consumers with the same interest against the same builder in the matter of housing could be admitted before the apex commission when status of flat of each complainant was different. All the 26 consumers filed a joint complaint along with an application for permission to file joint complaint. Section 2(1) (c) read with 2(1) (b) (IV) of the Act86 invoked for filing joint complaint....

NARINDER CHOPRA V/S JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES (NC)

!!!)The transitional provisions contained in Sections 31, 45 and 56 expressly indicate that the adjudicatory personnel who were functioning as Members of the District Commission, SCDRC and NCDRC under the erstwhile legislation shall continue to hold office under the new legislation. Such provisions are necessary because persons appointed to the consumer fora under the Act of 1986 would have otherwise demitted office on the repeal of the legislation.Similar intend can be presumed for transfer of cases also when it is specifically mentioned in section 107 to continue with the same arrangement so far it is not inconsistent to the new act...

Tata Motors Ltd V/S Antonio Paulo Vaz&anr

Complainant rebutted the above arguments – • A cash discount of Rs 80,000/- with free music system was offered by dealer which cannot be possible without involvement of manufacturer • No customer can purchase car directly from manufacturer ,it has to done through dealer only and manufacturer remains there at the back . • Complainat also refereed to the case of Jose Phillips Mampillil where in defect in paint was found and also piston ringsof the engine had gone . In this case manufacturing defect was found by the court and manufacturer was made liable ....

Gurshinder Singh vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.

The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. It is to be noted that, in the event, after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation...

Arihhant Industries & Anr V/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd

But for setting aside the settlement which is full and final, undue influence is to be proved in the present case conduct of the complainant does not show any specific contention or cogent evidence to prove any influence on the insured. He had not raised any objection while signing the vouchers or Bond .He also could not prove through any documents or any other material on record that he had met with a loss of Rs 9945286/-due to fire break...

Sanjay Jain V/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd &ors Revision Petition No 1296 of 2015 Decided on 10.11.2020

1. One Mr Sanjay Jain imported a car from Japan and got it insured with Reliance general Insurance Co. Ltd for a period of one year running from 21.9.2010 to 20.9.2011.for an amount of Rs 18,90,500.The vehicle met with an accident on 27.3.2011.and was damaged extensively.Information about accident was immediately given to the insurance company Insurance company after receiving information advised the owner of car to take the vehicle to their approved authorized dealer and following the instructions Sanjay Jain took the car to M/s Harit Motors (p)Ltd G.T. Road Panipat.Authorised Service station of the insurance company charges Rs 2000/- and gave estimate for repair Rs 1751923/- Since the repair cost was more than 75% of the IEV(Embedded value of insured ) ,Sanjay Jain demanded the case to be treated as total loss case as per the special condition of insurance policy....

Vikrant Singh Malik & 25 Ors. Versus Supertech Limited & 2 Ors (Through its M.D.)

A joint complaint filed by 26 flat buyers against Supertech builder with same interest, seeking same relief – 1. Direct the Supertech to withdraw its offer of possession without a valid Occupancy Certificate/Completion Certificate 2. Withdraw demand raised and refund if already paid for open as well as covered car parking 3. Direct to withdraw demand /refund money under super area declared. 4. Direct to withdraw cost escalation charges 5. Direct to withdraw demand raised under the head "Farmer's compensation charges 6. Direct to withdraw/refund any demand raised/collected in the name of club charges 7. Direct to withdraw the demand of interest...

Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi vs Saurashtra Gramin Bank ( SC)

Oriental Insurance Company Limited had launched a ‘group individual accident policy’ for the account holders of the Bank. The account holder was required to submit a form to the concerned officer of the Bank in order to avail the insurance cover. Bank was authorised to verify the signature of account holder and then submit the form to insurance company and subsequently transfer an amount of Rs 100/-per month by deducting the same from the account holder. An insurance cover of Rs 5 lakhs was offered...

Baglekar Akash Kumar V/S 1. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd 2.Gopsons Papers Ltd., Printer

Consumer purchases ‘The Story of Success by Malcom Gladwell” through Flipkart on 09-10-2018 for the Prepaid price consideration of Rs.281/-It was delivered to him on 16-10-2018 to his address situated at Tarnaka, Hyderabad. There was no mention of price printed anywhere in the book purchased.Case came up before consumer forum Hyderabad...

DLF Home Developers Ltd. Known as DLF Universal Ltd and Another Versus Capital Greens Flat Buyers Association Etc. (Supreme Court)

1. That there was a substantial delay on the part of the Developer in handing over possession of the apartments 2. A claim for compensation for delay in handing over possession of the flats was made. 3. The complainants also specifically challenged the recovery of parking and club charges by the developer...

Baglekar Akash Kumar V/S 1. Penguin Books India Pvt. Ltd 2.Gopsons Papers Ltd., Printer

Consumer purchases ‘The Story of Success by Malcom Gladwell” through Flipkart on 09-10-2018 for the Prepaid price consideration of Rs.281/-It was delivered to him on 16-10-2018 to his address situated at Tarnaka, Hyderabad. There was no mention of price printed anywhere in the book purchased.Case came up before consumer forum Hyderabad...

D. Srinivas V/S SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors

• The Policy was accepted by the Insurer. There was a complete contract when company accepted the proposal with a self-declaration of good health. • The specific condition in the policy was that in case the loan amount exceeds Rs.7.5 lacs the medical examination was compulsory. If the medical examination was compulsory for such cases it should have been done along with filing of the proposal form before the payment of the premium, company did not object to it and accepted payment • If the proposal was not accepted for any reason the premium would have been credited to the account of the proposer. The premium has not been refunded. From this, it is clear that the insurance company had not rejected the proposal....

Anna Louise Correia V/S VLCC Health Care Ltd. & Ors.

Beauty clinics are a blooming industry, while on the other side they are hardly prepared to shoulder the responsibility for any losses to their clients or to follow professional ethics. Here is a case of deficiency in services as well as medical negligence on the part of VLCC, a famous beauty clinic who further indulges into unfair trade practice by denying compensation to the client for the agony she had suffered....

Sanjay Jain V/s Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd &ors Revision Petition No 1296 of 2015 Decided on 10.11.2020

Surveyor is appointed by insurance company under the provisions of Insurance Act 1938 and the report of surveyor cannot be brushed away without any cogent reason !!!) Estimate given by a private party like authorized service center cannot stand good against an independent assessor appointed under law. Unless there is some evidence against such report of malafide, incomplete or any other reason...

ITTINA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. & ORS V/S VIDYA RAGHUPATHI & ANR., SUJEESH T. & ORS

the period of payment of interest and the Appeals preferred by the Opposite Parties are allowed in part reducing the rate of interest from 18% p.a. to 10% p.a. and also to the extent of deduction of the principal amounts which are due to be paid by the Complainants....

TAJ MAHAL HOTEL V/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE C ORS.

When the guest presents the car keys to the valet, possession of the car is transferred from the guest to the Hotel and a bailment is established. The Hotel may not be liable for the loss of any expensive goods that was left in the vehicle but historically the common law held a hotel liable for the loss of the guest’s property if the property and the guest were within the premises of the Hotel...

Previous 1 2 Next