Consumer Protection Act -Possession offered without the requisite completion certificate is illegal, and a purchaser cannot be compelled to take possession in such circumstances – Referred to Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise (2023) 3 SCC 195 – the absence of these certificates would constitute a deficiency in service. [In this case, the court held that …
Consumer Protection Act,1986 -The application(s) seeking condonation of delay preferred before the consumer fora prior to 04.03.2020 i.e., the date of pronouncement of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd., (2020) 5 SCC 757 , must be decided on merits; and ought not to be summarily dismissed – Referred to …
Consumer Protection Act,1986; Section 2 (7) -Consumer means any person who buys any goods for a consideration but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Therefore, purchase and sale of goods for resale or for commercial purpose is excluded from the purview of the definition of …
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(d)- Whether the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now re-enacted as Consumer Protection Act, 2019)? to determine whether the goods purchased by …
Summary: Appeal against NCDRC Order – Partly allowing appeal, SC held: Direction made by the learned Commission for refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainants-appellants is upheld. However, the direction with regard to interest is modified to the extent that it shall be paid at the rate of 12% per annum from the …
Vidya vs Parsvnath Developers Ltd. 2024 INSC 557 – Consumer Read More »
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Even if the defendant/opposite party failed to file a written statement and, in that matter, even if forfeiture of the right to file written statement has occasioned it would not disentitle that party from participating in the further proceedings, without filing a written statement and in such circumstances, the said …
Consumer Protection Act, 2019; Section 2 (42) – A complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable – A service hired or availed of an Advocate is a service under “a contract of personal service,” and therefore would fall within the exclusionary part of the definition of “Service” contained …
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1)(7)(c)- Definition of consumer has three parts- The first part sets out the jurisdictional prerequisites for a person to qualify as a consumer – there must be purchase of goods, for consideration. The second part is an ‘exclusion clause’ [‘carve out’] which has the effect of excluding the person from …
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 21 – NCDRC’s revisional powers are very limited. The Section provides power to call for the records from the State Commission and to set aside its order issued sans jurisdiction vested in it by law or if the State Commission failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or if the …
Eggshell Skull Rule– It is a common law doctrine that makes a defendant liable for the plaintiff’s unforeseeable and uncommon reactions to the defendant’s negligent or intentional tort. In simple terms, a person who has an eggshell skull is one who would be more severely impacted by an act, which an otherwise “normal person” would …
Jyoti Devi vs Suket Hospital 2024 INSC 330 – Medical Negligence – Eggshell Skull Rule Read More »