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 »
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 –Legal implications of a promotional trailer, popularly known as a ‘promo’, or a teaser that is circulated before the release of a movie- Whether it create any contractual relationship or obligations akin to it? Is it an unfair trade practice if the contents of the promotional trailer are not shown in …
Summary: Disposing appeal against NCDRC order allowing Consumer Complaint, SC observed- Developer failed to handover the possession of the flat to the appellants-homebuyers by the scheduled date i.e. 16th March, 2014 upon which the consumer dispute came to be registered- Commission erred in directing that the opposite party i.e. respondent-developer shall be entitled to charge …
Sanjay Chaudhary vs Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd 2024 INSC 300 – Consumer Read More »
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the 1986 Act [In this case, complainant was for deriving benefit by getting an interest on the same at the rate of 18 % per annum, therefore, it would be an investment for profit/gain] Partnership – Legal heirs of a deceased …
Annapurna B Uppin vs Malsiddappa 2024 INSC 276 – Consumer – Partnership Read More »
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; Section 2(1)(m)- Whether a company or body corporate was not covered under the definition of a ‘person’ under the Act of 1986? The definition of ‘person’ as provided in the Act of 1986 is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to …
Medical Negligence –In cases of deficiency of medical services, duty of care does not end with surgery -While the report of the Medical Council can be relevant for determining deficiency of service before a consumer forum, it cannot be determinative, especially when it contradicts the evidentiary findings made by a consumer forum. In these circumstances, …
Najrul Seikh vs Dr Sumit Banerjee 2024 INSC 184 – Consumer Cases – Medical Negligence Read More »