Consumer Protection Act,1986 – District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of …
Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravi Kuckian 2024 INSC 715 – Consumer Protection Act Read More »
Summary: Dismisssing appeal against NCDRC order, SC observed: the finding of the National Commission that the appellant’s conduct did not meet the required standard of ‘reasonable care’ and that he was negligent cannot be interfered with. The National Commission considered the relevant material before itself, and correctly relied on this Court’s decision in Jacob Mathew …
PN Gupta vs Rajinder Singh Dogra 2024 INSC 705 – Medical Negligence Read More »
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 …