Supreme Court of India Judgements

47000 Judgements hosted as on 19/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

The complainant contended that the basis of valuation as mentioned in clause-4.3 of the policy was “All exports-CIF + 10%”. This meant that the complainant had an insurable interest in the consignments until they were delivered to the buyer – The insurer argued that the basis of valuation was “FOB” and that the insurance coverage terminated on delivery of the consignment to the port of New York – The NCDRC rejected the review application, holding that the complainant had not proved that the basis of valuation was “All exports-CIF + 10%” – The NCDRC also held that the NCDRC had not erred in holding that the insurance coverage terminated on delivery of the consignment to the warehouse.

Feb 5, 2025 sclaw

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION   RENAISSANCE RTW (ASIA) (P) LTD. Vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ( Before : Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya,…

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 629 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH OMKAR REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. KUSHALRAJ LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Consumer

Consumer Law — Housing — Delay in delivery of possession of the Flat — Appellants purchased a flat from a developer but faced significant delays in receiving possession — They filed a complaint seeking a refund and interest — The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partly allowed the complaint, ordering the developer to refund the full amount paid along with interest at 9% per annum — On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the refund order but increased the interest rate to 12% per annum from the date of deposit until the refund. The court also dismissed other claims for compensation.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 557 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIDYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LTD — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 395 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. BHUMIKABEN N. MODI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : A. S.…

Consumer

“Reinstatement Value Clause Upheld: Supreme Court Decides Fire Insurance Dispute, Dismisses Insured’s Claim for Higher Compensation” Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64 UM(2) – Insurance Policy – Dispute regarding an insurance claim settlement after a fire incident – The primary issues revolve around the applicability of the Reinstatement Value Clause in the insurance policy, the correct method of calculating depreciation, and the settlement amount – Appellant contends that the claim was settled correctly by applying a 60% depreciation rate and challenges the NCDRC’s order which partly allowed the insured’s complaint – Respondent argues for a higher compensation, claiming that the base figure for depreciation calculation should have been higher and that the depreciation rate should be 32%. – The Supreme Court allowed Appellant’s appeal, set aside the NCDRC’s order, and upheld the depreciation rate at 60%, concluding that the claim was rightly settled at Rs.7.88 crores – The Court found that the Reinstatement Value Clause was part of the policy and that the insured was unable or unwilling to reinstate the property, thus justifying the depreciation basis for settlement – The Court rejected the application of the Oswal Plastic Industries judgment to this case and found no breach of IRDA Regulations – The Supreme Court concluded that appellant’s settlement of the claim was justified, and the appeals filed by the insured were dismissed – The original complaint before the NCDRC was also dismissed.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 356 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER — Appellant Vs. M/S TATA STEEL LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Surya…

Consumer

”Eggshell Skull Rule Applied: Supreme Court Holds Hospital Liable for Post-Surgery Complications” Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – Appellant-Jyoti Devi underwent an appendectomy at Suket Hospital, but suffered continuous pain post-surgery – A needle was later found in her abdomen, leading to another surgery for its removal – The case revolves around medical negligence, deficient post-operative care by the hospital, and the determination of just compensation for the claimant-appellant – The claimant-appellant sought enhancement of compensation for the pain, suffering, and financial expenses incurred due to medical negligence – The respondents argued against the presence of the needle being related to the initial surgery and contested the amount of compensation – The Supreme Court restored the District Forum’s award of Rs.5 lakhs compensation, with 9% interest, and Rs.50,000 for litigation costs – The Court applied the ‘eggshell skull’ rule, holding the hospital liable for all consequences of their negligent act, regardless of the claimant’s pre-existing conditions – The Court emphasized the benevolent nature of the Consumer Protection Act and the need for just compensation that is adequate, fair, and equitable – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower commissions’ awards and reinstating the District Forum’s decision for just compensation.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 330 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JYOTI DEVI — Appellant Vs. SUKET HOSPITAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed

Service

Cochin University of Science and Technology Act, 1986 — Section 31(10) and 31(11) — Selection and Appointment — Validity of Rank List and Communal Rotation — Harmonious Construction — Section 31(10) stipulates that the Rank List remains valid for two years, and vacancies arising during this period “shall be filled up from the list so published” — Section 31(11) mandates that “Communal rotation shall be followed category-wise” — These sub-sections operate in distinct spheres but are not mutually exclusive; the Rank List’s validity period (Sub-sec 10) co-exists with the mandatory application of communal rotation (Sub-sec 11) for every appointment made therefrom — Interpreting Sub-section (11) as becoming operative only after the Rank List expires would render the reservation/rotation requirement otiose during the list’s validity, defeating legislative intent and violating the doctrine of harmonious construction. (Paras 5, 5.2, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.5.2

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) —Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 148 — Murder —Conviction affirmed by High Court — Appeal to Supreme Court — Sufficiency of evidence — Role of interested/related witnesses — Deposition of PW-4 (mother of deceased and alleged eyewitness) scrutinized closely — Material contradictions found in PW-4’s evidence regarding the manner of assault and who informed her — Failure of prosecution to examine key witness (deceased’s granddaughter, who initially informed PW-4) — Independent witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-9) turned hostile — Recovery of weapons based on accused’s memorandum/statement rendered unreliable when supporting witnesses hostile. (Paras 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Constitution

Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 — Section 45A — Determination of contributions in certain cases — Preconditions for invoking Section 45A — Section 45A is a special provision for best-judgment assessment applicable only when an employer fails to submit, furnish, or maintain returns, particulars, registers, or records as required by Section 44, OR obstructs an Inspector or official in discharging duties under Section 45 — It is not an alternative mode of assessment available at the option of the Corporation — When records (ledgers, cash books, vouchers, etc.) are produced and the employer cooperates by attending multiple personal hearings, the mere allegation of inadequacy or deficiency of supporting documents does not satisfy the statutory threshold of “non-production” or “obstruction” to invoke Section 45A — Mere inadequacy of records does not confer jurisdiction under Section 45A. (Paras 14.6, 14.7, 24, 25, 27, 30)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Tender and Contract — Eligibility Criteria — Interpretation of “prime contractor” and “in the same name and style” — Requirement of work experience — Where an NIT’s pre-qualification document requires “each prime contractor in the same name and style (tenderer)” to have completed previous work, and the term “prime contractor” is undefined, its meaning must be derived from common parlance as the tenderer primarily responsible for the contract offer; however, the requirement must be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman, considering the credentials and capacity to execute the work, not merely the name. (Paras 17, 20, 21.3)

Dec 19, 2025 sclaw