Supreme Court of India Judgements

46855 Judgements hosted as on 02/09/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

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…

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section Section 2(1)(g) – Deficiency of Service and unfair trade practice – The case involves a consumer dispute regarding a promotional trailer for a film produced by Yash Raj Films Private Limited – The complainant, a teacher, felt deceived when the song from the trailer was not in the movie and sought damages for mental agony – The court considered whether a promotional trailer creates a contractual obligation or amounts to an unfair trade practice if its content is not in the movie – The Supreme Court held that promotional trailers are unilateral and do not qualify as offers eliciting acceptance, thus not forming agreements enforceable by law – It also ruled that the facts do not indicate an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The court reasoned that a promotional trailer is not an offer but an invitation to treat, meant to encourage viewers to watch the movie. It does not create a contractual relationship or promise regarding the movie’s content – The appeal was allowed, setting aside the findings of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the lower courts. The court emphasized the creative freedom in services involving art and the need for a different standard in judging representations followed by such services.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 328 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YASH RAJ FILMS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. AFREEN FATIMA ZAIDI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha…

You missed

Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Chapter I-A — Slum Rehabilitation Schemes — Preferential right of landowner to redevelop — Section 3B(4)(e) and Section 13(1) confer a preferential right on the landowner to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area (SR Area) — SRA can undertake redevelopment only if the landowner fails to come forward with a scheme within a reasonable time

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 — Sections 3C, 13, 14 — Waiver of preferential right — Waiver of landowner’s preferential right to redevelop requires clear and overt communication by the owner of intention not to exercise the right — Mere inaction or delay, particularly when the owner has consistently shown intent to redevelop, does not constitute waiver, especially if no invitation for redevelopment was issued.

Sep 2, 2025 sclaw