Supreme Court of India Judgements

47095 Judgements hosted as on 19/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Consumer

Consumer

Insurance Law — Condition Precedent — Absurd Consequences — A term in an insurance policy will not be construed as a condition precedent to liability if doing so leads to absurd results, rendering the insurance cover ineffective under foreseeable circumstances (requiring voyage completion before monsoon, which might be prevented by an insured peril itself) — Such conditions may be disregarded if they vitiate the fundamental purpose of the insurance contract

Apr 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 453 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. Vs. M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and…

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.…

You missed

Consumer Insurance Law

Insurance Law — Fire Insurance Claim — Assessment of Loss — Survey Report — Admissibility and Weightage — Admissibility of Survey Report as Primary Evidence — In insurance claims, a survey report, prepared by an expert after physical inspection, is considered primary and significant evidence — It cannot be disregarded without strong contrary evidence showing arbitrariness or unreasonableness.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 — Section 2(1)(d) — Consumer — A person purchasing a vehicle for business to earn livelihood is a consumer. — Deficiency in service — No deficiency in service if a vehicle model is not available and another available model is given to the buyer as per mutual understanding and agreement, and the buyer fails to make payments for the second vehicle.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw
Service

Regularisation of contractual/ad hoc employees — Notifications dated 16.06.2014 and 18.06.2014, which sought to regularise the services of Group ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ employees were found to be valid as they aimed to provide benefits to employees left out from a previous regularisation policy and had clear criteria for eligibility such as working on sanctioned posts and possessing necessary qualifications.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw
Environment Mining

Environmental Law and Wildlife Protection — Illegal Sand Mining — Supreme Court’s Suo Motu Cognizance — The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of rampant illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Gharial Sanctuary, recognizing its severe impact on wildlife habitats, including endangered Gharials. The Court issued notices to concerned states and authorities, highlighting that such destruction of habitats violates environmental protection laws like the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Apr 19, 2026 sclaw