Category: Consumer

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(i)(g) – proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission HELD burden of proving the deficiency in service would always be upon the person alleging it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CITY UNION BANK LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. R. CHANDRAMOHAN — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

A person having bachelor’s degree from a recognized University and who is a person of ability, integrity and standing, and having special knowledge and professional experience of not less than 10 years in consumer affairs, law, public affairs, administration, economics, commerce, industry, finance, management, engineering, technology, public health or medicine, shall be treated as qualified for appointment of President and Members of the State Commission

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS — Appellant Vs. DR. MAHINDRA BHASKAR LIMAYE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and…

Fire Policy – Once that assessment has been made regarding the loss/damage which took place due to fire dated 20th October, 2006 and that was not disputed by the Company, repudiating the claim invoking clause 6(b) of the policy, was unfair and is not legally sustainable – Company is directed to make the payment of Rs, 21,76,524/ as assessed by the Surveyor along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the Surveyor’s report.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARNAVATI VENEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Insurance – Fire Policy – Loss of material, stock, and machinery – Reinstatement value – HELD the complainant shall be entitled to the reinstatement value and not the depreciated value – NCDRC has mis-interpreted and mis-read the Clause 9 – NCDRC has seriously erred in observing and holding that the insurance company shall be liable to pay the depreciated value only and not the reinstatement value

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S OSWAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs. MANAGER, LEGAL DEPTT N.A.I.C.O. LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…

Deficiency in service – way the issue was addressed by the Max Life Insurance Corporation following the information conveyed does fail, in our opinion, the test of Reasonable Conduct. HELD acts of Max Life Insurance Corporation amount to a clear case of deficiency of service and a non-bonafide conduct by the Max Life Insurance Corporation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOKAL CHAND (D) THR. LRS. — Appellant Vs. AXIS BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.…

Consumer – Illegal sold of hypothecated vehicle – Compensation – Hypothecated vehicle was detained/seized and thereafter, sold which was found to be illegal, the complainant shall be entitled to the compensation/loss suffered because of not plying of the vehicle seized and sold illegally

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NIZAMUDDIN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Standard Fire & Special Perils policy – Once it is proved that there is a deficiency in service and that insurance company knowingly entered into a contract, notwithstanding the exclusion clause, the consequence would flow out of it HELD per the common law principle of acquiescence and estoppel, insurance cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong, if any. It is a conscious waiver of the exclusion clause by insurance company.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TEXCO MARKETING PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and…

Consumer – Illegal sold of hypothecated vehicle – Compensation – Hypothecated vehicle was detained/seized and thereafter, sold which was found to be illegal, the complainant shall be entitled to the compensation/loss suffered because of not plying of the vehicle seized and sold illegally

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. NIZAMUDDIN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed