Choose a Category... Advertisements Airlines / Air Cargo Banking / Finance Compensation Consumer Definition Defective Goods Education Electricity Housing Insurance Interim Orders Jurisdiction Medical Negligence Others Railways

FAVOURABLE PROVISIONS ü Sec 175 of Electricity Act and section 3 of CP Act - both these acts are additional remedy and not in derogation to other laws. ü Sec-173,174 &175 of the act have overriding effect qua provisions of any other law except that of the provisions of CP Act 1986,The Automic Energy Act1962 And Railways Act 1989 ü Sec 42(8) this provision of the the Electricity Act provides that the remedies provided under these provisions are without prejudice to the rights of consumers which they may have apart from these provisions ü Sec 145 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts and other authority but not the Consumer forums constituted under quasi judicial system...

Once complainant paid the full sale consideration for a new car, the duty was cast upon the dealer to supply the new car which was booked and if not done so, it would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice...

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings against a builder can be withdrawn if parties settle the issue (SC)...

Head Note Failure to obtain the occupation certificate , ‘consumers’ are to be paid compensation for the consequent liability. Appeal arising against the order from NCDRC and was decided on 11th of Jan 2022 It’s a common grievance of home buyers that builder fails to complete the construction work including amenities as per plan and agreed terms. With the result occupancy certificate is not issued by the concerned authorities. In some cases home buyers take possession under compelling circumstances with incomplete work and occupancy certificate still remains a problem. Here is a unique case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11th January 2022 which gives a new dimension to the issue of fixing liability of Developer when occupancy certificate not provided to the home buyers....

In the matter of appreciating the genuineness of execution of a Will, there is no place for the Court to see whether the distribution made by the testator was fair and equitable to all of his children. The Court does not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will."...

Expert opinion for declaring manufacturing defect in vehicle not necessary if could not be repaird trying time and again time Case No -1 ;Tata Motors Ltd. &Others V/S Dr Anuj Paul Maini &others decided on 18.02.2014 National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has pronounced an order on the same issue further elaborating this theory in the matter of Tata Motors Ltd. &Others V/S Dr Anuj Paul Maini &others decided on 18.02.2014. In this case, complainant had purchased a Tata Indigo Marina Dictor and was delivered on 18.4.2007. On a local ride before issue of invoice, vehicle was found having as many as eight defects which were removed without charging anything. Defects so pin pointed were –...

National Commission held that the car went to the workshop as many as eleven times. Defect was admitted right in the beginning even before issue of invoice which amounts to manufacturing defect and it is presumed that it might have caused accident .Hence there is absolutely no need to take expert opinion at this stage. SC also confirmed this order By Dr Prem Lata...

This is the case where court has made certain points very clear: 1. In case by repairing or replacing any part, vehicle works well, there is no need to replace the vehicle with the new one. 2. If vehicle is bearing a defect at the initial stage and knowing full well a defective vehicle is sold, complainant is entitled to get compensation for mental agony and harassment he has undergone. 3. If the vehicle is sent for repair time and again and cannot be repaired, there is no need to further obtain expert opinion for declaring manufacturing defect...

Hence once complainant paid the full sale consideration for a new car, the duty was cast upon the dealer to supply the new car which was booked would tantamount to dishonesty and unfair trade practice....

Dealer and Manufacturer is principal to principal and not as principal and agent 1. Case Law :Indian Oil Corporation V Consumer Protection Council Kerala 2004 ,SC In the case of Indian Oil Corporation V Consumer Protection Council Kerala 2004 ,SC had held that relationship between the dealer and manufacturer is principal to principal and not as principal and agent .Hence both are liable for their own wrongs ....

Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next