Legal Reference Library

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in SHEO PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR vs KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, said that it is common parlance that, in the builder- buyer agreements the terms are framed as favorable and suitable to the builders/ service providers. In our view, these are unconscionable contracts. The builder exercise his right to charge penalty or interest at 18-24% on the delayed payment of installments. Thus, in our view, in the interest of natural justice the consumers at large deserve to receive same interest from opposite parties in cases of fault or deficiency. The commission made this observation while dealing with an appeal against the state commission dismissing their complaints against the builders. The complaint was regarding unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Kanpur Development Authority in keeping the huge amount for more than a year and refunding it without interest. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/builde...

In Prerna Dewan Vs. IREO Fiveriver, the Opposite Party has stated that possession of the plot, in question, could not be offered to the complainant, within the period stipulated in the Agreement for want of development work at the site, on account of the reasons beyond its control i.e. on account of force majeure circumstances like delay in sanction of layout plans by the Competent Authorities; delay in grant of NOC from the Irrigation Department; delay in clearance and delayed grant of licence for additional land measuring 10.594 acres plus 18.343 acres, by the Competent Authorities, as the area was situated in a squatted small pockets; delay in approvals for environment clearance by the Competent Authorities; and also stay on construction on the land, in question, granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The State Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission rejected the above contention by stating It was the bounden duty of the opposite party, to get approved the final la...

In Majestic Properties Vs. Arun Dhandhania, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that It is the duty of the complainants to prove that the booking done by them was not for a commercial purpose and that, they fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ under the Act. The facts involved in these cases show that the main person in the whole episode is Arun Dhandhania who booked one residential flat for himself, one for his son and three other flats in the names of various companies, which were operating through him only, as Director. Although booking in three cases has been made in the name of three different companies, it has not been made clear anywhere in the evidence produced by the complainants that the said property was required for residential purpose in any manner. During arguments, it was stated that the residential property was required for the purpose of housing various directors/employees from time to time. It has nowhere been stated, however, that the p...

The STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,MUMBAI in Bank Of Baroda vs Mr. Jayprakash R. Kushwaha & Ors, has held that failure to inform an applicant about rejection of his loan application constitutes deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. The Bench comprising Justice A.P. Bhangale (President) and Mr. D.R. Shirasao (Judicial Member) thereby confirmed the order of the Thane District Forum, awarding  Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 10,000 as costs for deficiency in service. “We are of the opinion that as and when Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 had come to know that title of Opposite Party No.3 is not clear and letter of transfer of flat given to them by the complainant is false and fabricated it was incumbent on Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 to inform this fact to the complainant… Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was deficiency in service given by the Opposite Party. Nos.1 and 2 to the complainant and hence complainant is enti...

In Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jivabhai Maldebhai Godhaniya, the NCDRC held that considering the distinct requirements laid down in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 about the grant of licence for commercial vehicles, it is clear that the holder of the LMV licence had no authority to drive the commercial vehicle without proper endorsement from the concerned transport authority. The detailed analysis of the legal provisions, made in para 10 above about the basic requirements for the grant of licence for transport/non-transport vehicles, make it clear that for enabling a person to drive a commercial vehicle, the licencing authority has to ensure that he fulfils the requisite conditions of age, educational qualifications, medical certificate etc. Unless a person satisfies the licencing authority on that score and obtains proper authorisation for driving a commercial vehicle, he cannot be stated to be in possession of a valid and effect...

The NCDRC heard MOULIVAKKAM TRUST HEIGHTS FLATS AFFECTED BUYERS ASSOCIATION vs M/s PRIME SRISTI HOUSING PVT. LTD. & 29 ORS along with cases filed by a host of other litigants and held that only registered residents' welfare associations (RWAs), consumer organisations, cooperative societies or association of flat or plot buyers can file complaints against builders in the commission. Clearing the ambigbuity regarding the term ‘voluntary consumer association’ in Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, presiding member Justice VK Jain in his order on Friday said, "Recognised consumer association means any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or any other law for the time being in force." The commission has also made it clear that a Trust cannot file a case for one or more consumers or on behalf of a group. It said the sole or one of the main objectives of the body should be to pursue, propagate, advance, safeguard or...

In this instant matter, the plaintiff is a company that carries on business in retail sale of fabrics and other items. It issued refund vouchers to its customers and made arrangement for the same with the defendant bank on 14.1.1984. On 13.02.1997, the defendant bank asked the plaintiff to stop issuing refund vouchers. However, the defendant arbitrarily debited plaintiff’s account by Rs. 45,55,257.45. The plaintiff approached consumer courts, claiming that the bank was deficient in providing services. Allegations of deficiency of services against banks were not proved either before the state or national consumer redressal forum. Hence, the present suit was instituted before the high court for injunction directing the defendant to transfer wrongly debited sum. The primary question for consideration in this matter was whether state/national forums are courts and whether the decision or finding before the various fora under the said Act would attract the principles of res judi...

The Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan vs. Manager, Canara Bank held that on a plain and simple reading of all the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in M/S. AERO CLUB (WOODLAND) vs RAKESH SHARMA, recently ruled that shops cannot charge extra VAT on items sold on discounted price, observing that the MRP on the product includes all taxes, and hence it was not open for the trader to impose VAT again on the discounted price. The question to be considered by the Commission was whether the Petitioners had indulged in unfair trade practice by charging VAT on the discounted merchandise, despite having announced a discount of “FLAT* 40%” on selected merchandise, which in actual terms works out to less than 40% of the MRP.

In Paradeep Port Trust v. Chunilata Mohanty and Ors., 21-year old educated son of complainant, lost his life by drowning at Boat Club, owned by Appellant, Paradeep Port Trust. Appellant has tried to shift the blame on their lessee, the TIDC, saying that the entire responsibility for running the Boat Club had been entrusted upon OP-2. Vide impugned order, State Commission, after taking into account averments of parties, allowed consumer complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of 5 lakh as compensation to complainant for gross deficiency in service alongwith 5,000/- as litigation cost. It is against this order that present appeal has been made before this Commission. Since, TIDC was only bidder, as stated by Appellant, they handed over operation of Boat Club alongwith Open Air Restaurant to them for a period of 6 years. It was evident that, while making such arrangements, Appellant should have ensured that, all terms and conditions, and more so, those mentioned in technical bid wer...

In State Bank of India v. Pushpakala R. Jimulia and Ors.,  matter is relating to deficiency in service on part of Bank in denying payment of cheque and resultantly, financial loss had been caused to complainant. District Forum ordered the dismissal of the consumer complaint on the ground that the complainants were not consumers. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainants challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed the same vide impugned order, and found the Bank deficient in rendering service to the respondent and directed them to pay an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and negligence on their part. Being aggrieved against said order, OP Bank is before this Commission by way of present revision petition. In present case, complainants are maintaining a regular savings bank account with OP Bank since 2005. It is clear, therefore, that they have been availing themselves of se...

In Tej Bahadur Thapa Vs. Branch Manager of District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that under Article 227 of the constitution, the High Court has Power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals. Thus even though the Consumer Protection Act mentions appeal against order of the State Forum to be done before the National Forum, the the revisional application is very much maintainable before High Court, particularly, when the Court is, prima facie, satisfied on the merit of the case that the finding arrived at by the State Commission is perverse.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Branch Manager, LIC of India v. Jyothi Sudhir MANU/CF/0511/2016 20.10.2016 Consumer Effect of mis-representation on contract is same as that of non-disclosure; it affords ground for avoiding contract to aggrieved party In facts of present case, Husband of complainant obtained an insurance policy namely Money Plus Plan from Petitioner corporation, insuring his life to extent of Rs. 4 lacs. In the proposal form submitted by him, the assured was required to answer certain questions with respect to the state of his health. Assured took a specific stand in proposal form submitted by him that he had not consulted any medical practitioner requiring treatment for more than a week and he was not suffering from Diabetes, High BP or any other disease. A perusal of discharge summary issued by Yenepoya Hospital, would show that, assured was admitted in aforesaid hospital on 13th July, 2007 and his ailment was diagnosed as Hypertension, D...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. v. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. MANU/CF/0510/2016 25.10.2016 Consumer Insured is required to intimate loss or damage to insurer expeditiously and within a reasonable time As complaint was dismissed by Commission, review petitioner/complainant preferred an appeal before Supreme Court. In terms of liberty granted by Supreme Court, present review petition has been filed by complainant. In view of specific direction of Supreme Court, scope of review petition is restricted to issue as to whether Respondent insurer had waived the condition related to delay in intimation, by appointing a surveyor. Clause-6 of Insurance Policy, required insured to forthwith give notice to insurer on happening of any loss or damage. It is an admitted position that instead of rejecting claim out rightly on account of delay in intimating loss to it, insurer appointed a surveyor to visit premises of complainant/review pe...

The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld an order of the state commission, which had ordered the arrest of officials of a real estate for failing to hand over flats or make refunds on time. In the instant case, in spite of the proclamation published against the director and general manager of the company under Section 82 CrPC, they did not appear before the state commission, and hence, were declared as proclaimed offenders.  The state commission then ordered their arrest, so as to take proceedings against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order by the state commission was assailed before the national commission. The national commission observed that under the Consumer Protection Act, compliance of the order passed by the consumer fora is made by following procedure under Section 25 or Section 27 of the said Act. It is not for the judgment debtor to choose,which manner of execution is to be followed. It was the duty of t...

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that a complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection (CP) Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same/identical relief against the same person. It has also been made clear that in a class action suit (complaint) instituted under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers. Answering a reference to it, the full bench comprising NCDRC president D.K. Jain, members V.K. Jain and B.C. Gupta made the following observations: A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only on behalf o...

The Supreme Court Virender Khullar vs. American Consolidation Services Ltd., has reiterated that defence under Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 is available in the cases under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the agents of the principal with whom the complainant had the agreement. Section 230 of the Contract Act says that in the absence of any contact to that effect an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them. The Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices R.K. Agrawal and Prafulla C. Pant made this observation while dismissing an appeal against NCDRC order wherein it had held that an opposite party was simply acting as an agent and in view of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it cannot be held personally liable to enforce the contract entered between its principal and the appellants. The Court referred to its judgment in Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. v. Go Go Garments wherei...

The apex consumer commission slapped a penalty of 12 percent per annum on real estate major DLF Ltd to be given to 50 buyers for delaying giving possession of their flats in its Panchkula project in Haryana, saying it amounted to "cheating". The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench headed by Justice J M Malik directed the firm to hand over the apartments to buyers as per a list proposed by DLF for scheduled possession, failing which it will have to pay a penalty of Rs 5,000 per flat per day to the buyers till the project is completed. The bench noted that the firm had to give the possession of the property within three years including the grace period from the date of letter of allotment till possession was to be given by 2013. After this, it will have to pay interest till the period it has now proposed before the commission, it said. If the flats are not given till the period now proposed by the firm, it will carry a penalty of Rs 5,000 per day till ...

In a recent case, the district consumer disputes redressal forum directed the postmaster, Manimajra Post Office to refund Rs 29,042 and pay compensation of Rs 20,000 for failing to safely deliver a parcel sent by the sector 37-based complainant through speed post. The forum was of the view that a departmental inquiry should be conducted to ascertain why the parcel reached its destination in a tempered state. In his complaint, Ripan Kumar alleged that he sent medicines worth Rs 29,042 to Critical Drugs Agency, Imphal, Manipur through speed post vide receipt dated June 4, 2015. T he parcel, he said, reached Imphal on June 12, 2015 in a tampered condition after which authorities at the Imphal post office sent a report to the agency. During checking, it was found that the medicines ordered were missing. Thereafter, the parcel was returned to Ripan with a letter saying it was open when received. In its reply, the post master admitted that the speed post article weighing 5,880 grams was bo...

The district consumer court has ruled that an insurance company cannot repudiate claim for damages if the driver of the insured vehicle has, in any way, not contributed to the accident involving the vehicle. The consumer court imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on New India Assurance Company and directed it to reimburse a city-based lawyer Rs 40,897 as car repair charges after her vehicle was involved in an accident on Lal Bahadur Shastri road on March 7, 2013. A speeding tempo had dashed against the car, resulting in the driver momentarily losing control over the steering wheel and crashing into a road divider. Manasi Joshi, the complainant, had filed a Rs40,897 claim for damages suffered by her car. The insurance company rejected Joshi's claim on May 5, 2013, arguing that the car was being driven by her husband who did not posses a valid driver's license. Later, she filed a consumer complaint seeking the court's directions to the insurance company for reimbursement of her insu...