Legal Reference Library

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 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.

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...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:  An insurance company can reject an insurance claim of a stolen vehicle on the ground that the vehicle was not duly registered, observed NCDRC while allowing a revision petition of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vide which the Company challenged the order of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Commission granting compensation to vehicle owner. This order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has its origin in the theft of a vehicle owned by the complainant, and the rejection of his claim by the insurance company on the ground that the vehicle was not registered at the time of theft. The vehicle, Mahindra Bolero SLX, purchased on June 14, 2008 for Rs 5,94,000  had been insured covering the period from 19.06.2008 to 18.07.2009. Six months later, on December 27, 2008, the vehicle unfortunately was stolen, giving rise to a claim. The insurance company however repudiated the claim on the ground that the vehicle had no va...

Setting aside the orders of National and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions which had held that a complainant land owner who entered into an agreement with a builder for construction and sharing flats, is not a ‘consumer’ since there was an intention to sell them and let them on rent and earn profit, the Supreme Court (BUNGA DANIEL BABU VS. M/S SRI VASUDEVA CONSTRUCTIONS) held that such an approach is erroneous. The District forum had allowed the complaint of the Land owner against the builder. On appeal by the Builder, the State Commission observed that the agreement was entered into by the complainant for more than two plots and there was an intention to sell them and let them on rent and earn profit, and the transaction was meant for a commercial purpose. The claims of land owner was dismissed on the grounds that he is not a ‘consumer’. This order of State Commission was affirmed by the National Commission. The complainant approached the Supreme Court. Apex Court Bench co...

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission has held that vehicles carrying passengers in excess of its capacity, cannot claim own damage insurance cover. The Bench comprising of Justices Ajit Bharihoke and Rekha Gupta upheld the State Forum view that in an own damage claim case, defense of overloading is available to the insurer. In this case, the District Forum had allowed the own damage claim against the insurer by the bus owner. But on appeal, the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum [Read order] had observed that there is ample material on record to show that the bus having seating capacity of 35+1 was carrying passengers much in excess of its capacity, and hence in these circumstances if the claim is not paid by the insurer it cannot be said to be deficiency in service. In third party cases defense of overloading might not be available but this is an Own Damage case and a person cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrongs, the Forum had said. Dismissing the R...

While dismissing a revision petition filed by a multiplex in Jaipur challenging the orders of District Forum and Rajasthan Consumer Commission, vide which the multiplex was directed to return the amount charged more than maximum retail price of packaged drinking water to the Complainant along with Rs 6,500 as compensation, NCDRC also imposed further costs of Rs five lakh upon the multiplex. Earlier, the complainant went to see a movie in Big Cinemas in Jaipur where he purchased a bottle of water for which he was charged Rs 30 whereas the MRP of the bottle was Rs 16. Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2016/02/22/costs-of-five-lakh-imposed-upon-big-cinemas-and-reliance-media-works-ltd-for-charging-more-than-mrp-of-packaged-drinking-water/

While observing that the theft of a vehicle is required to be reported to the insurance company immediately after the theft is detected otherwise the insurer is not liable to reimburse the insured for such a loss, NCDRC upheld the repudiation of insurance claim by insurance companies in two separate cases of theft of vehicle. This order was pronounced by the Commission during the hearing of two revision petitions. Subject matter of both the petitions was similar i.e. theft of vehicle and repudiation of claim by insurance companies on the ground of delay in intimation of the theft to the insurance company. In one case complainant purchased a truck dumper and got the same insured with the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 10.10.2010 to 09.10.2011. During the subsistence of the insurance policy, the vehicle was stolen between 06.6.2011 to 07.6.2011 and a report with the concerned police station was lodged on 07.6.2011 itself. The intimation to the insurance company h...

While dismissing the revision petition filed by Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. challenging the orders of District Forum and State Commission, which were passed in favour of the complainant, NCDRC imposed punitive costs in the sum of Rs one lakh on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. for charging more amount than the maximum retail price (MRP) from the consumer. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Anagha Vilas Kulkarni, , decided on August 21, 2015