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 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...

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 Rajesh Kumar V. National Insurance Company Limited and Ors, revision petition has been filed before NCDRC against the impugned order passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. 1192/2014, vide which, order passed by District Forum Kurukshetra, partly allowing complaint No. 24/2013, filed by present Petitioner, was set aside. State Commission held that there was fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy on part of complainant, as vehicle was being used as a taxi. Perusal of reply filed by OP Insurance Company before District Forum and orders passed by State Commission as well as District Forum reveals that after alleged incident, an FIR was registered by father of the Complainant before the local police, in which it was stated that three persons came to Complainant, when he was standing at the taxi stand. He settled a fare of Rs. 700/- with them for taking them to Ambala Cantt. However, when they were on their way, occupants of the ca...

In Secretary/Manager, Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank v. Ebrahimkutty, appeal has been filed against the impugned order passed by Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission vide which, Consumer Complaint No. C-05/13, filed by present Respondent, was allowed and Appellant/opposite party (OP) was directed to return the original sale deed number 1959/92 to complainant within one month, failing which to provide compensation of 10 lakh with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. In facts of case, complainant/respondent availed a loan from Appellant, by mortgaging his property. Complainant repaid his loan, but OP Bank did not return the original title deed. It has been stated that the Bank orally informed him in the year 1999 that the original deed was missing, and the OP Bank was on search to recover the same. Complainant stated that, property was valued at about Rs. 75 lakhs and due to lack of original document, complainant was unable to sell pro...

Clearing the way for homebuyers planning to file complaints against builders in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) through an association route, the Supreme Court on Tuesday has made it clear this is well within their rights and the focus should be on addressing their grievances. The decision also marks significance since it would remove multiplicity of cases for state and national consumer forums and allow homebuyers to directly approach the national commission by forming a registered association, saving their time and money. Dismissing multiple appeals filed by Amrapali Sapphire Developer challenging the right of a registered consumer association to file a complaint on behalf of multiple buyers of the same project, the apex court observed that it is the grievances of homebuyers that needs to be looked into, informed Sahil Sethi, senior associate at law firm Saikrishna & Associates, who represented the Amrapali Sapphire Flat Buyers Welfare Association...

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. V. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 16.12.2016 Consumer Insurance coverage cannot be available for a vague or indefinite period Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded work of Investigation, Design and Execution of Tunnel -1 & Tunnel - 2, including Head Regulator at entrance of portal of Tunnel - 1 of Srisailam Left Bank Canal Tunnel Scheme of AMR project from NSRSP Reservoir, to Complainant Company. Case of Complainant is that project site and surrounding areas having been hit by heavy and incessant rains, it got completely sub-merged with water causing substantial damage to its property including Tunnel Boring Machines, (TBMs) which were under erection at that time on inlet of tunnel. Intimation of loss having been given to insurer, Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. were appointed as surveyors for assessing loss. Surveyors however informed Complainant that, existing CAR policy did n...

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.

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 apex consumer commission has directed a foreign airline to pay a compensation of Rs 20,000 to a customer and upgrade his economy class ticket to business class if he travelled in future, as a penalty for serving him non-vegetarian food instead of a Jain meal he had opted for. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) upheld the district forum's order also directing Swiss International Airlines, to pay Rs 10,000 towards litigation cost and dismissed the revision petition filed by Mumbai resident Amit Jay Kumar Jain to enhance the compensation.

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...

While rendering relief to a woman who failed to procure back her gold ornaments from Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd., which were pledged while taking a loan, NCDRC directed the Finance Company to reimburse the woman with the current value of 52 grams gold pledged in 2003 with it. Earlier, in Year 2003, the complainant pledged 52 grams of gold for Rs 21,000 with the Paravoor branch of Muthoot Finance Pvt. Ltd. When she approached the concerned branch in April 2004 to take back the ornaments by paying the loan amount with interest, they refused, saying that the ornaments had been transferred to their head office by mistake. Thereafter, she left the town where she was then living and settled in Ernakulam. In May 2011, she approached the Finance Company again to redeem the ornaments pledged, but the said ornaments were not returned to her. Being aggrieved, she approached District Forum with a complaint. Before the Forum, Company contended that the complaint was barred by limitation...

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Limited to pay over Rs 60 lakh to a Gurgaon resident for not giving him possession of an apartment booked a decade ago at Greater Noida. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the firm to pay the amount with an interest of 18 percent per annum, from the date the total demand amount was deposited with the Unitech, which is also facing several other complaints, including a joint claim by 144 home-buyers. A bench headed by Justice J M Malik held that the desire to acquire the property had "ruined the life" of the buyer and the real estate major "harassed" him by asking "for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of project". The consumer commission directed the firm to pay Rs 59,98,560 to Sanjay Arora, who had booked the flat in Sector Pi II, Greater Noida, in 2006, besides Rs one lakh for compensation and litigation charges. "As a matter of...

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 ...

“It cannot be made a ‘rule of thumb’ that every NRI cannot own a property in India. NRIs do come to India, every now and then. Most of the NRIs have to return to their native land. Each NRI wants a house in India.  He is an independent person and can purchase any house in India, in his own name,” observed NCDRC while directing Supertech Ltd to pay around Rs 64 lakh to two NRIs for denying possession of a flat in Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh. Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2016/02/16/non-resident-indians-can-also-purchase-house-in-india/

The apex consumer forum has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1.56 lakh on a Gujarat-based hotel for charging customers Rs 5.5 above the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of a soft drink. The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) imposed the cost reiterating earlier judicial rulings barring hotels and eateries from charging above the MRP. The ruling came on a petition filed by a Bharuch-based hotel Nyay Mandir, which challenged the Gujarat State Commission's order to pay Rs 6,000 as compensation to complainant Ishwar Lal Jinabhai Desai, who had approached the forum for having been charged Rs 18 for beverage 'Miranda', despite its MRP being only Rs 12.50. Asking the hotel to pay Rs 6,000 to the complainant, the forum ordered the hotel to pay an additional Rs 1.50 lakh to the consumer welfare fund. The hotel opposed Desai's plea contending that it took the additional amount as service charges for various facilities accorded to its customers. Not impress...

NCDRC has upheld the repudiation of claim by the insurance company in a case of theft of cash on the ground that complainant (appellant) failed to take reasonable care for protection of cash by leaving the doors of the car unlocked. Earlier, complainant who is the proprietor of a firm M.R. Jewellers, engaged in export of jewellery, had taken cash in transit policy to cover any single cash in transit upto Rs. 10 lacs from National Insurance Co. It was alleged by the complainant that one day when the complainant was carrying a cash bag of Rs. 9,85,000/-, on the rear seat of the car, two young boys on a motorcycle indicated the complainant that the rear left side tyre of his car was punctured. Therefore, complainant stopped the car on the side of the road and got down and took out stepany from the dickey of the car and changed the rear left side tyre within 10 to 12 minutes. When complainant entered the car after change of wheel, he found cash bag missing from the car. The insurance claim...