THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Relevant Topic

Relevant Section

Key Isuues

Summary Judgment

MANU ID

 

 

 

 

 

Delay in handing over possession and compensation.

 

 

Section 2: This section explains 'Deficiency' as any fault inadequacy in the quality of performance which is required to be maintained by any law for the time being in force to be performed by a person in pursuance of a service.

 

 

 

 

Whether the purchasers were not entitled to compensation in excess of what was stipulated in the Apartment Buyers Agreement?

Facts: A complaint filed by flat buyers was dismissed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, accepting the defence of respondent that there was no deficiency of service on their part in complying with their contractual obligations and, that despite a delay in handing over the possession of the residential flats, the purchasers were not entitled to compensation in excess of what was stipulated in the Apartment Buyers Agreement and thus appellant's submitted some primary grounds for compensation to consider.
Held: The flat buyers are entitled to compensation for delayed handing over of possession and for the failure of the developer to fulfil the representations made to flat buyers in regard to the provision of amenities.

 

 

 

 

Arifur Rahman Khan and Ors. vs. DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (24.08.2020 - SC): MANU/SC/0607/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Invalidate proceedings of Central Authority.

Section 12: On receipt of a complaint made, the District Forum may allow the complaint to be proceeded with or rejected and that a complaint shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the complainant and further that the admissibility of the complaint shall ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the complaint was received.

 

 

 

 

 

Whether National Commission rightly rejected revision petition on ground that Appellant filed his claim after a delay of 8 days from occurrence of theft?

Facts: The insured truck of Appellant was stolen. Thereafter the Appellant lodged the insurance claim with the Respondent company and an investigator, appointed by the company, confirmed the factum of theft. Consequently, the Corporate Claims Manager approved an amount for the said claim of the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant made several requests and demands to the Respondent-company, inter alia, seeking speedy processing and disposal of his insurance claim and the Respondent-company repudiated the insurance claim of the Appellant citing breach of Condition of immediate information about the loss/theft of the vehicle. Thereafter the Appellant filed complaint before the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission. Still petition was dismissed by the National Commission and so the present appeal.
Held: The Respondents are directed to pay to the Appellant the amount with interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The payment, as above, shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of this order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Om Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance and Ors. (04.10.2017 - SC): MANU/SC/1259/2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complaints to authorities.

Section 17: The State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain the complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation is claimed exceeds rupees twenty lakhs but does not exceed rupees one crore and appeals against the orders of any District Forum within the State and to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether the Respondent is entitled for processing charges debited by Bank?

Facts: M/S Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt Ltd. was maintaining an account with the Appellant Bank. The Consumer applied for a loan. The Bank debited the account of the Consumer by the applicable processing fees, thereafter it was found that the Consumer admittedly is old customer of Bank who applied to avail credit facilities of more than Rs. 40 crores, It is doubtful that it was unaware of procedure and Circulars of Bank and Ignorance of procedure and Circular of Bank cannot be accepted. Consumer was aware of processing charges and sought a waiver of processing charges, therefore, processing charges debited by Bank in terms of authority given by Consumer, Therefore, order to refund processing fees is set aside.
Held: The Consumer is entitled to refund in terms of the decision of the Bank communicated to the Consumer rather than waiver of TEV charges in its entirety and the court found that the orders of SCDRC and NCDRC suffer from patent illegality and set aside and held that the Bank is directed to refund within two months from the date of this order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bank of India vs. Brindavan Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. (28.02.2020 - SC): MANU/SC/0238/2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Limitation for the opposite party for filing Response To The Complaint.

Section 13: The District Forum shall on admission of a complaint, if it relates to any goods or refer a copy of the admitted complaint, within twenty-one days from the date of its admission to the opposite party mentioned in the complaint directing him to give his version of the case within a given mentioned period in act, where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the District Forum, the District Forum shall proceed to settle the consumer dispute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether Section 13(2) (a) of Act, which provides for Respondent to file its response to complaint within thirty days or period mentioned in Act should be read as mandatory or directory?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facts: The present reference made to this matter relates to the grant of time for filing response to a complaint under the provisions of the under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Held: The position of law for filing response by the Respondents under various statutes and due consideration to various judicial precedents, has concluded that, the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act; and that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (04.03.2020 - SC): MANU/SC/0272/2020

Section 20: Where the Central Authority is satisfied on the basis of investigation that there is sufficient evidence to show violation of consumer rights or unfair trade practice by a person, it may pass such order of recalling of goods or withdrawal of services which are dangerous, hazardous or unsafe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Power of Central Authority to issue directions and penalties.

Section 2: This section explains 'Deficiency' as any fault inadequacy in the quality of performance which is required to be maintained by any law for the time being in force to be performed by a person in pursuance of a service.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether a Revision Petition was maintainable?

Facts: The State Commission Order allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent, and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum. It was directed that, amount already paid by the Board, would be appropriated first towards the Interest component and then towards the principal amount. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Appellant-Board preferred a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) before the National Commission. Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowed vide Order. The stand taken by the Respondent was rejected as being devoid of merit. Being aggrieved by the Orders passed by National Commission, the Respondent filed Petition before Delhi High Court. and held that the Order passed in an Execution Petition was not amenable to a challenge before the National Commission in exercise of its Revisional Jurisdiction. Appellant submitted that, a Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act.
Held: The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount twice, by first including it in the principal amount and after awarding on the same amount, which would amount to a double payment and thus a Revision Petition was not maintainable under section 21(b) against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karnataka Housing Board vs. K.A. Nagamani (06.05.2019 - SC): MANU/SC/0674/2019

Section 21: The Central Authority is satisfied after investigation that any advertisement is false to the interest of any consumer, it may issue directions to the concerned trader to discontinue such advertisement or to modify the same in such manner and within specific time.

Section 25: The Central Government may, after due appropriation made by Parliament by law in this behalf, make to the Central Authority grants of such sums of money as that Government may think fit for being utilised for the purposes of this Act.