Consumer Rights Archives

Supreme Court settles dispute on electricity disconnection and minimum guarantee charges: Bihar State Electricity Board vs. M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd. (27 April 2020)

April 27, 2020 / Aniruddha Bose, Consumer Grievance Redressal, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Deepak Gupta, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 2(15), Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 56, Judges

Supreme Court settles dispute on electricity disconnection and minimum guarantee charges: Bihar State Electricity Board vs. M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd. (2020) Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2020 Citation: 2020 INSC 348 Judges: Deepak Gupta, J., Aniruddha Bose, J. Can an electricity board disconnect power supply to a consumer for non-payment of dues, even if […]

Supreme Court settles dispute on electricity disconnection and minimum guarantee charges: Bihar State Electricity Board vs. M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd. (27 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “consumer” in seed buyback agreements: Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. (6 March 2020)

March 6, 2020 / Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(d), Consumer Rights, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies “Consumer” Definition in Seed Buyback Cases: Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether farmers who enter into buyback agreements with seed companies are considered “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law. Case Name: M/S Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi &

Supreme Court clarifies definition of “consumer” in seed buyback agreements: Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. (6 March 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles liability for lost Indira Vikas Patras in Post Office: Superintendent of Post Office vs. Jambu Kumar Jain (2020)

March 2, 2020 / Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2, Consumer Rights, Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986, Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 with Rule 5, Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 with Rule 7(2), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court on Lost Indira Vikas Patras: Post Office Not Liable LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Post Office is liable to pay the maturity value of lost Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) when the original purchaser’s identity is not recorded. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: The Superintendent of Post Office, Bolangir Division, Bolangir, Odisha vs. Jambu

Supreme Court settles liability for lost Indira Vikas Patras in Post Office: Superintendent of Post Office vs. Jambu Kumar Jain (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “first due” under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in cases of incorrect billing: Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (18 February 2020)

February 18, 2020 / Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Electricity Act, 2003, Electricity Act, 2003 with Section 56, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Limitation Law, Limitation Period, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies “First Due” Date Under Electricity Act: Ajmer Vidyut Nigam vs. Rahamatullah Khan (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “first due” in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, concerning the limitation period for disconnection of electricity supply due to non-payment of dues. CASE TYPE: Electricity Law, Consumer Law. Case Name: Assistant Engineer (D1),

Supreme Court clarifies the meaning of “first due” under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 in cases of incorrect billing: Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (18 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bank’s Service Deficiency in Insurance Claim: Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi vs. Saurashtra Gramin Bank (2020) INSC 68 (03 February 2020)

February 3, 2020 / Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Deficiency of Service, Consumer Rights, Deficiency of Service, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bank’s Service Deficiency in Insurance Claim Date of the Judgment: 03 February 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 68 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J Can a bank be held liable for deficiency of service when it fails to process an insurance application, leading to the rejection of

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Bank’s Service Deficiency in Insurance Claim: Hemiben Ladhabhai Bhanderi vs. Saurashtra Gramin Bank (2020) INSC 68 (03 February 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies insurance exclusion clause related to excavations: Sangrur Sales Corporation vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (17 January 2020)

January 17, 2020 / Consumer Protection Law, Consumer Rights, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, Insurance Law, Insurance Law with Exclusion Clauses, Insurance Policy Interpretation, Judges, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy

Supreme Court Interprets Insurance Policy Exclusion Clause: Sangrur Sales Corporation vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (2020) Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2020 Citation: (2020) INSC 17 Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hrishikesh Roy, J Can an insurance company deny a claim when damage is caused by excavation work on a neighboring

Supreme Court clarifies insurance exclusion clause related to excavations: Sangrur Sales Corporation vs. United India Insurance Company Limited (17 January 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation Ratio in Housing Dispute: Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Parasvanath Developers (2019)

December 17, 2019 / Arbitration Law, Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 9, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy, Real Estate Disputes, Tripartite Agreement

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation Ratio in Housing Dispute: Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Parasvanath Developers (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Liability for compensation and refund in a failed real estate project. CASE TYPE: Consumer. Case Name: Chandigarh Housing Board vs. M/s. Parasvanath Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 17 December 2019 Date of the Judgment: 17 December

Supreme Court Upholds Compensation Ratio in Housing Dispute: Chandigarh Housing Board vs. Parasvanath Developers (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for delayed possession despite sale deed: Lanco Hills vs. Kulkarni (2019)

December 17, 2019 / Breach of contract, Consumer Law, Consumer Rights, Contract Law, Delayed Possession, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Force Majeure, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Possession of Property, Property Law, Sale Deed

Supreme Court Clarifies Compensation for Delayed Possession Despite Sale Deed: Lanco Hills vs. Kulkarni (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a builder is liable to pay compensation for delayed possession of an apartment even after a sale deed has been executed stating that possession has been handed over. CASE TYPE: Consumer Case Name: M/s Lanco Hills Technology

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for delayed possession despite sale deed: Lanco Hills vs. Kulkarni (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Refund for Delayed Villa: Marvel Omega Builders vs. Shrihari Gokhale (2019)

July 30, 2019 / Breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 23, Consumer Rights, Contract Law, Contract Law with Clauses 5(a) and (b), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Orders Refund for Delayed Villa: Marvel Omega Builders vs. Shrihari Gokhale (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a consumer is entitled to a refund with interest for a delayed real estate project. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Marvel Omega Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Shrihari Gokhale and Anr. [Judgment Date]: July 30, 2019

Supreme Court Orders Refund for Delayed Villa: Marvel Omega Builders vs. Shrihari Gokhale (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019)

May 10, 2019 / Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(o), Consumer Rights, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Medical Negligence

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a surgeon was negligent in operating on a patient with a low platelet count. CASE TYPE: Medical Negligence under Consumer Law Case Name: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi & Others Judgment

Supreme Court Holds Surgeon Negligent for Operating with Low Platelet Count: Nand Kishore Prasad vs. Dr. Mohib Hamidi (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Electricity Delay: Tukaram vs. Maharashtra State Electricity (2019)

April 8, 2019 / Compensation, Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Rights, D.Y. Chandrachud, Deficiency in Service, Hemant Gupta, Judges

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Electricity Delay: Tukaram vs. Maharashtra State Electricity (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the compensation awarded by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for a delay in providing an electricity connection was adequate. CASE TYPE: Consumer Law Case Name: Tukaram S/O Sadashiv Chaudhari vs. The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution

Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Electricity Delay: Tukaram vs. Maharashtra State Electricity (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Refund with 9% Interest for Delayed Possession: Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd vs. Devasis Rudra (25 March 2019)

March 25, 2019 / Consumer Law, Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2(1)(d), Consumer Rights, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, Judges, Real Estate Disputes

Supreme Court Allows Refund with 9% Interest for Delayed Possession: Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd vs. Devasis Rudra (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a homebuyer is entitled to a refund with interest for delayed possession, despite initially seeking possession as the primary relief. CASE TYPE: Consumer Dispute Case Name: Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd

Supreme Court Allows Refund with 9% Interest for Delayed Possession: Kolkata West International City Pvt Ltd vs. Devasis Rudra (25 March 2019) Read Post »