Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 6th to 12th May 2024

Update: 2024-05-15 04:00 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article

Supreme Court Consumer Protection Act 1986 | Onus Of Proving That Service Was Availed For 'Commercial Purpose' Is On Service Provider : Supreme Court Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

Supreme Court

Consumer Protection Act 1986 | Onus Of Proving That Service Was Availed For 'Commercial Purpose' Is On Service Provider : Supreme Court

Case Title: SHRIRAM CHITS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED EARLIER KNOWN AS SHRIRAM CHITS (K) PVT. LTD VERSUS RAGHACHAND ASSOCIATES

In an important ruling relating to consumer protection law, the Supreme Court on Friday (May 10) set out the manner in which the consumer fora must decide technical pleas raised by service providers against the maintainability of the consumer complaints on the ground that goods/services were availed by the consumer for the commercial purposes.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)

Suppression Of Material Facts Makes Policy Voidable At Option Of Insurance Company, NCDRC Dismisses Revision Petition Against Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co

Case Title: Subhash Kumar vs Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising J. Rajendra (Presiding Member) dismissed a revision petition filed against Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Co. based on the fact that the deceased policyholder failed to disclose her preexisting ailments at the time of purchasing the policies. The NCDRC held that suppression of facts makes the policy voidable at the option of the Insurance Company.

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar

Owners Not Entitled To Claim Insurance Amount Under Private Vehicle Policy For Vehicles Registered As Commercial Vehicles: Bihar State Commission

Case Title: Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ravi Kumar

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar bench comprising Ms Geeta Verma (Presiding Member) and Md. Shamim Akhtar (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. The State Commission held that it rightfully repudiated a vehicle claim because the vehicle's owner failed to disclose that the vehicle was registered as a commercial vehicle, at the time of obtaining the policy. Since the insurance policy pertained to personal vehicles only, the repudiation was held to be valid.

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Developer's Failure To Fulfill The Contractual Obligation Within The Agreed Timeframe Constitutes A Deficiency Of Service: Delhi State Commission

Case Title: Mr. D.P. Dhankar Vs. MS Belgravia Projects Pvt Ltd.

Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, headed by Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal alongside member Ms. Pinaki, held Belgravia Projects liable for deficiency in service over delay in possession of the purchased property.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh

Chandigarh District Commission Holds IDBI Liable For Failure To Initiate Refund To Bond Buyer's Nominee

Case Title: Dhananjay Yadav vs IDBI

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh bench comprising Pawanjit Singh (President), Surjeet Kaur (Member) and Suresh Kumar Sardana (Member) held IDBI Bank liable for failure to initiate a refund to the deceased's nominee after exercising its call option right regarding a bond bought by the deceased.


Full View


Tags:    

Similar News