Consumer Law Digest 2025 (Half Yearly: January To June)

Supreme Court Not 'Consumer' Without Privity Of Contract : Supreme Court Rejects Flat Seller's Consumer Complaint Against Financier Of Buyer Case Title: M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS SNEHASIS NANDA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332 The Supreme Court on Thursday (March 20) ruled that to qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, there must be a direct contractual relationship between the parties. A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that a party having no privity of contract with the service provider cannot be regarded as a consumer as per the Act. Supreme Court Consumer Can Approach Consumer Forum Even If Agreement Provides For Arbitration : Supreme Court Case Title: M/S CITICORP FINANCE (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS SNEHASIS NANDA Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 332 The Supreme Court recently reiterated that the arbitration clauses in an agreement would not override the consumer's choice to approach the consumer forum for adjudication of the dispute. The Court said that a consumer cannot be forced to get the dispute adjudicated through Arbitration just because an arbitration clause is mentioned in an agreement. It added that the consumer has the exclusive right to decide whether to pursue arbitration or approach the Consumer Forum. Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs States To Immediately Pay Salaries And Perquisites To Consumer Forum Members As Per Existing Rules Case Title – In Re Pay Allowance of the Members of The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Case no. – WP(C) No. 1144/2021 The Supreme Court has directed all state governments to immediately pay the salary and perquisites of the Chairpersons and Members of the State and District Consumer Dispute Resolution Commissions as per existing Rules. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh passed this order while hearing a batch of cases related to the salaries and service conditions of Consumer Forum members. The Court noted the grievance of some petitioners that in some states, the salary and perquisites of Consumer Forum members were not being paid even as per the prevailing Rules. Supreme Court Homebuyer Cannot Be Forced To Accept Possession Of Flat After Long Delay, Entitled To Refund : Supreme Court Case Title: THE CHIEF OFFICER, NAGPUR HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A MHADA UNIT) AND OTHERS VERSUS MANOHAR BURDE Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 360 The Supreme Court reaffirmed that homebuyers cannot be forced to accept possession of a property after an undue delay and are entitled to a refund if the unit is not delivered within the agreed timeframe. The bench comprising Justices JK Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar heard the case which revolves around a homebuyer's right to refund when a developer fails to deliver possession of a flat within a reasonable time. Supreme Court Insurance Claim Cannot Be Denied For Breach Of Impossible Condition : Supreme Court Case Title: SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD. VERSUS M/S. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 403 The Supreme Court held that an insurance company cannot reject a claim on the grounds of breach of a condition in the contract that was impossible to fulfill. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the insured's marine claim, which New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had rejected on the grounds that the insured breached a condition requiring the voyage to start and finish before the monsoon despite it being evident that the entire voyage was scheduled during the monsoon season. Competition Commission of India CCI Directs Detailed Investigation To Examine Alleged Anti-Competitive Conduct By Google Case Title: Winzo Games Private Limited Vs. Google LLC & Ors. Case No: 42 of 2022 Decision: The Competition Commission of India presided by Mr. Ravneet Kaur, Mr. Anil Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Kakkad and Mr. Deepak Anurag held that selective onboarding denies market access to excluded developers, distorts competition and imposes unfair conditions. Competition Commission of India Competition Commission Closes Complaint Against Honda Motorcycle Filed By Former Dealer, Holds Dispute To Be Commercial In Nature Case Title: Mr. Rajesh George Versus Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India Pvt. Ltd. Citation: Case No. 16 of 2024 The Competition Commission of India (Commission) bench, comprising Ms. Ravneet Kaur (Chairperson), Mr. Anil Agrawal (Member), Ms. Sweta Kakkad (Member) and Mr. Deepak Anurag (Member) has closed the complaint filed against Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India by its former dealer. The bench found that the facts of the complaint pertain to commercial disputes arising from the agreement and are not related to anti-competitive practices. Calcutta High Courts Consumer Forums Not Legally Authorised To Issue...

Consumer Law Digest 2025 (Half Yearly: January To June)

Apoorva Pandita

Tags