Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up: 16th October to 22nd October

Supreme Court Consumer Disputes Are Non-Arbitrable, Consumers Can't Be Compelled Into Arbitration: Supreme Court Case Title: M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri, Civil Appeal Nos.6500-6501 of 2023, Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902 The Supreme Court recently held that consumer disputes are non-arbitrable disputes and that a party cannot be compelled into arbitration just because they are a signatory to an arbitration agreement. A bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the Consumer Protection Act is a piece of welfare legislation with the primary purpose of protecting the interest of a consumer. Bombay High Court Judiciary's Role In Appointing Consumer Forum Members Can't Be Diluted: Bombay High Court Strikes Down Rule 6(1) Of Consumer Protection Rules 2020 Case Title: Dr.Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye vs UOI The Bombay High Court at Nagpur has quashed Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 2020 which prescribed two members from the State bureaucracy and only one member from the judiciary on the Selection Committee that recommends appointment of the President and member-judges to the State and District Consumer Commissions. The division bench comprising Justices Atul Chandurkar and Vrushali Joshi observed the rule was “diluting the involvement of the judiciary” and the “lack of judicial dominance” was in “contravention of the doctrine of separation of powers and also an encroachment on the judicial domain.” National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC Sets Aside State Commission’ Order Directing Mercedes To Replace The Car Case Title: Mercedes Benz India Private Limited vs. Smt Revathi Giri & Ors. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Subhash Chandra and AVM J. Rajindra as a member, recently allowed Mercedes Benz India Pvt. Ltd.'s appeal against a State Commission's order. The State Commission had directed Mercedes to replace a defective car with a similar model or refund the purchase price, and pay interest to the consumer who complained about car defects. The State Commission’s decision was based on the consumer’s expectation of comfort and peace when buying a vehicle. However, Mercedes argued that they could only be held liable if an expert proved an inherent manufacturing defect or when the warranty covered these defects. The National Commission allowed the appeal by Mercedes (Appellant), stating that there was no conclusive evidence of “inherent manufacturing defects” because no expert opinion was presented, thereby setting aside the State Commission’s order. NCDRC Dismisses Complaint Against Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College For Alleged Failure Of Premature Screening Of A 3-Week-Old Child Case Title: Baby Palak Khan and 2 others vs Dr. Amit Upadhyay and 2 others The NCDRC bench comprising A.P. Sahi (President) and Dr. Sadhna Shaker (Member) cleared all allegations against Dr. Amit Upadhyay of Lala Lajpat Rai Memorial Medical College for the alleged failure of Retinopathy or premature screening of a 3-week-old baby. The NCDRC relied on various inquiry and departmental reports and other circumstantial evidence to hold that the doctor and the medical institute followed proper procedures and acted as per medical ethics. Services Rendered For Commercial Purposes Cannot Be Entertained, NCDRC Allows LG Electronics’ Appeal Case Title: L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. vs Jaganath Life Care Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), consisting of Sudip Ahluwalia and AVM J. Rajendra, ruled in favor of LG Electronics in their appeal against Shree Jagannath Hospital and Research Centre. The hospital had contracted LG Electronics to install a Multi Power System in their theater, but the installation did not occur as planned. The hospital filed a consumer complaint, which was initially allowed by the Jharkhand State Commission. However, NCDRC decided that the hospital did not qualify as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act since the installation was for commercial purposes. As a result, they allowed LG Electronics' appeal and set aside the State Commission's order. Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Sudden Explosion Of Mobile Phone, Amritsar District Commission Orders Oppo Mobiles And Its Authorized Service Centre Liable Case: Jasbir Singh vs Oppo Mobiles The Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra (President) and Lakhwinder Pal Gill (Member) held Oppo Mobiles and its authorized service center responsible for deficiency in service. This deficiency was linked to an explosion of an Oppo mobile phone purchased by the complainant, resulting in an injury and a burning sensation on his right leg. Amritsar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar District Commission Holds...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round Up: 16th October to 22nd October

Apoorva Pandita

Tags