Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th November 2023 To 19th November 2023

Supreme Court Is Consumer Protection Rule Invalid for Allowing More Govt Representation In Selection Committee For Forum Members? Supreme Court to Consider Case Title: Ganeshkumar Rajeshwarrao Selukar & ors. V. Mahendra Bhaskar Limaye & Ors., Diary No(s). 45299/2023 The Supreme Court has admitted a special leave petition filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) which struck down Rule 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Qualification for Appointment, method of recruitment, procedure for appointment, term of office, resignation and removal of the President and members of the State Commission and District Commission) Rules, 2020. The quashed Rule 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 Consumer Commission and the District Consumer Fora. The High Court was of the view that the Rule diluted the involvement of the judiciary in the selection process. The High Court also set aside the appointments to the Consumer Fora made by the Maharashtra Government, however stayed the operation of the judgment for four weeks from October 20. Party Not Entitled To Seek Relief That Has Not Been Prayed For: Supreme Court Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975 The Supreme Court, while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for. A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which it was held that there was a delay in delivering the consignment of the complainant and that they were entitled to compensation. Airlines Bound by Time Schedule Promised By Its Travel Agent: Supreme Court Case Title: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways & Anr., Civil Appeal no. 9106 of 2012 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 975 The Supreme Court held that an authority is bound by the promise held by its agent under the Indian Contract Act. The Apex Court held so in the context of a consumer dispute, where Kuwait Airways, through its agent, Dagga Air Agents, had fixed a schedule of 7 days for delivery of certain goods. The Court held that the Airline was liable to pay the complainant damages for delay in delivering the consignment. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nut And Bolt Found in Woman’s Abdomen After 12 Years Of Surgery, NCDRC Upholds Compensation Of Rs. 13.77 Lakhs Case Title: Clinic Nallam and Anr. vs A. Helen Victoria and Anr. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising Mr Justice Sudipahluwalia (Presiding Member) and AVM J. Rajendra (Member) upheld the order of the Puducherry State Commission which held Clinic Nallam (Puducherry) and its doctor liable for negligence and deficiency in service. They were held liable for leaving a ‘nut and bolt’ inside the patient’s abdomen while performing surgery. As a result, the NCDRC ordered them to pay Rs. 13,77,000/- in total to cover the patient’s expenses, hardships, and legal costs. Jodhpur (Rajasthan) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Consumer Commissions Not Suitable For Cases Involving Extensive Evidence, Jodhpur Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Maruti Suzuki Case: Dinesh Kumar Tak vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd and Anr. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) bench, headed by Dr. Shyam Sundar Lata (President) and Balveer Khudkhudiya (Member), addressed a complaint related to an accident where the automatic airbags of Maruti Suzuki Brezza failed to deploy. The bench acknowledged the significance of collision details, such as force and side-impact, in determining whether the airbags should have been activated. Consequently, the Consumer Commission was deemed unsuitable for cases requiring in-depth evidence, and the complainant was granted the option to pursue the matter in a civil court. Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) Bangalore District Commission Holds IKEA India Ltd. Liable For Charging Rs. 20 For Carry Bag With Its Logo Case: Ms. Sangeetha Bohra vs IKEA India Private Limited The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held IKEA India liable for deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice for charging extra Rs. 20 for a carry bag and directed it to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,020/- to the complainant. Ernakulam (Kerala) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ernakulam District Commission Holds Samsung India...

Consumer Cases Weekly Round-Up: 13th November 2023 To 19th November 2023

Apoorva Pandita

Tags