Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-II

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION NCDRC & Department Of Consumer Affairs Claims A Disposal Rate Of 188% In The Month Of August, 2023 In an official government notification issued on September 19th, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution has announced an outstanding achievement in resolving consumer cases by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. This notification reveals that the National Consumer Commission and Department of Consumer Affiars have resolved a staggering 854 consumer cases in the month of August 2023 alone, whereas only 455 cases were filed during this period. SUPREME COURT BMW Car Damage: Supreme Court Refuses Claim For Replacement; Says Insured Can't Claim Anything More Than Insurance Policy Coverage Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Mukul Aggarwal, CIVIL APPEAL NO.1544 OF 2023 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1000 The Supreme Court on Monday (20.11.2023) reiterated that an insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy. The Court also said the terms of an insurance policy, which determine the liability of the insurance company, must be read strictly. Referring to the recent ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief Electoral Officer, the Apex Court said that the rule of contra proferentem would not be applicable to a commercial contract like a contract of insurance. This rule says that if any clause in the contract is ambiguous, it must be interpreted against the party that introduced it. However, for a contract of insurance, this would not apply since an insurance contract is bilateral and mutually agreed upon, like any other commercial contract, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed. 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. Supreme Court Refuses To Hold Pharma Company Liable For Not Mentioning Adverse Reaction Of Vaccination, Says Doctor Should've Advised Patient Case Title: Prakash Bang vs Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr. The Supreme Court has upheld an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) where the Commission had held that no case of deficiency of service or defect was made out against drug-manufacturer, Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd, in relation to the administration of vaccine Engerix-B. It was the case of the complainant that he along with his family members had got the vaccine...

Annual Digest of Consumer Cases 2023: Part-II

Smita Singh

Tags