Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2024 [Part-2]

Consumer LawConsumer Protection Act, 1986; Section 2(1) (m) and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Maintainability of the complaint filed by Insured Company (registered under the Companies Act, 1956) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is in question – Whether 'company' is covered by the definition of 'person' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986? – Held, the definition of 'person' as provided in the Act of 1986 is inclusive and not exhaustive. Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, a liberal interpretation has to be given to the statute. The very fact that in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a body corporate has been brought within the definition of 'person', by itself indicates that the legislature realized the incongruity in the unamended provision and has rectified the anomaly by including the word 'company' in the definition of 'person'. (Para 15) Kozyflex Mattresses Pvt. Ltd. v. SBI General Insurance Company Ltd., 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 255Observation made by the Consumer Commission that Apple India has the duty to trace stolen iPhone with the help of a unique identity number was unwarranted. Apple India Pvt Ltd v. Harish Chandra Mohanty, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 138Compensation in cases of medical negligence – The idea of compensation is based on restitutio in integrum, which means, make good the loss suffered, so far as money is able to do so, or, take the receiver of such compensation, back to a position, as if the loss/injury suffered by them hadn't occurred. Further, what qualifies as just compensation, as noticed above, has to be considered in the facts of each case. Held, compensation awarded is too less for the suffering caused due to medical negligence and deficient services. Hence, compensation is enhanced. (Para 12.3.2, 12.3.3, 16 & 18) Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2024 Cri LJ 2362 : AIR 2024 SC 2567Eggshell Skull Rule – A person who has an eggshell skull is one who would be more severely impacted by an act, which an otherwise “normal person” would be able to withstand. It is otherwise termed as “taking the victim as one finds them” and, therefore, a doer of an act would be liable for the otherwise more severe impact that such an act may have on the victim. Held, claimant-appellant not proved to have an eggshell skull, i.e. a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition, because of which the claimant may have suffered 'unusual damage' is not found. (Para 12.4 & 17) Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 320 : 2024 Cri LJ 2362 : AIR 2024 SC 2567Maintainability of commercial disputes – Appropriate remedy in commercial disputes – Investment made by the complainant was for deriving benefit, therefore, it would be an investment for profit/gain and such commercial transactions would be outside the purview of the 1986 Act. Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the 1986 Act but the appropriate remedy for recovery of the said amount, would be before the Civil Court. The complaint was thus not maintainable. The District Forum, the State and the National Commissions fell in error in allowing the complaint. (Para 7) Annapurna B. Uppin v. Malsiddappa, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 284 : AIR 2024 SC 2015Maintainability of complaint when complainant deemed partner of firm – There was a registered partnership deed of the firm and there is no further document placed on record by the complainant regarding dissolution of the said registered deed. The said registered deed continued till the time when the investment was made by the complainant, hence, the complainant would be deemed to be partner of the firm. Once the complainant himself was a partner as per the registered partnership deed, he could not have maintained the complaint for settling the dispute with respect to the partnership firm. (Para 4.5 & 6) Annapurna B. Uppin v. Malsiddappa, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 284 : AIR 2024 SC 2015Section 2(1)(c) – Consumer complaint alleging 'deficiency of service' and 'unfair trade practice'– On grounds that a song that is shown in the promotional trailer is not played in the film – Held, a promotional trailer is unilateral and is only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship. Therefore, there is no offer, much less a contract, between the appellant and the complainant to the effect that the song contained in the trailer would be played in the movie and if not played, it will amount to deficiency in the service. (Para 14) Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. v. Afreen Fatima Zaidi, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 319 : AIR 2024 SC 2333Section 2(1)(g) – 'Deficiency' – There is deficiency when there is a fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance that is required to be maintained either in terms of a...

Complete Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2024 [Part-2]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags