Consumer Protection Act 1986
Consumer Forums cannot award Compound Interest as Compensation under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in Real Estate Disputes: SC
The Court observed that for determination of compensation, the Consumer Forum must examine the time value for money, an in-depth analysis of all the facts and materials surrounding factors, including uncertainties of market are to be considered.
Know Thy Judge- Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
by Sucheta Sarkar†
NCDRC| Points of law regarding ‘limitation’ and ‘consumer’ should not be raised in revision just for the sake of prolonging a case
“The purpose of looking into the records of the lower fora in revision is principally to see whether any jurisdictional error or material irregularity has been committed, which has to be judged by seeing their orders in the light of the evidence and material placed before them i.e., the material which they were privy to when they passed their orders”
Proceedings instituted under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 not to be transferred to fora created under 2019 Act with newly prescribed pecuniary limits: Supreme Court
“One can imagine the serious hardship that would be caused to the consumers, if cases which have been already instituted before the NCDRC were required to be transferred to the SCDRCs as a result of the alteration of pecuniary limits by the Act of 2019.”
HP SCDRC | No bar under Consumer Protection Act prohibiting filing of consumer complaint in the presence of an alternative remedy
Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla: Coram of Justice P.S. Rana (President), Vijay Pal Khachi (Member) and Sunita Sharma (Member),
Jurisdictional error or ignorance of legal principle or material irregularity: quintessential for exercising revisional jurisdiction by the National Commission
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of S.M. Kantikar, Dinesh Singh, Members, dismissed a revision petition filed against the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not meant to be a tool to attempt wrong gains or to create ‘nuisance value’
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member, dismissed an appeal with
Manufacturers, and not farmers, have the onus to prove the quality of seeds under Consumer Protection Act, 1986
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench comprising of R.K. Agrawal, J. and M. Shreesha, Member dismissed the revision petition
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not meant to be a tool to obtain wrong gains or to create ‘nuisance value’
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): A Division Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar and Dinesh Singh, Members, dismissed a revision petition filed