Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The complainant upon getting impressed by a lucrative deal on Hyundai Santro car via a newspaper advertisement, approached the authorized dealer of Hyundai and deposited booking amount, but did not receive the delivery as assured.
“SCDRC was not justified in saying that a person is entitled to more compensation, depending upon the fact of the case than the compensation as provided under the Railway Accident and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990”.
The State Commission absolved Flipkart from any liability as it was merely facilitating the sale through its portal. However, it was noted that Flipkart should have displayed strict attitude vis-à-vis breach of terms regarding sale of counterfeit products on its site.
NCDRC pointed out that the State Commission’s finding that non-deployment of the airbags when the respondent’s car crashed, warranted punitive damages, was not based on any finding of fact or legal precedent.
Uttarakhand SCDRC sets aside the impugned order of DCDRC passed in a consumer complaint as its President was not part of the proceedings, thereby disregarding the mandate in S. 36 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
State Commission relying on NCDRC precedents, upheld District Consumer Commission’s decision to hold the Postal Department liable for delayed delivery of a speed post by 19 days which resulted the complainant’s son to miss his chance to get admission in JNU.
The Court explained that the power to special leave is an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it must be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. It will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles.
While dealing with the challenge against the order of SCDRC, the NCDRC found that the hospital made every possible attempt during medical complications after a successful surgery.
Supreme Court quashed the original complaint and said that respondent miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove deficiency in service on part of the bank.
Accepting the exceptionally challenging nature of treatment of high voltage burns, NCDRC held the doctor liable to the extent of performing LD Flap surgery, otherwise recommended to be performed by plastic surgeons.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Chandigarh: While deciding the instant appeal filed by VLCC Health Care Ltd. against the
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna,