{"id":288106,"date":"2023-03-29T09:00:42","date_gmt":"2023-03-29T03:30:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=288106"},"modified":"2023-04-03T12:23:06","modified_gmt":"2023-04-03T06:53:06","slug":"consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","title":{"rendered":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\tdocument.title = 'Consumer Commission cannot decide disputed questions of fact: SC | SCC Blog'\n\tdocument.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Supreme Court held that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission could not decide highly disputed questions of fact under Consumer Protection Act.\");\n<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><b>Supreme Court:<\/b> In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (&#8216;NCDRC&#8217;) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (&#8216;SCDRC&#8217;) holding the bank liable for deficiency in service under Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572589\">2(1)(g)<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726966\">Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a>, the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. held that complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts could not be decided by NCDRC or SCDRC respecting the summary nature of proceedings under the 1986 Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The original complainant (&#8216;respondent&#8217; in the present matter) filed a complaint against the appellant bank before the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) seeking directions against the bank to re-credit Rs 8 lakhs covering two demand drafts (&#8216;DDs&#8217;) of RS 5 lakhs and 3 lakhs in his Current Account. The respondent alleged that he was the Managing Director of &#8216;D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.&#8217;, and there were Directors of the said company. A Current Account was opened in the name of respondent&#8217;s company with the bank on 13-4-1995 and only respondent could operate the same. There was a misunderstanding between the respondent and one of the Directors after which he wrote a letter on 8-1-1997 to the bank restricting any withdrawal from the company&#8217;s account.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The respondent claimed that an NRI had informed him of sending two DDs of Rs 5 lakhs and Rs 3 lakhs, total amount being Rs 8 lakhs which were not credited in the company&#8217;s account. Later, it was found that another account in the name of &#8216;D-Cube Construction&#8217; was opened, and the two DDS were credited in that account. The respondent approached SCDRC alleging collusion and negligence on part of the bank regarding the two DDs.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">SCDRC allowed the respondent&#8217;s complaint with cost and directed the bank to pay the sum of Rs 8 lakhs with compensation of Rs 1 lakh. Appeal before NCDRC was dismissed which has been challenged in the instant appeal.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court pointed towards the summary nature of proceedings and considered the question of whether Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum could entertain the complaint involving highly disputed questions of facts or allegations of tortious acts?<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court noted the facts that the two DDs were issued in the name of &#8216;D-Cube Construction&#8217; and not &#8216;D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.&#8217;, the second account in the name of company was opened by one of the Directors, the bank received a letter on 15-2-1997 from &#8216;D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.&#8217; giving no-objection to opening another current account in the name of &#8216;D-Cube Construction&#8217;, and that there were ongoing disputes between the Directors of that company.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Looking at the circumstances of the instant matter, the Court observed that &#8220;it could not be said that there was any willful default or imperfection or short coming so as to term it as the deficiency in service on part of the bank within the meaning of Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001572589\">2(1)(g)<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726966\">Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a>&#8221;. The Court supported the bank&#8217;s reliance upon <i>Ravneet Singh Bagga<\/i> v. <i>KLM Royal Dutch Airlines<\/i>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/tdn52l3j\">(2000) 1 SCC 66<\/a> elaborating deficiency in service. The Court also relied on <i>Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<\/i> v. <i>Munimahesh Patel<\/i>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/XsU9tRMo\">(2006) 7 SCC 655<\/a> wherein the Court elucidated the proceedings before the Commission essentially being summary in nature restricting adjudication of issues involving disputed factual questions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court observed that based on facts of the matter, &#8220;there was no willful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the discharge of duty on part of employees of bank to be termed as &#8216;deficiency in service&#8217; under Section 2(1)(g) of 1986 Act.&#8221; The Court held that complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts, or cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating could not be decided by SCDRC or NCDRC respecting the summary nature of proceedings. The Court further clarified that the burden of proving deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of 1986 Act would always be upon the person alleging it.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court said that the respondent miserably failed to discharge his burden to prove deficiency in service on part of the bank employees. The Court, therefore, dismissed the original complaint, quashed and set aside the orders passed by the State and National Consumer Disputes Commission.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">City Union Bank Ltd. V.R. Chandramohan, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/93vvYHUg\">2023 SCC OnLine SC 341<\/a>, judgment dated 27-3-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Judgment by: Justice Bela M. Trivedi<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Izy17ir1ez\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/10\/know-thy-judge-justice-bela-trivedi-supreme-court-legal-knowledge-limca-record-reserach-update-news\/\">Know Thy Judge| Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);\" title=\"&#8220;Know Thy Judge| Justice Bela Madhurya Trivedi&#8221; &#8212; SCC Blog\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/10\/know-thy-judge-justice-bela-trivedi-supreme-court-legal-knowledge-limca-record-reserach-update-news\/embed\/#?secret=cBrd0qk8GP#?secret=Izy17ir1ez\" data-secret=\"Izy17ir1ez\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><i>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.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67513,"featured_media":288109,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[56348,42860,36518,47202,47982,5363,56349],"class_list":["post-288106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-city-union-bank","tag-consumer-commission","tag-consumer-disputes","tag-question-of-fact","tag-scdrc","tag-supreme-court","tag-tnscdrc"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-29T03:30:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-04-03T06:53:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ridhi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ridhi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\",\"name\":\"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-29T03:30:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-04-03T06:53:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea\"},\"description\":\"In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Consumer Commission\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea\",\"name\":\"Ridhi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ridhi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court | SCC Times","description":"In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court","og_description":"In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-29T03:30:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-04-03T06:53:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ridhi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ridhi","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","name":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg","datePublished":"2023-03-29T03:30:42+00:00","dateModified":"2023-04-03T06:53:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea"},"description":"In an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (\u2018NCDRC\u2019) dismissing the appeal against Tamil Nadu","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Consumer Commission"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/29\/consumer-commission-cannot-decide-disputed-questions-of-fact-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/a21428c608a56b14de2f1880af8ab8ea","name":"Ridhi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5bb725ff04af51d6ea760aba8bfa827caa7c4b3ff053baff285d71a0ab546955?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ridhi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":336894,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/12\/09\/ncdrc-remands-consumer-case-theft-scdrc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":288106,"position":0},"title":"NCDRC remands consumer case regarding theft to Madhya Pradesh SCDRC to be decided on merits","author":"Sucheta","date":"December 9, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The NCDRC noted that Reliance General Insurance did not take the issue of territorial jurisdiction before SCDRC; therefore, SCDRC basing its decision on the same, was bad in law.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/National-Consumer-Disputes-Redressal-Commission.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":294847,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/17\/theft-on-train-not-deficiency-in-service-by-railways-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":288106,"position":1},"title":"&#8220;Theft on train not deficiency in service by Railways&#8221;; Supreme Court sets aside concurrent orders by NCDRC, SCDRC and District Consumer Forum","author":"Ridhi","date":"June 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court expressed that \u201cWe fail to understand as to how the theft could be said to be in any way a deficiency in service by the Railways.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"theft on train","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/theft-on-train.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/theft-on-train.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/theft-on-train.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/theft-on-train.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":324190,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/12\/bombay-hc-reiterates-writ-jurisdiction-exclusion-discretionary-not-compulsory\/","url_meta":{"origin":288106,"position":2},"title":"Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to availability of alternative remedy is discretionary and not compulsory; Bombay HC reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"June 12, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Remanding the consumer dispute back to the District Consumer Commission, the Court relied on MP State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd v. Jahan Khan, wherein it was observed that a Court may not entertain a writ petition due to availability of an alternative remedy, but the said rule cannot be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":318560,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/27\/notice-should-served-company-registered-office-maharashtra-scdrc-consumer-case-decathlon\/","url_meta":{"origin":288106,"position":3},"title":"Notice should be served at Company\u2019s registered office: Maharashtra SCDRC in Consumer Case against Decathlon","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 27, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"SCDRC opined that the submissions made by the complainant for serving notice at the Branch Office could not be considered.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"company registered office","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/company-registered-office.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/company-registered-office.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/company-registered-office.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/company-registered-office.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":172114,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/11\/29\/jurisdiction-consumer-forum-not-ousted-even-party-filed-suit-matter-civil-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":288106,"position":4},"title":"Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court","author":"Saba","date":"November 29, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: The grievance of the petitioner in a recent case before the Commission was that appellants\/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/08\/NCDRC_.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":378982,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/03\/20\/sc-on-deposit-interest-commercial-purpose-under-consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":288106,"position":5},"title":"Interest earned on deposit by itself doesn\u2019t establish a \u2018commercial purpose\u2019 under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court","author":"Ritu","date":"March 20, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"Consumer complaint not maintainable where dispute involves alleged fraudulent pledge of fixed deposit and requires determination of complex facts beyond summary consumer proceedings.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"commercial purpose under Consumer Protection Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/commercial-purpose-under-Consumer-Protection-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288106","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67513"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288106\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288109"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}