{"id":34092,"date":"2016-01-29T14:58:11","date_gmt":"2016-01-29T09:28:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=34092"},"modified":"2016-02-09T14:42:01","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T09:12:01","slug":"maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/","title":{"rendered":"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: While setting aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order, the Division Bench of Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, JJ. has held that a second complaint to the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default or non-prosecution.<\/p>\n

Referring to New India Assurance Co. Ltd.<\/em> v. R. Srinivasan<\/em>, (2000) 3 SCC 242<\/a>, wherein it was held that, the Consumer Protection Rules do not provide that if a complaint is dismissed in default by the District Forum or by the State Commission,\u00a0 a second complaint would not lie. There is\u00a0 no provision parallel to the provision contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which contains a prohibition that if a suit is dismissed in default of the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause of action would not lie. That being so, the rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings before the District Forum or the State Commission. Where the case was not decided on merits and dismissed in default of non-appearance of the complainant, it would be permissible to file a second complaint explaining why the earlier complaint could not be pursued and was dismissed in default.<\/p>\n

In the absence of any rule similar to Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC, the Court was of the opinion that a second complaint was maintainable and remitted the matter back to National Commission for deciding the same on merits.[Indian Machinery Company<\/em> v. Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.<\/em>, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 76<\/a>, decided on January 27, 2016]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: While setting aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order, the Division Bench of Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":27341,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt"],"yoast_head":"\nMaintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules | SCC Times<\/title>\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\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: While setting aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order, the Division Bench of Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal,\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-01-29T09:28:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-09T09:12:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/\",\"name\":\"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-01-29T09:28:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T09:12:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1280},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules | SCC Times","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\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules","og_description":"Supreme Court: While setting aside the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s order, the Division Bench of Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal,","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-01-29T09:28:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-09T09:12:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1280,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/","name":"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","datePublished":"2016-01-29T09:28:11+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T09:12:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","width":1920,"height":1280},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/29\/maintainability-of-a-second-complaint-to-district-forum-upheld-in-absence-of-any-express-prohibition-by-consumer-protection-rules\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maintainability of a second complaint to District Forum upheld in absence of any express prohibition by Consumer Protection Rules"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/DSC_5487.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":214871,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/20\/hp-scdrc-no-bar-under-consumer-protection-act-prohibiting-filing-of-consumer-complaint-in-the-presence-of-an-alternative-remedy\/","url_meta":{"origin":34092,"position":0},"title":"HP SCDRC | No bar under Consumer Protection Act prohibiting filing of consumer complaint in the presence of an alternative remedy","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 20, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla: Coram of Justice P.S. Rana (President), Vijay Pal Khachi (Member) and Sunita Sharma (Member), dismissed the appeal filed by Bharti Airtel Ltd. against the order of the District Forum whereby Bharti Airtel was directed to pay punitive compensation to one of its\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/HP-STATE-CONSUMER-DISPUTES-COMMISSION.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":226696,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/03\/07\/district-forum-cant-extend-limitation-period-of-45-days-for-filing-response-under-section-13-of-consumer-protection-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":34092,"position":1},"title":"District Forum can’t extend limitation period of 45 days for filing response under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"March 7, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has held that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":98481,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/01\/09\/availability-of-alternative-remedies-will-not-bar-a-consumer-complaint\/","url_meta":{"origin":34092,"position":2},"title":"Availability of alternative remedies will not bar a consumer complaint","author":"Saba","date":"January 9, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: While relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. v.\u00a0N. K. Modi, (1996) 6 SCC 385 and National Seeds Corporation Limited v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy, (2012)\u00a02 SCC 506, the Single Bench of Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. held that the availability of alternative remedies\u00a0under\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":220929,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/10\/16\/ncdrc-consumer-protection-fora-do-not-enforce-fundamental-rights-they-do-not-exercise-jurisdiction-of-high-courts-or-supreme-court-under-arts-226-or-32\/","url_meta":{"origin":34092,"position":3},"title":"NCDRC | Consumer Protection fora does not enforce fundamental rights, they do not exercise jurisdiction of HC or SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): The Bench of Dr S.M. Kantikar (Presiding member) and Dinesh Singh (Member) dismissed the revision petition and asked the complainant to seek a remedy in a competent civil court as per the law. In the present case, the dispute arose between O.P Thakur (Complainant)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":267017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/18\/if-a-person-makes-an-investment-in-shares-will-he-be-considered-a-consumer-ncdrc-consumer-protection-act-legalnews-law-legalupdate\/","url_meta":{"origin":34092,"position":4},"title":"If a person makes an investment in shares, will he be considered a Consumer under S. 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act? NCDRC elaborates in view of \u2018earning livelihood\u2019","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): C. Viswanath, Presiding Member, held that the complainant was not investing money in the share market exclusively for earning his livelihood, hence the same was he did not fall under the definition of Consumer. Instant revision was filed by the petitioner under Section 21(b)\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","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":288106,"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\/","url_meta":{"origin":34092,"position":5},"title":"Complaints with \u2018highly disputed questions of facts\u2019 cannot be decided by Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission\/Forum: Supreme Court","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"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.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Consumer Commission","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-909.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34092","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34092\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27341"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}