In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) allowed the Revision Petition on the basis of ‘medical negligence’ as the Government Guidelines issued by Ministry of Health pertaining to Swine Flu was not followed properly which have resulted into death of the patient.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that ‘the purposes of earning livelihood by means of self-employment’, has been excluded from the purview of ‘commercial purpose’ as such purchase of commercial goods for earning livelihood by means of self-employment, will not exclude such a buyer from the purview of the “consumer”.
In present facts of the case, it was held by the National Commission that Consumer Protection Act being a beneficial legislation, benefit of ambiguity/doubt needs to go to the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, while relying upon the Judgment of Supreme Court it was held that auction purchaser could not be held to be a ‘consumer’ and the lower for a do not have Jurisdiction to entertain issues pertaining to auction.
Neeraj Chowdhary Vs BPTP Ltd. (NCDRC Delhi) In a significant ruling, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, has delivered a judgment in the case of Neeraj Chowdhary Vs BPTP Ltd., bringing relief to a group of home buyers who had been grappling with delays and uncertainties in the completion of their residential project. The […]
In present facts of the case, the National Commission while relying upon the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017 observed that there will be zero liability of a customer where the unauthorized transaction occurs in events involving contributory negligence on the part of the Bank and have accordingly allowed the Petition.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a beneficial legislation, in case of any ambiguity, the clauses must be read in favour of consumer. The hyper technicalities cannot create obstacles for the Consumer.
In present facts of the case, it was observed that discontinuance of housing scheme would not disentitle the right of the Consumer to make claim on the project which was allotted initially.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the power of National Commission to review under section 21 of the Act is limited to cases where some prima facie error appears in the impugned order and where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence must be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdiction.
In present facts of the case, it was held that the Consumer was entitled to get his claim covered under the sub clause of the Insurance Policy which provides him a higher benefit.
