Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.30 seconds)
Assistant Public Information Officer vs Balraj Kalra on 3 August, 2012 cites

Patel Roadways Limited vs Birla Yamaha Limited on 28 March, 2000

It was held in Patel Roadways Limited vs Birla Yamaha Limited (2000) 4 SCC 91, that a complaint before the Consumer Forum falls within the ambit of word `Suit`. Further the expression `Court` used in the aforesaid Section is a generic term, taking within its sweep, all the Authorities having the trappings of the Court. As Consumer Forums are having the trappings of the Court and are, in fact, specifically conferred the same powers, as are vested in a Civil Court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the matters listed in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Forums are covered within the expression Court. In Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports and another (2011(4) RCR (Civil) 472 (SC), it was held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 174 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

S.P. Goel vs Collector Of Stamps, Delhi on 8 December, 1995

In S.P. Goel Vs. Collector of Stamps Delhi (AIR 1996 839 (SC), it was held that the person presenting a document, for registration, is not a consumer, within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, nor the Officers appointed under the Registration and Stamps Act, render any service to him, but, on the other hand, they perform statutory duties, which are at least quasi-Judicial. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable to the instant case. In the present case, neither the complainant was a consumer, nor the Opposite Party, was service provider, nor the dispute was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 48 - K Singh - Full Document

K. Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund ... vs A. Bal Reddy And Anr. on 11 June, 2008

18.    The Counsel of the respondent/complainant, however, placed reliance on S.P. Thirumala Rao (Dr.) Vs. Mysore City Municipal Commissioner, II (2012) CPJ 72 (NC), K.Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad Vs. A. Bal Reddy & Anr, 2008(3) CPR 286 (SC), Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC), Kishori Lal Vs. E.S.I. Corporation, II (2007) CPJ 25 (SC), Usha Rani Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Haldwani, IV (2006) CPJ 20 (NC), Ravindra Mohan Namdev Vs. Naib Tehsildar & Anr., II (2008) CPJ 161 (NC), Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) and Secretary, Thirumurugan Cooperative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LRs & Ors. 1986-2004 Consumer 7844 (NS): 2003 CCC 394 (NS): (2004) 1 SCC 305, in support of his contentions, that the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, the dispute was a consumer dispute, and, as such, the District Forum had jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent/complainant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. In S.P. Thirmuala Rao`s case (supra), decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, did not fall for interpretation. This case pertained to Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002. It is evident from the Judgment that Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002, does not provide for any remedy to the consumers who seek information under the same, for deficiency of service, in the nature of compensation or damages, for not furnishing the same (information) which they are entitled to get under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It was, under these circumstances that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, held, in the aforesaid case, that the Consumer Fora, had Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. In Right to Information Act, 2005, as held above under Section 19(8)(b), the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, can direct the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. Thus, the provisions of Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002, and Right to Information Act, 2005, with regard to the grant of compensation for deficiency, in service, harassment, loss or detriment suffered by the complainant, are not similar and identical. In K.Sagar, M.D., Kiran Chit Fund Musheerabad `s case (supra), the matter was remitted back to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to consider the question of Jurisdiction, and, as such, no binding principle of law, was laid down therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 34 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993

Lucknow Development Authoritys case (supra), pertains to the services, regarding housing construction work, which was essentially a commercial activity. The Hon`ble Supreme Court held that the legislative intention is thus clear to protect a consumer against services rendered even by statutory bodies. The test, therefore, is not if a person against whom complaint is made is a statutory body, but whether the nature of the duty and function performed by it, is service or even facility. As stated above, the provisions of Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, could not operate in derogation of the provisions of any other law i.e. against the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.It was under these circumstances in Lucknow Development Authority`s case (supra), held that there was deficiency, in rendering service, with regard to allotment of land or houses for common man, in the discharge of the Statutory functions by statutory Authority, which amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 1040 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs Shiv Kumar Joshi on 14 December, 1999

In , Regional Provident Fund Commissioners case (supra), the complainant was a member of the Provident Fund Scheme. Under the Employee Provident Fund Act, the perusal of the Scheme clearly indicated that the authorities concerned, under the same, were rendering service to an employee, a member of the said scheme. It was under these circumstances, held that the complainant fell within the definition of a consumer, as he hired services of the Opposite Party, and a consumer complaint for deficiency, in service, was maintainable. In Kishori Lal`s case (supra), the complainant was insured with the Opposite Party. Contributions were regularly deducted from his salary, paid by the employer. He had got his wife admitted in the E.S.I. dispensary, for treatment of diabetes. Improper treatment was alleged by him. Test performed, in the private hospital, revealed that diagnosis were incorrectly done in the E.S.I. dispensary, as a result whereof the condition of the wife of the complainant deteriorated. It was, under these circumstances held, that the services rendered by the E.S.I. Corporation cannot be regarded as service, rendered free of charge. It was further held that the service availed of under an Insurance Scheme of medical care, whereunder charges for consultation, diagnosis, and medical treatment are borne by the insurer, falls within the ambit of service defined under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, as such, in case of deficiency, in service, or unfair trade practice, a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was maintainable. In Usha Rani Aggarwal`s case (supra), septic tank had not been cleaned, by the Officials of the Municipality, despite receiving consideration of Rs.200/-, for this work. It was held that, it was a clear-cut case of deficiency, in rending service, and the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was maintainable. In Ravindra Mohan Namdev`s case (supra), certified copies of the case record were not supplied by the Naib Tehsildar. Directions were given to the Collector, to supply copies, if not yet been supplied. It was held that prolonged harassment was suffered by the complainant, and considerable cost was incurred in pursuing the request for getting the certified copies. There was no provision in the relevant Act, for grant of compensation for harassment and mental agony. It was, under these circumstances, that compensation for mental agony and physical harassment was awarded. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 210 - Full Document

M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Ram Lal & Ors on 25 January, 2005

In Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Ram Lal (2005) 2 SCC 638, it was held that if both the Statutes contain non-obstante clause, and are special Statutes, an endeavor should be made, to give effect to both of them. In case of conflict, the latter shall prevail. In the instant case, both the Statutes, contain non-obstante clause. In case of conflict, the Statute enacted later in date i.e. the Right to Information Act, 2005, shall prevail over the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as per the provisions of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is, therefore, held that the Right to Information Act, 2005, overrides the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 218 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M/S. Strescon Industries Ltd. & Anr vs Eastern Railway & Ors on 15 September, 2010

Similar principle of law, was laid down in Ballarpur Industries Ltd., Vs. Eastern Railways and others, 1986-2007 Consumer 11929 (NS), a case decided by a three Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, that when the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, is barred by any specific provision of some other Act, then it had no jurisdiction, to entertain and decide the complaint, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant cases.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - I P Mukerji - Full Document
1