Legal News & Views

A tour operator promised to show a woman and her daughter the best of Thailand but instead inflicted "mental torture on them in an unknown land" by reneging on an agreement to provide them various services. Two years after their ordeal, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (south) has found the tour operator guilty of the charges and fined it Rs 50,000. Sujatha Murali of T Nagar submitted to the forum that she had booked a four-day holiday package from May 9, to May 12, 2012 from Yatra Online, Gurgaon for Rs 59,102. Her 10-year-old daughter V M Yashiswini accompanied her on the trip. The tour operator had as part of the customised package tour promised to provide Murali and her daughter a buffet breakfast when they arrived in Thailand, three-star hotel accommodation for two nights in Pattaya and accommodation for two nights in Bangkok. Not only did the tour operator fail to provide these facilities, it also delayed a payment link, travel voucher and it

The Gujarat high court has struck down the part of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular governing wilful defaulter notices, which restricts all directors of wilful defaulter companies from banking services for other businesses for five years. In a 162-page judgment, Justice Akil Kureshi and Justice JB Pardiwala, ruled in special civil applications 645 and 10120 of 2014, which were heard together. They struck down the wilful defaulter notice served on Ionic Metalliks by Punjab National Bank in 2013, and held that it was “arbitrary and unreasonable” for the RBI to restrict all the directors of companies declared wilful defaulters, from banking facilities for any other ventures for five years. However, the RBI could debar “promoters / entrepreneurs” “from availing of any additional facilities for floating a new venture for a period of five years from the date” that the wilful default notice is published by the RBI. The court also declined to interfere in the wilful defaulter

DDA has been directed to give a compensation of Rs two lakh to a man who was asked to pay a revised amount for an alternative flat after it could not hand him possession of a previously alloted property and fought a 24-year legal battle against it. While asking Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot the new flat to Noida resident R K Bhilwaria at the previous rate, New Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said, "In case allotment agency cancels a particular flat and allots an alternative one, it is not entitled to any enhanced price of flat". The order came by the commission, presided by Salma Noor, after noting that Bhilwaria had already paid the registration charges for the the flat he was allotted earlier and now DDA was asking revised price for the alternative flat. A district consumer forum had earlier asked the DDA to pay the compensation money to Bhilwaria, who has been fighting the legal battle for 24 years, besides the allotment of the flat w

Ruling against the practice of denying insurance policy renewal to frequent claimants, the high court has held that customers who made claims that were actually excluded from coverage or those who questioned non-payment of claims before a court of law cannot be declined renewal for that reason. Such denial of renewal is "patently illegal", the court said. Justice Anil K Narendran's order came in response to a petition by N D Prasad of ML Colony at Kunnathumedu in Palakkad questioning New India Assurance Company's decision not to renew his mediclaim policy. Prasad, a bank employee had obtained a policy after his voluntary retirement in May 2002. It was renewed from time to time until May 2005, when further renewal was declined. In between, he had approached the consumer disputes redressal forum of Palakkad and insurance ombudsman against non-payment of claims. The insurance company told the HC that in the first year, the petitioner had given an undertaking that

The national consumer commission has dismissed a man's plea filed against a bank which recovered from him the dues, borrowed by a person whom he had introduced to it, saying that "it is the choice of bank to recover money either from the guarantor or the borrower". National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice J M Malik, dismissed the complaint filed by Kerala resident R S Vasan against Canara Bank, while rejecting his contention that he was not a guarantor and that for the recovery, the bank should have first approached the family of the borrower who had died. "It is well-settled that it is the choice of the bank to recover the money either from the guarantor or the borrower. It is abhorrent from the principles of law to say that the bank must first of all recover the money from the borrower and thereafter it can proceed against the guarantor," NCDRC said. It passed the order while hearing a revision petition filed by the ban

A consumer forum here has directed Northern Railways to pay a compensation of Rs 2000 to a man for harassing him by not settling his dispute with IRCTC on ticket fare refund. The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by C K Chaturvedi, asked the Northern Railways to pay the amount to one Sunil Kumar Mishra, who had sought refund of ticket fare not availed by him. "...We hereby implead Northern Railway through Chairman, Railway Board as a necessary party to direct it to arrange refund of the arrears immediately in the case to complainant and pay compensation of Rs 2000 for harassment and the cost for litigation charges," the forum's bench, also comprising its members S R Chaudhary and Ritu Garodia, said. Mishra had told the forum that he had booked two train tickets on April 13, 2013 for himself and his daughter in Seemanchal Express and made a payment of Rs 3170 by credit card to IRCTC. However, on the date of journey, only his ticket was

The devil is in the fineprint, they say. But, even "minutely printed" terms and conditions on a consignment bill failed to save the day for DTDC after it goofed up a dispatch. Rapping the courier company, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (North) slapped it with a fine of 27,000. It also asked the company to refund 71, 862, the value of the goods. Ishwar, proprietor of an optical store in the city, said he had booked a consignment with the regional office of DTDC Courier and Cargo Pvt Ltd on February 13, 2012. The shipment comprised an assorted optical metal frames and had to be delivered at another optical store in Bangalore. Despite making the requisite payment, the goods were not delivered. As DTDC did not respond to his legal notice, he moved the forum seeking compensation for deficiency in services. Ishwar said he suffered severe mental agony and loss in business. He lost his reputation and his business came to a halt. Countering his claims, DT

A consumer forum here has asked Bharti Airtel Limited to pay Rs. 5 lakh, saying it was a fit case for "punitive damages" to teach the company a "lesson". The New Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided over by C K Chaturvedi, asked the company to pay Rs. two lakh to complainant Jasmeet Singh Puri, the CEO of a private firm. Jasmeet Singh Puri in his complaint had alleged that executives of the firm had harassed him by repeatedly asking him to pay the bills he had already paid. "After considering the material...particularly the act of discontinuing services despite payments and raising bills again shows a lack of coordination between different department of OP1 (company) whereby complainant is made to suffer; all due to internal mismanagement as well as lackadaisical attitude of OP1 executives towards the very people who provides a market for their services," the forum said. "We hold that it is a fit case for punitive damages to teac

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd has been asked by the Delhi State Consumer Commission to pay Rs 45,000 to a business firm, which was insured with it, for the loss suffered in a burglary. New Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising its judicial member S A Siddiqui, asked the insurance company to pay the amount, which also included Rs 15,000 compensation, to city-based Brisk Infotec Solutions, while dismissing the review petition filed against a district consumer forum's order. The insurance company had moved the state commission challenging the forum's order directing it to pay the money for loss due to burglary in the firm's office. The insurance company had earlier denied the claim while raising objections over the burglary. While upholding the forum's order, the commission said, "This (the incident) is a clear-cut case of forcible entry in premises which is termed as burglary. Loss due to burglary is an insured peril under the subje

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided by Justice K S Chaudhari, passed the order while rejecting the revision petition of one Vijay Kumar, filed against Punjab State Consumer Commission's order. Kumar had earlier approached a district forum, seeking a direction to Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd, insurer of his tractor, to pay the insured amount after it got stolen. The forum, however, dismissed complaint and thereafter, he field an appeal before state commission, which again dismissed his plea. "Perusal of record further reveals that theft occurred on January 5, 2008, but FIR was lodged on January 15, 2008 and no specific date has been given regarding the intimation to the respondents. On account of delay in lodging FIR and intimation to insurance company, complaint was liable to be dismissed," NCDRC said. It, however, also noted that the tractor was not insured comprehensively and theft of the tractor was not under cover of th

Central Mumbai's district consumer dispute redressal forum on Wednesday pulled up HDFC Standard Life Insurance for failing to hand over the invested amount of a Mumbai-based consumer, even after the amount had reached its maturity in July 2013. The forum thus directed the insurance firm to hand over the entire amount of Rs1,35,188 along with 9% interest rate on the amount from June 2013. The forum also directed the insurance firm to pay an amount of Rs10,000 towards the harassment caused to the complainant, along with an additional amount of Rs3,000 towards the complainant's litigation cost. The complainant, Kalpana Sathe on July 1, 2003, had purchased a policy from the firm by paying a premium amount of Rs9,617. According to Sathe, the policy was Rs1 lakh and its maturity amount was Rs1,35,188. After the policy was matured in July 2013, she approached the firm, however instead of handing over the maturity amount, the firm insisted that she invest the amount in the firm'

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld the order of the District Consumer Forum which directed an travel agency to pay a compensation of Rs 3.03 lakh to three bakers for ruining their plan to participate in an international conference held in Germany in 2009. Dismissing the appeals from SOTC, a division of Kuoni Travel India Private Ltd, Chennai, a leading outbound tour operator in the country, the bench comprising its president Justice R. Regupathi, judicial member J. Jayaram and member P. Bakiyavathi held that there was no infirmity in the order. K.S. Marimuthu and M. Naina Mohamed of Madurai and S. Thamilvannan of Srivilliputtur, all three members of the Tamil Nadu Bakery Federation and Chennai Bakery Association, planned to participate in the International Bakery Fair held in Germany in 2009. They approached SOTC, seeking tickets and paid an advance of Rs 71,000 each to the tour operator for the tour package. However, their visas to Germany were reje

In two separate cases, a consumer forum has held that unilateral changes made in a mediclaim policy by the insurance company amounted to deficiency in service. In both cases the forum relied on a Supreme Court judgment which observed that renewal of an insurance policy means repetition of the original policy. "In common parlance, by renewal, the old policy is revived and it is sort of a substitution of obligations under the old policy unless such policy provides otherwise. It may be that on renewal, a new contract comes into being, but the said contract is on the same terms as of the original policy," the SC had said. The forum directed The New India Assurance Company Ltd to reimburse Rs 87,186 and pay compensation of Rs 27,000, to Dadar resident Soli Modi. The firm had sanctioned Rs 62,814, instead of the assured sum of Rs 1.5 lakh that Modi had incurred in a hernia surgery in 2012. In the complaint filed before the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redress

The apex consumer commission has dismissed a man's appeal seeking over Rs 7 lakh compensation from an insurance company for his stolen truck, noting that the driver himself had left the key in ignition. In its order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission also raised serious objections on the failure of Delhi Police's SHO to register the FIR of the theft on the day of incident itself. The NCDRC bench, presided by Justice V K Jain, rejected the revision petition of Arjun Lal Jat, filed against the Rajasthan State Commission's order. The state commission had held that Jat was not entitled to get any compensation from HDFC Irgo General, which had insured his truck. The NCDRC passed the order while noting that the driver was the only person in the vehicle and he had left it in start condition with the keys in the ignition. "... It can hardly be disputed that driver left the truck unattended with the key of the truck in the ignition. Had the driver n

Dealing a blow to builders who don't deliver on promises, the Supreme Court has asked a developer in Gurgaon to refund residents Rs 33.38 crore — 70% of the maintenance fees it had collected since 2002 - for failing to provide the amenities it had committed to at the time of purchase. A bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel on Friday upheld a March 19 ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing the developers of Ambience Lagoon Apartments to refund 70% of the total maintenance money collected over 11 years to 345 flat owners for failing to offer services commensurate with the maintenance charged. There are 15 blocks in Ambience Lagoon Apartments, located behind Ambience Mall on NH8. At the time of allotment of flats, the buyers were promised one lift for every 10 flats. But in most blocks, only two lifts were provided instead of the four promised. In November 2004, 66 residents of Ambience Lagoon moved court against Raj Si

The Madras high court, in a recent order, has held that the restrictive provisions introduced in the Income Tax (I-T) Act, which call for reinvestment in only 'one' residential house in India for claiming capital gains tax exemption, apply from fiscal April 1, 2014. The explanatory memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2014, had clarified that the benefit of capital gains tax exemption under section 54 and 54F was intended only in respect of reinvestment in one residential house in India. Thus, on enactment of the Bill, the relevant sections of the I-T Act were amended. Earlier, the words used in the I-T Act were reinvestment in 'a residential house'. This is now substituted with 'one residential house in India'. Prior to the amendment, there was ambiguity on whether the term 'a residential house' meant a single unit or could include more than one new house. Tax authorities often disputed the matter when a taxpayer had sold a house or any other long-

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Wednesday halved the compensation to be paid to the kin of a biker who died on being hit by a cab in 2009, after it found he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the mishap. While the actual compensation worked out by the tribunal amounted to Rs 12.30 lakh, owing to the biker Jamil Shaikh's (23) contributory negligence, his family was awarded a compensation of Rs 6.15 lakh. The fleet cab company and the insurance firm will additionally have to pay Rs 2.30 lakh in interest. Observing that the cab driver was not solely responsible for the accident , the tribunal said, "The unfortunate death of the deceased must be attributed to the non-wearing of a protective headgear by him, as his death has been found to have been caused by haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. The deceased should be held to have definitely contributed to his death by not wearing protective headgear while riding a motorcycle on a public road." Shaikh is su

Bombay High Court:  In a case of appeal against a family court order, a bench comprising of Revati Mohite Dhere, J observed that if an advocate, who had represented a woman in her earlier divorce proceedings, later represents her second husband against her, it cannot be said that the advocate switched sides in the "same proceedings".  The ruling came as a relief to advocate Edith Dey who had represented the respondent in her first divorce and was now representing the respondent's second husband in the ongoing divorce case. Earlier, the family court had set aside the advocate's appointment and directed the second husband to appoint another advocate to represent him. Advocate Dey appealed against this decision arguing that there was no conflict of interest and that the two proceedings were distinct and unconnected. On the other hand, the wife's advocate Taubon Irani emphasized that advocates must maintain their clients' confidentiality. After listening to arg

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, (SARFAESI Act), 2002, is a self-contained code and has been enacted to enable banks and financial institutions (FIs) to recover the outstanding without approaching the courts and tribunals, the Madras High Court has said. Prior to the Act, the banks were not empowered to take possession of securities to realise the debts. It was only under such circumstances that Parliament enacted the SARFAESI Act to enable banks and FIs to recover the loan without resorting to the time consuming legal proceedings, a division bench of justices S Rajeswaran and S Vaidyanathan said. The bench was dismissing a writ petition from Silicon Valley Auto Components Private Limited in Maraimalai Nagar, which borrowed a huge sum from the Nandanam branch of Indian Bank. There remained a balance of Rs. 26 crore. The bank initiated recovery proceedings in February this year. Challenging the same, the firm f

The Supreme Court has ruled that an arbitrator cannot give an award on issues which have been excepted in the contract. In this case, Harsha Constuctions vs Union of India, the agreement contained an arbitration clause which gave a list of items which should not be referred to arbitration. They should be decided by the chief engineer. However, when disputes arose over extra payment for additional work done on the project, the arbitrator gave an award on all issues. The firm moved the Andhra Pradesh High Court which dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed the contractor's appeal stating that the terms of the contract should be strictly followed and "there cannot be a presumption or a conclusion that the parties had agreed to refer the issue to the arbitrator." Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/land-acquisition-quashed-under-new-law-114091400695_1.html

In the first judgment applying the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Supreme Court last week quashed acquisition of land for a canal in Chennai because though more than five years have lapsed after the award, physical possession of land has not yet been taken over by the government. Under Section 24 of the new law, such time gap is ground for quashing the acquisition altogether. In this case, Sree Balaji Nagar Residents Association vs State of Tamil Nadu, the award was in 2006 and till 2014, possession of the land was not taken over by the authorities. Though there was litigation between land owners and the authorities with stay orders from courts that period could not be counted for the time limit. The Supreme Court added that the state could initiate fresh proceedings under the new law. Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/land-acquisition-quashed-under-new

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected CBI director Ranjit Sinha's plea to gag media from reporting on the contentious visitors' logbook at his Delhi residence even as Sinha claimed it was invasion of his privacy. Sinha told a bench led by Justice H L Dattu that media should be restrained since reports on who had been meeting in private was damaging his reputation but he court shot back that the media was responsible enough to understand its role. The bench adjourned the matter for Monday while asking applicant's counsel Prashant Bhushan to file an affidavit into the issue along with the logbook and all other documents that he wished to put on record. Sinha's counsel Vikas Singh had objected to the application by 2G petitioner NGO CPIL, saying they must also disclose the source of information and also vouch for its authenticity before seeking actions against Sinha. The bench said that Bhushan, CPIL' s counsel shall file the application in accordance with th