Legal News & Views

The High Court has held that being legal representatives, claimants of deceased, though they are not dependents, are entitled to compensation. The court made it clear that for being entitled to compensation, one need not be a dependent legal representative. It is only when there are dependents and non-dependents, that dependents are to be preferred for grant of compensation over non-dependents. Justice B Siva Sankara Rao made this order in an appeal by the United India Insurance Coompany, Hyderabad, challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, awarding compensation of Rs 2.39 lakh (against a claim of Rs 2.5 lakh) with interest at 9 percent per annum to the claimants, who are the husband and two major sons of the deceased, Anjan Bai Metre (55), who died in an accident in 2003. The accident was the result of an autorickshaw dashed against a roadside big tree near Ranjendra Nagar, and the deceased who was travelling in the ...

With the government set to reintroduce the marriage laws amendment bill in the Lok Sabha to amend the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act to make irretrievable breakdown of marriage a ground for divorce, the Supreme Court has urged a rethink if it was an expedient ground for untying the matrimonial knot. "It is highly debatable whether, in the Indian situation, where there is rampant oppression of women, such a ground would at all be expedient," said the bench of Justice Vikramajit Sen and Justice Prafulla C. Pant in a recent judgment. The court hoped that this will be considered by the Lok Sabha. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2013 that was passed by the Rajya Sabha lapsed before it could be considered by the Lok Sabha, as the lower house was dissolved upon completion of its term and general elections were held. The court said this while restricting its examination of a divorce plea by K. Srinivas on the ground of alleged cruelty by his wife K. Suni...

The Supreme Court has stated that a consumer court cannot impose penal compensation when the aggrieved person did not ask for it. In this case, General Motors vs Ashok Ramnik, the National Consumer Commission imposed compensation on the car manufacturer for selling its vehicles as SUV to 260 customers though the model did not qualify for that description. Ashok had a dream to drive in a sports model vehicle to the high hills. The brochure of General Motors promised exactly that. So he bought a Chevrolet Forester model for Rs 14 lakh in 2004. But he was disappointed on several fronts and sued the firm for unfair trade practices like promising facilities which were not available. The district consumer forum asked the firm to return the money with costs of litigation and Rs 5,000 for mental agony. The firm appealed to the State Consumer Commission, which found that it was not a SUV as was described in the brochures. So it asked the manufacturer to correct its claims in future ads. When t...

When facts regarding the dishonour of a cheque are complex and seriously disputed, the high court cannot quash prosecution in a cryptic order, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Sesame Chemicals vs State of Meghalaya.  The payee company alleged that the cheque it received bounced as the drawer firm had stopped payment by the bank. The drawer firm contended that the goods supplied by the other firm was substandard, and the cheque was signed at gun point. Both parties filed criminal complaints against each other, under the Negotiable Instruments Act and criminal laws. The Gauhati High Court quashed the trial regarding the bounced cheque. On appeal, the Supreme Court  stated that the truth or otherwise of the allegations could be established only by evidence at the trial. The high court should not have cancelled the prosecution  at the instance of the drawer of the cheque, who abused the process of the court. Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/arti...

A person who buys a commercial plot to earn his livelihood  is a 'consumer' within the definition in the Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court ruled while setting aside the view of the National Consumer Commission in the case, Sanjay Joshi vs Municipal Board, Laxmangarh.  Sanjay was the lowest bidder in the auction for commercial plots and he paid security amount. Later he came to know that the plot was caught in  civil litigation and the municipal board could not sell it. He wanted to withdraw the security amount, which the board forfeited. He moved the district consumer forum which asked the board to return the money with  interest. The state commission confirmed it. However, the National Commission took the view that since the buyer wanted to start a business in the plot, he was not a consumer. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and stated that since he an unemployed person who wanted to make a living, he came within the definition of consume...

There is no distinction between a hotel and an elite club when it comes to contribution to the Employees State Insurance fund, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd last week. The court rejected the argument of the club that it was not “manufacturing” food in its kitchen and therefore the club was not a factory covered by the ESI law. “Kitchen is an integral part of the club which caters to the needs of its members on payment, thereby making the club fall within the definition of factory,” the Supreme Court emphasised, agreeing with ESI Corporation. The high court had already dismissed the club’s petition. The appeal was dismissed with the searing remarks that the welfare law was not followed by the elite club and “it is very unfortunate that it has not paid ESI contribution for more than three decades.” Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/protection-for-sick-units-from-creditors-114110200712_1.html

Upholding Additional District Forum's verdict, the Nagpur bench of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has asked a private builder to rectify defects as claimed by the residents or pay compensation. The residents of Wathoda-based Indira Town had alleged substandard construction that led to cracks and seepage of water in their new tenements. A bench of presiding member BA Sheikh and Jayashree Yengal, while delivering the order, made it clear that "it's always obligatory on the part of developer/builder to make construction without any defect... The construction firm cannot claim cost of repairing when the leakage or seepage occurred. Even if the possession of homes was taken over by the residents, in current case that didn't absolve the builder from rectifying defects," the judges observed. According to residents, their township was launched in 2004 and builder Sarju Constructions had allegedly taken maintenance amount of some Rs 4.25 lakh towards fac...