“Star India (P) Ltd. used to broadcast ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’ between 22.1.2007 and 19.4.2007. The programme was sponsored by Bharti Airtel Limited, amongst others. During the telecast of this programme, a contest called ‘Har Seat Hot Seat’ was conducted, in which the viewers of KBC were invited to participate. An objective type question with four […]Read more "Kaun Banega Crorepati"
“Medical negligence comprises of the following constituents: (i) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the medical professional; (ii) failure to inform the patient of the risks involved; (iii) the patient suffers damage as a consequence of the undisclosed risk by the medical professional; (iv) if the risk had been disclosed, […]Read more "Medical Negligence and Consumer Law II"
On the night of 01.08.1998, Sapan Dhawan handed over his Maruti Zen and its keys to Taj Mahal Hotel. The Maruti Zen was stolen. United India Insurance [Vehicle-Insurer/Subsequent Subrogee] and Sapan Dhawan [Vehicle-Owner/Subsequent Subrogor] sought compensation for ‘deficiency in service’ from Taj Mahal Hotel. The manner in which the Maruti Zen was stolen revealed Taj Mahal […]Read more "Sapan Dhawan’s Stolen Maruti Zen"
“The Court has to look at the dominant purpose for which the purchase is made in order to decide whether it was for a ‘commercial purpose.’ We are of the considered opinion that the purchase of flats for the purpose of providing hostel facilities to the hospital nurses does not qualify as meant for a […]Read more "Section 2(1)(d) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 II"
“The principal issue involved in the matter is whether a Charitable Trust could maintain an action under the provisions of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The reliance was placed on Pratibha Pratisthan, (2017) 3 SCC 712 to hold that a Trust would not be a ‘person’ and consequently not a ‘consumer’. The definition of ‘person’ in terms […]Read more "Referred to Larger Bench XIX: Trusts Not Consumers"
Hon’ble Judges R.F. Nariman and Indu Malhotra, on 13.07.2018, questioned the view of Hon’ble Judges D.M. Dharmadhikari and B.N. Srikrishna, as declared on 14.01.2005 [HUDA v. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479]. The question was right. _____ It is established that a beneficial or remedial legislation needs ‘fair and liberal interpretation’ [Om Prakash, (2017) 9 SCC 724]. The definition of […]Read more "Economic Adventures of Statutory Bodies"
Appellant Nos. 1-44 – Builder-Buyer Agreement – Respondent/Builder. Respondent/Builder, Failed! Appellant Nos. 1-44, NCDRC, Consumer Complaint. “The National Commission concluded that the case could not be accepted as class action and dismissed the same. The dismissal of the case as class action is questioned. In T.N. Ganapathy, (1990) 1 SCC 608 it was held that […]Read more "Class Action, Consumer Disputes"