COMMERCIAL DISPUTES CANNOT BE DECIDED IN SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986

 COMMERCIAL DISPUTES CANNOT BE DECIDED IN SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT 1986

1.         COMMERCIAL DISPUTES CANNOT BE DECIDED IN SUMMARY PROCEEDING UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION  ACT 1986

2024(2) Law Herald (SC) 1020

Investment for deriving interest on the same--Consumer Complaint not maintainable

Partnership--Death of Partner--Legal heirs do not become liable

Consumer Protection Act, 2019--Investment for Profit or Gain--Complainant had made investment with respondent for deriving interest on the same--Therefore, it would be an investment for profit/gain--It was a commercial transaction and therefore also would be outside the purview of the 1986 Act--Commercial disputes cannot be decided in summary proceeding under the 1986 Act--Complaint dismissed being not maintainable. (Para 7)

(B) Partnership Act, 1932--Death of Partner--Liability of Legal Heirs--Legal heirs of a deceased partner does not become liable for any liability of the firm upon the death of the partner. (Para 8)

 

2. BUYER NOT LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT

2024(2) Law Herald (SC) 989

Delay in Delivery of Possession--Buyer not liable to pay interest on the balance amount

Consumer Protection Act, 2019--Housing--Interest on Balance Amount--Delay in Delivery of Possession--Buyer had paid about 90% of the total amount before due date of handing over the possession which builder failed to adhere--Thus, National Commission erred in directing the buyer to pay interest 9% per annum on the balance amount--Impugned order set aside.

3. REPUDIATION OF CLAIM

2024(1) Law Herald (SC) 892

Insured pleaded in appeal that he was not provided the surveyor’s report and the investigators’ report--Complaint to be decided afresh

Consumer Protection Act, 2019--Insurance--Repudiation of Claim--Insured--appellant has taken a pertinent plea in the instant civil appeal that the copies of the surveyor’s report and the investigators’ report were not provided timely and thus, the insured-appellant did not get proper opportunity to rebut the same--Held;

(i) This pertinent plea taken by the insured-appellant in the memo of appeal has not been specifically refuted and only a formal denial was offered in the counter-affidavit filed by the insurer-respondent.

(ii) Insured-appellant should have been provided proper opportunity to file its rebuttal/objections to the affidavit/reports submitted by the insurer-respondent before the National Commission.

(iii) Consequently, the complaint should be reconsidered on merits after providing such opportunity to the appellant.

 

4. HOUSING LOAN

2024(1) Law Herald (SC) 559

Consumer Protection Act, 1986--Housing Loan--Change in Rate of Interest--Appellant contended that before availing housing loan he was assured that rate of interest will be based on Prime Lending Rate i.e. as fixed by RBI from time to time and an email was also sent to him in this regard by an employee of Bank--However in the agreement adjustable rate of interest i.e. as fixed by lending Bank from time to time was mentioned--Appellant sought refund of excess interest charged by the bank--Held;

(i) When it is contended that the appellant had the option of securing loan from other banks and that being misled by the email had entered into the transaction, would by itself indicate that the appellant was worldly wise.

(ii) In such circumstance, when the parties have signed the agreement the terms agreed therein would bind the parties and the email by marketing employee cannot override the policy decisions of the institution--Complaint dismissed.

In order to contend that the appellant has been misled or that the earlier representation will constitute unfair trade practice, the appellant ought to have raised such contention when the agreement was to be signed.

Having executed the agreement; having agreed to the terms and conditions; having received the loan amount, the appellant cannot raise any objection for the first time when the rate of interest was increased after having acquiesced by signing the agreement. Further, the appellant having repaid the loan amount with interest as per the terms of agreement cannot make out a grievance in hindsight and seek refund of the amount paid.

 

5. MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

2024(1) Law Herald (SC) 481

Hoarseness in Voice--Major Surgery for Lung Cancer--Anesthesia was administered by Trainee Doctor in place of Head of the Department of Anesthesia--Compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs awarded

Consumer Protection Act, 1986--Medical Negligence--Anesthesia by Trainee--Patient developed hoarseness in voice after surgery of lung--Surgery relating to cancer of the lung is a specialized surgery and needs a specialized anesthetist--Though the Head of the Department of Anesthesia was to administer anesthesia to the patient but the same was administered by a doctor who was qualified but was a trainee anesthetist in Cardiac Anesthesia Department--Compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs enhanced to Rs. 10 lakhs with simple interest @ 10% p.a.