|
Insurance Company Can Invoke Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora |
more
|
| It seems to me that the principle of subrogation in Insurance Law is different from the Locus Standi of a claimant to prosecute a claim before the Consumer Forum. The former is a contractual right arising from the Contract of Insurance between the Insurer and the Insured whereas the latter is a statutory right created by the Act, which defines a "consumer" in order to have locus standi to prosecute a claim under the Act. I believe this nuance has escaped the attention of the Court in the Judgment. |
|
Posted by
Durai. Karunakaran
on 05/03/2010 09:18:53 |
| |
|
156 (3) Cr.P.C.-Rape allegation against father-in-law |
more
|
| very good decision with judicial approach |
|
Posted by
Durai. Karunakaran
on 27/02/2010 17:25:52 |
| |
|
VRS application can be withdrawn before employer accepts it |
more
|
| very ggod judgment |
|
Posted by
Adinath@Avinash Patil
on 27/02/2010 07:26:19 |
| |
|
NI ACT 138 CASES |
more
|
| dear expert, matter returned back to the complainant by revisional court to file before appropriate court, but no time limit was given by the revisional court, in appropritae court delay condonation appilication filed by the complainant, whether there is any judgement stating that delay if caused in filing complaint, it cannot be condoned. How rayala Sima Agro Enterprises and Ors. versus Gujarat Agro Industries Corporation will help in my matter.
Thanking you,
Adv. santosh |
|
Posted by
santosh
on 24/02/2010 19:25:56 |
| |
|
Misuse of 498A is like Legal Terrorism - SC |
more
|
| Please change title of this. At least one should go through the judgment before giving titel. It is complete mis reading judgment of Supreme Court. It gives wrong message to reader. Take care in future. |
|
Posted by
Yashwant Anand Goswami
on 22/02/2010 17:26:36 |
| |
|
Onus under section 306 is not as heavy as under section 304B |
more
|
| RAJ VERY GOOD JUDGMENT ON ONUS OF PROOF. |
|
Posted by
Adinath@Avinash Patil
on 13/02/2010 08:40:05 |
| |
|
Consumer court jurisdiction over Telephone customer disputes |
more
|
| I hope what the Kerala High Court did was right in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Telecom Department challenging the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. But unfortunately, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court of Kerala's Full Bench judgment and held that the Telecom cases cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora, since these disputes come under Special Enactment and these disputes can be dealt with through arbitration. If this kind of plea is accepted, Consumer Protection Act will lose its charm and once again the consumers will be driven from pillar to post in each and every similar dispute arise from various departments/sectors. I hope the Supreme Court shall review its decision by a larger Bench and uphold the High Court's Judgment and come to the rescue of the consumers and bring all consumer disputes under the one and only one "Consumer Protection Act", which is an uninfluenced/unbiased legal enactment. |
|
Posted by
gurunarayana rao
on 21/12/2009 15:14:43 |
| |
|
Suman v/s State of Rajasthan and another |
more
|
| EXLLENT JUDGMENT |
|
Posted by
Adinath@Avinash Patil
on 14/12/2009 22:27:08 |
| |
|
Builder cannot sell stilt car park |
more
|
| Could you please let me know if this order has been challenged n any rule issued? Or has this order become absolute??
Tks in advane
|
|
Posted by
Shekhar Pathare
on 03/12/2009 21:20:14 |
| |
|
Suman v/s State of Rajasthan and another |
more
|
| thanks.ram murti |
|
Posted by
ram murti (advocate)
on 02/12/2009 17:14:17 |
| |
