The Supreme Court ruled that homebuyers can approach consumer forums for compensation over delayed possession even after taking flat possession. The Court set aside the NCDRC order and held that arbitration clauses cannot prevent buyers from seeking remedies against real estate developers for deficient services.
The Darjeeling District Consumer Commission has directed Amazon Seller Services and a seller to pay Rs 4.68 lakh compensation to a customer over delivery of the wrong camera model. The ruling highlights e-commerce platform liability and questions the intermediary defence used by online marketplaces.
A District Consumer Commission directed FirstCry to compensate a customer after finding that it arbitrarily cancelled an order, withheld payment, and labelled the customer a “fraud user” without inquiry or due process. The Commission ordered refund with interest and compensation for mental distress.
Dr Lal Pathlabs has been found guilty of medical negligence after incorrectly reporting a patient’s urea levels, which led to unnecessary hospitalization and distress. The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upheld a previous ruling and compensation of ₹3.5 lakh, emphasizing that labs cannot evade responsibility for such errors.
The Delhi Government informed the High Court that officials of the State and District Consumer Commissions will remain in their positions until new appointments are made, following a Public Interest Litigation by Sardar RP Singh. The Bench emphasized the need for operational commissions and adherence to Supreme Court guidelines to prevent vacancies.
The Consumer Court in Bengaluru penalized Flipkart for delivering a different product as a replacement, disregarding its argument as a mere intermediary. The court upheld the responsibility of Flipkart in ensuring proper service and product delivery, ordering a refund of approximately Rs.13,799 and additional compensation of Rs.10,000 to the affected customer.
![After D Y Chandrachud Who Will Lead India’s Supreme Court ? [Succession of Chief Justices]](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/dy-chandrachud.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court of India Today ruled out the need for written exams and viva voce for appointing Presidents of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, as the positions are filled exclusively by retired High Court judges. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in the appointment process and directed the Central government to propose amendments for fair and transparent appointments at the district level, ensuring a balance between experience and transparency.
“Why doesn’t the Union draft the proposed rules, and then we review them, considering that members of the Commission are drawn from finance, etc.?”: CJI remarked.