1. Marriage bureau found deficient in services when fails to find perfect match – holds Consumer Commission.

  1. Marriage bureau found deficient in services when fails to find perfect match – holds Consumer Commission.

Complaint Case CC/196 of 2017

Saurabh Rai v. Global Alliance Matrimony

Decided on 05-12-2019

One Mr.Saurabh Rai had approached a marriage bureau namely Global Alliance Matrimony for the services of matrimonial match and paid Rs. 31000/- for premium matrimonial services.Mr Sourabh did not get satisfactory services, instead bureau stopped taking  their calls.Sourabh filed a consumer complaint before the forum  against the  marriage bureau, alleging them of unfair trade practices and deficient in providing services. He alleges that neither did he get a perfect match nor a single meeting was conducted by the bureau with any party. No customized service as promised at the time of registration was provided. The complainant also stated that after some time OP stopped taking his and his aunt’s calls.

Notice was duly served upon the OP but none appeared on its behalf to contest the case of the complainant. Hence, OP proceeded ex-parte.

The Forum at New Delhi found OP grossly deficient in service and directed OP to refund Rs. 31,000 paid by the complainant along with interest at 6 percent per annum from the date of registration till realization. In addition to that Forum also directed OP to pay Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

  • Consumer Commission cannot decide the case on merits once it is found filing time barred, holds Supreme Court

Civil appeal No.9161of 2019

Singal Udyog V/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.

Decided on 02.12.2019

In a matter before the Hon’ble Supreme court named as Singal Udyog V/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 9161 of 2019,  the appeal was at the stage of admission before the National Commission .It was filed after 150 day delay and no application for condonation was  filed .Apex commission dismissed on grounds of both-‘ an inordinate delay of 150 days as well as on an apparent lack of merit.”

Order has been challenged on this very point that commission erred in making an order on merits once it was decided to dismiss as time barred. Supreme Court referred to the case of State Bank of India vs. B.S. Agriculture Industries wherein it was considered that if the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would have the chance to challenge it.

  • Supreme Court agrees to hear the matter on education afresh due to contradictory judgments by the various benches of SC

Civil appeal no. 12901/2020

Manu Solanki & Ors. V/S. Vinayaka Mission University

Date of Notice 15.10.2020

Supreme Court admits an appeal related to education as service under CP Act. Apex Court has issued notice on 15.10.2020 in an appeal filed against a judgment of National Consumer Redressal Commission in the matter of Manu Solanki & Ors. V/S Vinayaka Mission University which was decided on 20.1.2020

This case raises the jurisdiction issue of Consumer Commissions in education matters in the light of contradictory judgment by the various benches of Supreme Court. National Commission has held in the above judgment that educational institute are not covered under Consumer protection Act and also coaching centers are not parting education. By this order educational institute are no more service providers whereas there are number of judgments of the Supreme Court considering education as service under the consumer protection act. One set of judgments express the view that Universities are not service providers. This issue is also on the card with Supreme Court now to have a re-look on the entire issue afresh

  • Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions now shall be considered on the basis of actual loss, i.e. value of the goods or services paid as consideration

Case No 833/2020

M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. V/S. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors

Decided on 28.08.2020

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer commissions, the value of the goods/ services “paid” as consideration shall be the method.

Earlier principal of including compensation and other charges for calculating and deciding jurisdiction is no more in operation after new Act 2019 came into force. Parliament was conscious about the fact that consumers were raising their compensation amount at their choice in order to go to the higher commission It lead to difficulty before the commissions at the stage of admitting the cases 

A case ofM/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.issue in hands, the issue to decide was about repudiation of insurance claim. It was alleged by the party that they had paid an amount of Rs.4, 43,562/- as premium for a policy worth. Rs.28, 00, 20,000/- which was purchased by insurance company.

 In a significant order by National Commission in this case, reference is made to section Sections 34 (1), 47 (1) (a) (i) and 58 (1) which provides for the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the National Commission and Commission held that for determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions, the value of the goods/ services “paid” as consideration shall be the method and prayed compensation and other charges shall not be the part for considering the issue of jurisdiction of the commission .


Comments are closed.