Important Judgments of the Year 2022 (PART-1)

We are presenting to you the top 10 judgements of the year 2022. This is the first part and the second part will be presented in the upcoming issue. This part has five summarised judgements. To read the full case and judgments, please subscribe to our buying guide for the details. You can find it in ‘Top 10 Judgements-2022’.

  Dr. Prem Lata, Legal Head VOICE

1. Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt.Ltd. (SC)

Civil Appeal No 4000 of 2019/ Decided on January 11, 2022

Head Note: Consumers must receive compensation for the resulting liability if they fail to obtain the occupation certificate.

Appeal arising against the order from NCDRC and was decided on 11th of Jan 2022.

It’s a common grievance of home buyers that builder fails to complete the construction work including amenities as per plan and agreed terms. With the result, occupancy certificate is not issued by the concerned authorities. In some cases home buyers take possession under compelling circumstances with incomplete work and occupancy certificate still remains a problem. Here is a unique case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11th January 2022 which gives a new dimension to the issue of fixing liability of developer when occupancy certificate is not provided to home buyers.

2. Sunil Kumar Maity V/s State Bank of India and Anr. SC

Civil appeal 432 of 2022/ Decided on 21th Jan 2022

Head Note – Concept of Revisional Power to Consumer Commissions

SC made a very strong comment against the order of NCDRC and explained the concept of Revisional Power to the courts.

3. Jaina Construction Company vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr

Civil Appeal No. 1069 of 2022/ Decided on 11.02.2022

Head Note -Insurance Company cannot repudiate claim merely on the ground of delayed information when FIR had been lodged

The vehicle of the complainant (the insured) which was insured with Insurance Company was robbed. The next day, an FIR was registered by him. Accused were arrested and challan filed. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the insurance claim. The same was repudiated on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.

4. ECGC Limited vs Mokul Shriram Epc Jv

Civil Appeal No. 1842 of 2021/ Decided on February 15, 2022

Head Note – Condition of payment of the amount for filing appeal shall be governed by the act under which complaint was filed.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 Proviso – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. The question now being examined here is as to whether the present appeal would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 [For short, the ‘2019 Act’] or under the erstwhile 1986 Act.

5. Case Title Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal

Case No Civil Appeal No 923 of 2017/ Decided on 16th Feb 2022

Head Note -1) Existence of an Arbitral clause under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, will not oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum

2) Consumer Protection Act is a specific act and not a general act

3) Telecom services are the subject matter of Consumer Protection Act

It was a historic day when, on February 16, 2022, the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled in Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 923 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 28615 of 2016), that the Consumer Protection Act is a specific act and not a general act. The three-judge panel, made up of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and Vikram Nath, added that the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885’s arbitration clause will not nullify the authority of the consumer forum.

Enquire Now

    Enquire Now