logging in or signing up case of Consumer Protection Act 1986 Patel_lalji Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Let's Connect Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Copy embed code: Embed: Flash iPad Dynamic Copy Does not support media & animations Automatically changes to Flash or non-Flash embed WordPress Embed Customize Embed URL: Copy Thumbnail: Copy The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 2622 Category: Education License: All Rights Reserved Like it (1) Dislike it (0) Added: April 07, 2012 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 2 Presentation Description different different case of consumer protection act, 1989 Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Consumer Protection A ct, 1986Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V/S Noida Chemicals on 17 June, 2009: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board V/S Noida Chemicals on 17 June, 2009 2Introduction: Tamil N adu electricity board had placed purchase order for supply of Hydrate 2000 kgs at Rs. 107 per kg, with the Noida chemicals dated 29.1.1992 The Noida chemical sent sample along with test certificate, as per the specification Tamil N adu electricity board sent approval of bulk supply. Tamil N adu electricity board made payment through bank toward 95% value of the order and the balance 5% amount with in 30 days, if the goods were condition. Introduction 3PowerPoint Presentation: The Noida chemicals supplied 2000 kgs of hydrate on 27.6.1992 through A.R.C. Transport. Board tested the bulk supply by means of taking samples on 10.7.1992 and found only 31.01% purity instead of 80% under the purchase order . There was a short fall of 42 Kg of materials and board rejected the materials in entirety. This defect informed to Noida chemicals. Several reminders, the Noida chemicals failed to rectify the defects. 4PowerPoint Presentation: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board had incurred a loss for non utilizing the said materials and loss occurred through other mode of purchase from outsiders . The Noida chemicals was not prepared either to replace the aforesaid defective items or to return the advance amount. 5Sue: Board issued a advocate's notice to the Noida Chemicals calling upon it, to repay the advance amount which was paid by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board with 12% interest per annum. Sue against the Noida chemicals under the consumer protection Act,1986. Sue 6Document: Noida Chemicals filed a written statement the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board did not produce any document to show that the defect in purity or the shortage in weight and no documents were filed. Board to show that it had incurred a loss for non using materials and loss of alternative purchase in view detailed letters. Document 7Judgment: The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was not to be considered as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 . It cannot be stated that the said goods purchased by the complainant exclusive for the purpose of earning his livelihood by self employment. So, the complainant cannot take shelter under Explanation clause . We find that the said goods were purchased for commercial purpose . Judgment 8PowerPoint Presentation: This Court is informed by the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that has not paid the remaining 5% of balance amount . Under Section 14 of the Limitation Act will not apply squarely to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Section 14 of the Limitation Act contains a general principle based on justice, equity and good conscience . 9PowerPoint Presentation: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is not entitled to the claim of amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the Noida Chemicals Further that it cannot avail benefits under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 10Kishore Lal v/s Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation on 8 May, 2007 : 11 Kishore Lal v/s Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation on 8 May, 2007Introduction : The kishore lal was insured with the Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation with Insurance. The kishore lal's wife was admitted in the ESI dispensary at Sonepat for her treatment for diabetes. There were instances when the doctors were not available even during emergencies. Later, the kishore lal got his wife medically examined in a private hospital. 12 I ntroductionPowerPoint Presentation: The tests done revealed that his wife had been diagnosed incorrectly in the ESI dispensary. The deterioration in the condition of the kishore lal's wife was a direct result of the wrong diagnosis. 13Complaint: The kishore lal filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Compensation towards mental agony, harassment, physical torture, pains, sufferings and monetary loss for the negligence of the authorities Direction for removal of, and improvement in, the deficiencies, Direction for payment of interest on the amount of reimbursement bills. 14 ComplaintObjections: Corporation raised certain preliminary objections, The complaint is not filled in the District Consumer Forum. Sonepat , which is a government dispensary and the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer. The complainant is not a consumer within the definition of `consumer' in the CP Act . 15 ObjectionsConclusion : As per our point view kishore lal has not filled complete district consumer forum and sonapet is government dispensary so complainant cannot be treated as a consumer. So as per cp act Esi is not liable to pay the amount to the kishore lal . 16 ConclusionPowerPoint Presentation: 17 You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.