Bench: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Judgment by: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR,
Date- 8 December, 2017.
The consumer Protection Act, 2019 has given a wider scope to the rights of consumers’ and also makes them aware of the responsibilities that their manufacturers or producers are supposed to follow with and also there is larger scope for the speedy dispute settlement and has ways for it. This article deals with the landmark case of Manjit Singh versus National Insurance Company that we come across while we study Consumer Law or Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case the appellant had purchased a second-hand truck under Hire purchase agreement. One day when he was driving the truck a passenger asked him to stop his truck and give him a lift when he stopped the truck the passenger assaulted the driver and fled with vehicle. The appellant claimed for compensation from the insurance company he had purchased under but the company rejected his plea alleging breach of company’s policy
THE REASONING AND VERDICT OF THE DISTRICT, STATE, AND NATIONAL FORUM
The appellant filed suit in district forum and it was held that the company is not responsible and it would be breach of the policy of the company as the appellant should not have given the lift in the first place. The state and the national forum too had the same reasoning.
The appellant here was not satisfied with the verdict of the Consumer forum, as we can see that the appellant being the consumer and the Insurance company would be responsible for the services it should provide. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is much wider in its scope compared to the Act of 1986. It has scope for the settlement of the disputes and it is less lavishing and has rapid resolution. Through time and changes in the economic life of the country we notice that there must be dynamic nature of the laws governing the principles of the consumer rights protection. Therefore, the Act of 2019 is wider and less expensive. Through this we understand the followed verdict of supreme court and its reasoning.
SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT
To the extent of the first ground is in a stew, we can contemplate the view that the District Forum had not properly valued the scope and ambit of the policy. The violation of the condition should be such a fundamental breach so that the claimant cannot claim any amount whatsoever. As far as the violation in carrying passengers is concerned, this has consistently been held not to be a fundamental breach and, in this behalf, we may make reference to the judgments of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259, Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 and B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 647.
This case gives us the knowledge to approach these kinds of situation where it is really not easy to co me to a conclusion where both the parties are not at fault but still the apex court resolved this dispute with a satisfied and legitimate reasoning.
If you are a lawyer or a law student who is looking for a job, then you can find details about the latest openings here.
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org