Topic
The Gujarat State CDRC upheld the insurer’s pre-existing disease exclusion, ruling that an illness occurring before a mediclaim sum-insured enhancement bars reimbursement under the enhanced limit. The decision limits insurer payouts to the original sum insured, affecting policyholders who enhance coverage after a disease onset.
The Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that a claimant cannot receive both interest on compensation and separate mental agony damages under the Consumer Protection Act, setting aside a ₹5,000 mental agony award while affirming ₹2 lakh personal accident cover with 6% interest from October 2017. The decision bars double recovery for the same loss, affecting consumers seeking overlapping relief in insurance-linked complaints.
The Supreme Court set aside murder convictions of six accused, ruling that inconsistent eyewitness accounts and the absence of forensic proof failed to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt under the IPC. This underscores that corroborative evidence is essential for murder charges, affecting future prosecutions relying solely on eyewitnesses.
Jharkhand High Court affirmed that the claimant is entitled to a loss-of-dependency award calculated on a 17-year multiplier, relying on the deceased’s post-mortem income-tax returns. The ruling clarifies that tax returns can be admitted as proof of earnings for dependency calculations under the Motor Vehicles Act, raising the compensation ceiling for families of road-accident victims.
The ITAT ruled that a higher TDS rate under Section 206AA cannot be imposed automatically if the deductor’s delay in filing returns is caused by the deductees’ failure to link or activate PAN-Aadhaar, a circumstance beyond the deductor’s control. Such matters must be remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, shielding compliant deductors from unwarranted penalties. The decision benefits taxpayers who face third-party PAN linking delays.
CESTAT affirmed the importer’s classification of mixed polyester warp-knitted fabrics under tariff item 6005 9000 and upheld the 10 % concessional BCD, because the revenue could not produce technical evidence of mis-classification. The ruling shifts the evidential burden to customs authorities in similar classification disputes, benefiting textile importers.
The Tribunal ruled that the absence of original invoices does not preclude a Cenvat Credit refund if the duty has been paid and the capital goods receipt is established, prioritising substantive eligibility over technical documentation. This protects taxpayers who can substantiate purchases despite missing original paperwork.
The Gauhati High Court set aside NDPS convictions because the trial court did not make an inventory of seized narcotics nor have the samples sealed before a magistrate as required by Section 52A, making the evidence inadmissible. The decision mandates strict compliance with the inventory-and-sealing rule for all NDPS prosecutions, safeguarding accused where procedural lapses occur.
An ex-parte award was annulled because the lower forum failed to obtain the expert report mandated by Section 13(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The commission remanded the case for fresh hearing, emphasizing that technical defects in goods must be proved by specialist analysis. This ruling underscores the necessity of expert evidence in consumer disputes over product quality.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that a claimant’s functional disability cannot be equated with the percentage of medical disability, mandating a distinct assessment under the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the compensation award was raised to Rs 14.10 lakhs and a belated cross-objection was allowed, setting a precedent for future motor-accident claims.
The Supreme Court declared Lok Adalat awards void where any claimant's signature is missing, overturning the High Court's endorsement. It remitted the compensation dispute for fresh reference to the civil court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, impacting all parties in similar land-acquisition cases.
The Supreme Court quashed the convictions of two village officials, holding that the prosecution failed to prove a demand for a bribe. It also ruled that the sanction order was invalid because it was issued by an officer without the authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court annulled the conviction of a public servant under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act because the prosecution lacked a valid sanction, rendering the proceedings non-est. The ruling reinforces that any PC-Act charge against a public servant must be preceded by a proper sanction, or the case is liable to be dismissed. This decision benefits officials facing similar charges where sanction was not duly obtained.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a Section 164 statement remains valid even if a parent assists as interpreter, and that PoCSO’s interpreter requirement is fulfilled by any person competent in the child’s mode of communication. This expands admissibility of child-witness testimony and clarifies interpreter qualifications for future PoCSO sexual-offence cases, affecting prosecutors and defence counsel.
The Delhi High Court held that the three-month limitation for filing a Section 34 petition only begins when a Section 33 application is finally disposed, even if the application is a sham. Consequently, parties can file Section 34 petitions later than previously thought, and courts may award punitive costs against frivolous Section 33 filings.