Topic
The Punjab State CDRC set aside the District Commission’s medical negligence ruling, holding that expert evidence is required to prove liability and that the burden to furnish it lies on the complainant under CPA 2019.
The Punjab SCDRC upheld a non-standard settlement of an insurance claim and limited the claimant’s interest to the date the insurer accepted the untrace report. The ruling interprets Section 41 CPA 2019, narrowing interest entitlement for policyholders and confirming insurers’ right to settle on a non-standard basis.
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that interest on land acquisition compensation accrues from the date of the award under Section 11, not the notification date under Section 4(1). This aligns with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, impacting pending and future land acquisition disputes in Maharashtra.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that failure to deposit 50% of the disputed amount under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 does not open the door to writ jurisdiction under Article 227. Petitioners must first approach the State Commission for waiver or relief, reinforcing the principle that statutory appellate remedies must be exhausted before invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. This clarifies the boundaries of writ powers in consumer disputes and protects the efficiency of the consumer redressal framework.