<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (12) TMI 617 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162562</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and does not exclude other statutory remedies, so consumer fora can entertain complaints by members of a cooperative society despite the dispute-resolution mechanism under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The Consumer Protection Act is beneficial legislation requiring broad, purposive construction, and its independent remedial scheme includes compensation for mental agony and suffering. The cooperative statute and its bar provision did not override that express jurisdiction, so the consumer complaints were maintainable and the District Forum had jurisdiction; the matter was remanded for decision on the remaining merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2014 13:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=347773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 617 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162562</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy and does not exclude other statutory remedies, so consumer fora can entertain complaints by members of a cooperative society despite the dispute-resolution mechanism under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The Consumer Protection Act is beneficial legislation requiring broad, purposive construction, and its independent remedial scheme includes compensation for mental agony and suffering. The cooperative statute and its bar provision did not override that express jurisdiction, so the consumer complaints were maintainable and the District Forum had jurisdiction; the matter was remanded for decision on the remaining merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>