https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86826 The SC held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to lack of privity of contract with the appellant. The appellant's liability, if any existed, was limited to what was stipulated in the Home Loan Agreement with the borrower, and specifically to satisfying the complainant-respondent's dues with ICICI Bank (quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and not exceeding Rs.23,40,000/-). The NCDRC erred in holding the appellant liable for Rs.31,00,000/-. Additionally, the NCDRC failed to properly address the significant delay in filing the complaint (filed in 2018 for a cause of action from 2008) by neither providing reasons nor issuing a formal order condoning the delay. Appeal allowed. en-us Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:40 +0530 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86826 The SC held that the respondent did not qualify as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, due to lack of privity of contract with the appellant. The appellant's liability, if any existed, was limited to what was stipulated in the Home Loan Agreement with the borrower, and specifically to satisfying the complainant-respondent's dues with ICICI Bank (quantified at Rs.17,87,763/- and not exceeding Rs.23,40,000/-). The NCDRC erred in holding the appellant liable for Rs.31,00,000/-. Additionally, the NCDRC failed to properly address the significant delay in filing the complaint (filed in 2018 for a cause of action from 2008) by neither providing reasons nor issuing a formal order condoning the delay. Appeal allowed. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 26 Mar 2025 06:50:40 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86826