CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: CASES

Reeturaj Borgohain (168)

HISTORY: 1962-2011

CONSUMERS: Who are they and what are their rights

WHERE AND HOW TO COMPLAINT ?

Benefits and reliefs

CASES

OUR AGENDA

1970 19801960

KENNEDY'S BILL OF CONSUMER RIGHTS15 March 1962

On 24 December 1986 Govt. of India Enacted the Consumer Protection Act 1986

2000 20101990

Amendments in the year 1993

Amendments in the year 2002

CONSUMERS

Consumer of goods

Consumer of services

if it is used for commercial purpose

If it is free of cost

If it is used for resale

Even a person buys a good or a service he is not a consumer

Unfair trade practice

Restrictive trade practice

Defects

Deficiencies

Consumerprotection

• Misleading public about price and Charging above MRP printed

1• Misleading public about

another’s goods or services.2• Falsely claiming a sponsorship,

approval or affiliation.3• Offering misleading warranty

or guarantee4

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

• Price fixing or output restraint 1

• Collusive tendering2• Delaying in supplying

goods/services leading to rise in price

3• Supplying only to particular

distributors.4

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE

DEFECTS

DEFICIENCY

www.themegallery.com

Right to SAFETY against hazardous goods and services

Right to be HEARD

Right to CHOOSE from a variety at competitive prices

1 2 3 4

CONSUMER RIGHTS

Right to be INFORMED about quality, quantity, purity, standard, price

Right to SEEK REDRESSAL

Right to CONSUMER EDUCATION

5 6

CONSUMER RIGHTS

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums (District Forum)

Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commissions (State

Commission)

National Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission (National

Commission)

Where to complaint ?

The consumer

Recognized

consumer associatio

n

A group of consumers

having same

interest

The central

and state governme

nt

A complaint may be filed by

BENEFITS AND RELIEFS

REMOVAL OF DEFEC

TS

REPLACEMEN

T OF GOOD

S

RETURN THE

PRICE

PAY COMPENSAT

ION

DISCONTINUE OF UNFAI

R TRADE PRACTICES

cases

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

In Krishan Dass Chaurasia V. State Bank of India (1995) the total claim in a complaint did not exceed Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was held that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the State Commission and such a claim was rejected by the State Commission. The Complainant could seek the remedy from the District Forum. Therefore, jurisdiction, which is vested in a district Forum cannot be created for State Commission by merely exaggeration of a claim.

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION

In B. Raghunath Vs Trans India Tourism (1996) the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 5,000/-according to his own statement. He claimed compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. It was evident that he had purposely boosted his claim to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission.The complaint was returned but the State Commission for presentation in proper District Forum with necessary correction.

Union of India Vs. Ramswaroop Chandil (1998)

• Respondent had a circular ticket in his possession during journey which was locked in his box. He was not allowed to break open the lock and produce the ticket and was forced to pay excess charge for four persons. The District Forum awarded compensation in his favour for refund of fare and excess charge and for inconvenience, humiliation and Advocates fee, etc.

APPEAL

• In appeal by the Railway Authorities it was pleaded that the complainant had not produced any witness to support his claim. Dismissing the appeal it was held that he had narrated his case in the affidavit and the same was not rebutted by the Opposite party.

Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital (2000)

• according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch Hospital for treatment . The hospital operated him twice but the situation worsened with paralyzing his right half part of the body and missing his left kidney without his consent. He also lost his job due to health reasons caused by the hospital

The appeal

• He complaint to the national consumer court for 34 lakh compensation but the court rejected the case saying the compensation asked is exaggerated.

• After appealing in the supreme court, the court asked the consumer court to accept the appeal as the job compensation should not be the only criteria for compensation

THANK YOU