Note on Consumer Protection Act

NOTE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

A person may be consumer of goods, or services. services. When I purchase a fan, fan, a gas stove or a refrigerator, I could be the consumer of goods. When I open a bank account, take an insurance policy, get my car repaired, I could be the consumer of services. The The cons consum umer er prot protec ectio tion n Act, Act, 1986 1986 trie tries s to help help a cons consum umer er when when for for example, the goods purchased are defective or the services rendered to him are subject to so deficiency. Prior to the consumer Protection Act, 1986 for any consumer complaint one had to go to an ordinary Civil Court. He had to engage a lawyer, pay the necessary fee, and be harassed for years or decades before any outcome, positive or negative, was there in that litigation. Under the Consumer Protection Act, no Court fee has to be paid and the deci decisi sion on on the the comp compla lain intt is much much quic quicke ker, r, as the the Cour Courtt can can evol evolve ve a summary procedure in disposing off the complaint.

CASE LAWS ON THE ACT. Pecuniary Jurisdiction In Krishan Krishan Dass Chaurasia V. State Bank of India (1995) the total claim in a complaint did not not exceed Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was held held that the matter was not not within the jurisdiction of the State Commission Commission and such a claim was was rejected by the State Commission. The Complainant could seek the remedy from the District District Forum. Therefore, Therefore, jurisdicti jurisdiction, on, which is vested vested in a district Forum Forum cannot be created for State Commission by merely exaggeration of a claim. In B. B. Raghu Raghunat nath h Vs Trans Trans India India Tour Tourism ism (1996) (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 purposely boosted boosted his claim to bring the matter within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The compla complaint int was return returned ed bt the State State Commis Commissio sion n for presen presentat tation ion in proper District Forum with necessary correction.

Trusted by over 1 million members

Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.



NO ACTION WHERE NO TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION In J. K. K. Synth Synthetheti ethetics cs Vs. Smt. Anita Bhargava Bhargava (1993) (1993) the registere registered d office of the Opposite Party was situated at Kanpur. Payment was made through Bank in Delhi. The complaint filed in Calcutta was held to be outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The Order passed by the Calcutta District Forum was set aside in Appeal. EVIDENCE THROUGH AFFIDAVITS IS LEGAL & SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. In Union Union of India India Vs. Ramswaroo Ramswaroop p Chandil Chandil (1998) (1998) the complainant? Respondent had a circular ticket in his possession during journey which was locked locked in his box. He was not allowed allowed to break open open the the lock and and produce produce the ticket and was forced to pay excess charge for four persons. The District Forum awarde awarded d compensati compensation on in his favour favour for refund of fare and and excess charge and for inconvenience, humiliation and Advocates fee, etc. 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 Opposite party. It was held that the evidence evidence by affidavit was legal and sufficient sufficient to support support the complainant’s case. AFFIDAVITS PERMITTED PERMITTED TO DETERMINE DEFICIENCY DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AS WELL AS DAMAGES. The Consumer Protection Act contemplates speedy disposal of complaints, which are required to be disposed off within 90 days of service of notice to Oppo Opposi site te Part Party. y. The The Cons Consum umer er Prot Protec ecti tion on Act, Act, ther theref efor ore, e, does does not not contemplate regular trial as is usually done in civil suits. In Prem Prem Praka Prakash sh Mehra Mehra Vs. Oriental Oriental Insura Insurance nce Co. Co. Ltd., Ltd., (1995) (1995) it has been held that the parties can be called upon tom lead evidence on affidavits not not only only on ques questi tion on of defi defici cien ency cy in serv servic ice e but but also also on subj subjec ectt of determ determina ination tion of damage damages. s. This This in conson consonanc ance e with the object objective ive of the Consumer Protection Act, for speedy disposal of cases. NON-SPEAKING ORDER CAN BE SET ASIDE In S.D.O. S.D.O. Telephone Telephone Vs. Rama Shankar Pandey (1997) the District Forum, Handoi, allowed the complaint and directed that the telephione bills of the



Rs. 200/- compensation compensation to the complainant. complainant. No reasons were given for such order. The State Commission held that the order of the District Forum should be a speaking one. It should give, however however briefly, the essential essential facts and material, material, considered by it as well as the reasons for the conclusion. Else the order becomes arbitrary in the eyes of law. The order of the District Forum was set aside and the case was sent back to the District forum for re-consideration in accordance with law after notice to the parties. Remand when order signed by President only In S. Ravisa Ravisankar nkar Vs. Aslo Aslo Steel Steel Ltd., Ltd., the order of the District forum was signed only by the President of of the Forum. No other member had signed signed it. Sect Sectio ion n 14 requ requir ires es that that ever every y orde orderr shal shalll be cond conduc ucte ted/ d/si sign gned ed by the the President and at least one member. The present order was held to be invalid, and the matter was remanded to the District Forum. President sitting singly It has been held by the National Commission that the orders passed by the President of the State Commission sitting singly without the junction of any other member is contrary to Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Such an an order is invalid invalid (Raj kumar Mangla Vs. R.S. Singh (1995) In Haryana Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Avtar Krishan Ambedkar (1998) the revision petition petition was filed against against the order of the President of the Dist Distric rictt Foru Forum, m, Gurg Gurgao aon n date dated d 11.7 11.7.. 1997 1997,, whic which h was was pass passed ed by the the President sitting singly, i.e. without associating any of the two companion members. It was held that Section 14(2) requires that all proceedings shall be conducted by the President of District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting togeth together. er. It was held held that that the Presid President ent sittin sitting g singly singly was acting acting withou withoutt jurisdiction. The said order order was set aside aside and the case case was referred back to the District Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law. PREGNANCY NO GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY In Registra Registrar, r, Univers University ity of Pune Vs. Mrs. Puja Puja Pravin Pravin Wagh Wagh (1999) (1999) the complainant filed a complaint 3 1/2 months after the expiry of the limitation period of 2 years against the University of Pune for the wrong declaration of result. The reason for delay in filing the complaint given by the complainant



the fact of pregnancy pregnancy was no justification for the delay. The complaint complaint being time barred the order of the District Forum was set aside. Damages In Charan Charan Singh Singh Vs. Healing Healing Touch Touch Hospital Hospital (2000) (2000) it has been held by the Supreme Court that while quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about about a qualitative qualitative change in the attitude attitude of the service service provider. provider. Indeed, Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and and fast rule can be be laid down for universal universal application. While awardi awarding ng compe compens nsati ation, on, a Consu Consume merr Forum Forum has to take take into accoun accountt all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. In Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yahama Ltd. AIR 2000 the Supreme Cour Courtt has has held held that that Cons Consum umer er Foru Forums ms have have juri jurisd sdic icti tion on to ente entert rtai ain n complaints against carriers regarding loss of or damage to goods entrusted to carrier for transportation. In Provi Providen dentt Fund Fund Commis Commissio sioner ner Vs. Shiv Shiv Kumar Kumar Joshi Joshi (200 (2000) 0) the Supr Suprem eme e Cour Courtt has has held held that that an empl employ oyee ee,, who who is a membe emberr of the the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, is a consumer and duties performed by the Regional Provident Provident Fund Commissioner Commissioner under such scheme scheme is “service” and and thus thus,, in case case of dela delay y in rele releas ase e of prov provid iden entt fund fund,, comp complai laint nt for for deficiency in service, is maintainable.

Note on Consumer Protection Act

Recommend Documents