HISTORY: 1962-2011CONSUMERS: Who are theyand what are their rightsWHERE AND HOW TOCOMPLAINT ?Benefits and reliefsCASES
KENNEDYS BILL OF CONSUMER RIGHTS 15 March 19621960 1970 1980 On 24 December 1986 Govt. of India Enacted the Consumer Protection Act 1986
Amendments in the year 19931990 2000 2010 Amendments in the year 2002
Even a person buys a good or a service he isnot a consumer if it is used for commercial purpose If it is free of cost If it is used for resale
Unfair trade Restrictive practice trade practice Consumer protection Defects Deficiencies
• Misleading public about price and 1 Charging above MRP printed• Misleading public about another’s goods 2 or services.• Falsely claiming a sponsorship, approval 3 or affiliation.•4 Offering misleading warranty or guarantee
• 1 Price fixing or output restraint•2 Collusive tendering• Delaying in supplying goods/services 3 leading to rise in price• Supplying only to particular 4 distributors.
Right to be INFORMED about quality, quantity, purity, standard, price Right to be HEARD 1 2 3 4 Right to CHOOSE from aRight to SAFETY against variety at competitivehazardous goods and pricesservices www.themegallery.com
Right to SEEKREDRESSAL 5 6 Right to CONSUMER EDUCATION
A complaint may be filed byThe consumer Recognized A group of The central consumer consumers and state association having same government interest
REMOVA REPLAC PAY RETUR DISCONTINUE L OF EMENT COMPE OF UNFAIRDEFECT OF N THE TRADE NSATIO S GOODS PRICE PRACTICES N
PECUNIARY JURISDICTIONIn Krishan Dass Chaurasia V. State Bank ofIndia (1995) the total claim in a complaint didnot exceed Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was held thatthe matter was not within the jurisdiction ofthe State Commission and such a claim wasrejected by the State Commission. TheComplainant could seek the remedy from theDistrict Forum. Therefore, jurisdiction, whichis vested in a district Forum cannot be createdfor State Commission by merely exaggerationof 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