CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT1956Presented by:- Roll NumP.Vinod Kumar 1131Pawan Kumar PRESENTED BY:- 1132Pooja Chaudhary 1133Prachi Sharma 1134Pradeep Singha 1135Praveen kumar 1136Punitha P. Reddy 1137Rajkumar Shah 1138Rajnish Deo 1139Ramkrishna 1140
Introduction Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves.
Contd… Consumer protection laws are a form of government regulation which aim to protect the rights of consumers. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue, such as food. Consumer protection is linked to the idea of "consumer rights" (that consumers have various rights as consumers), and to the formation of consumer organizations, which help consumers make better choices in the marketplace and get help with consumer complaints.
Tribeni Cold Storage Private Limited vs National Insurance Company Limited [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 19 Jan 2012]Consumer Protection - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Breakdown - Loss - Claim - Repudiation - Complainant was running a cold storage for which he had taken 4 different insurance policies - There was sudden break down of AIU-400 engine and deterioration of stock - Insurance Co. was duly informed about the said breakdown and complainant tried their best to save the stock but it was not saved due to major breakdown - Claim for loss was made - Opposite Party repudiated said claim - Complaint was filed before State Commission - Opposite Party contended that loss of potato due to deterioration of stock for rise of temperature due to failure of the engine was not covered in the DOS policy - State Commission had considered the relevant policy conditions and come to the conclusion that grounds of repudiation of claim were reasonable and acceptable and dismissed the complaint
Contd…On appeal, National Commission partly allowed the appeal andremanded back the matter to State Commission for reconsideration -State Commission reconfirmed the earlier order and again dismissedthe complaint - Hence, instant appeal - Whether DOS policy did notcover any loss due to deterioration of stock arising out of damage tothe set - Held, Opposite Party had categorically taken a position thatthe DOS policy did not cover any loss due to deterioration of stockarising out of damage to the generator set - Oil Engines/DG setswere never endorsed in the DOS Policy as per procedure norms forissuance of policy - No evidence was placed on record bycomplainant against alleged disconnection of power during thatperiod - Complainant did not produce any evidence before the StateCommission to show that the policy documents were not sent to himor, if sent, were not delivered to him - Impugned order of StateCommission upheld - Appeal dismissed
Vikas B. Patharkar Vs Aditya Associates [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 30 Jan 2012]Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in service - Unfair trade practice - Withdrawal of complaint - Liberty to file fresh complaint - Maintainability - Appellant/complainant desired to purchase a flat to be constructed by respondent No. 1/opposite party - Total price of the flat was Rs. 37,000,00/- - Appellant paid Rs. 10,00,000/- as earnest money to respondent no. 1 as part consideration, for which respondent no. 1 issued receipt - Appellant, realized that respondent no. 1 agreed to sell the suit premises to a rank third party - Appellant served a notice through his Advocate calling upon respondent no. 1 to hand over possession of the premises in question
Contd… Thereafter, appellant filed a Consumer Complaint against respondents for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice before State Commission - Thereafter appellant filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint sought permission to file a fresh before the appropriate Commission/Forum - State Commission permitted simple withdrawal but without any liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action before the Consumer Fora - Hence, instant appeal - Whether impugned order passed by State Commission was justified - Held, all the issues which were taken up in instant appeal, were nowhere mentioned in the application for withdrawal of the complaint - By way of instant appeal, appellant wanted to introduce an altogether a new case, which could not be permitted under the law - A valuable right was already accrued to respondents due to the withdrawal of the complaint - No infirmity or ambiguity was found in impugned order passed by State Commission - Appeal dismissed.
Kasturbhai Vishwambhar Dayal Vs State of Gujarat and others [GUJARAT HIGH COURT, 03 Feb 2012]Criminal - Practice & Procedure - Health & Drug - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955, s. 7/16 16(1) a(i) - Food adulteration - Conviction - Sustainability - 2nd respondent (Food Inspector) send samples to Public Health Laboratory for analysis, which was taken from appellants shop - Public analyst confirmed samples were adulterated under 1955 Rules - Trial Court convicted and sentenced appellant u/s. 7 r/w s. 16 (1) a(i) of the Act- Appellate Court partly allowed appeal and confirmed conviction but reduced the sentence
Contd…Hence, instant revision by appellant - Whether conviction recorded by Trial Court was sustainable - Held, there was major contradiction in the report of public analyst and report of CFL - Prosecution failed to examine public analyst which was also turned down by Trial Court - Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant - Hence, Courts below committed grave error in convicting appellant - Appeal allowed.
Delhi: Discom to pay Rs 10K to woman for inflated bill: Consumer forum BSES Yamuna Power Ltd has been asked by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 10,000 to one of its customers as compensation for “harassing” her by sending an inflated bill and then disconnecting her electricity supply for not paying it. The Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said that the “arbitrary and illegal” act of the discom of sending an inflated bill of over Rs 81,000 to the complainant, Zarina Khatoon, amounts to “deficiency” of service and “illegal trade practice.”
(1) D. K. Enterprises; (2) Kawarlal andCompany Vs Commissioner ofCustoms(Imports) [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Feb 2012]Health & Drug - Administrative - Drugs and CosmeticRules, 1948, r. 43 - Import of Beverage Grade material - Not formedicinal use - Licence - Validity - Petitioners were importingBeverage Grade material not for medicinal use covered underPharma and drug use - Petitioners filed writ petition seeking forquashing of the direction issued by drug authorities for theproduction of Form 10 license of the Act, and to release thegoods without imposing any condition - Single Judge relyingupon report of Central Drug Laboratory had doubted aboutlabels affixed on the containers and found that an appropriateinvestigation should be done and in the event of finding thatthey were drugs to be used for human being, necessary licence inparticular form was to be obtained and directed respondents toadjudicate the issue based on impugned notice issued
Contd…Hence, instant appeals - Whether Single Judge was justified inpassing order - Held, u/r. 43 r/w sch. D of the Rules, petitionerswere entitled for exemptions and there was absolutely noquestion of asking for licence in Form 10 and finding in thatregard, could not be accepted - Impugned orders in writ petitionswere set aside - Respondents were directed to release the saidgoods to petitioners on the declared value, on verification ofproper compliance of r. 43 r/w sch. D of the Rules and label,which had been affixed - Further, insofar as valuation of importedgoods were concerned, it was open to parties to move beforeCESTAT, in which event, any condition that might be imposed byTribunal should be complied by petitioners - However, except oneof the item in respect of Bill of entry, others which were alreadytime barred were to be re-exported and if authorities come acrossany material that imported substance cleared as an exempteditem was not used for declared purpose, it was open torespondents to proceed against petitioners in accordance with law- Appeals allowed.
Kingfisher Airlines vs M. L. Sudheen [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 27 Feb 2012]Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -Deficiency in service - Unfair trade Practice -Complainant purchased a package of air tickets for thesum of Rs.50,000/- which entitled him to 26 tickets fromOpposite Party (OP) - Complainant could not make useof any of those tickets because OP refused to allow him totravel on the routes opted by him and also despite manyrequests, did not refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- paidby him - Complaint filed against OP was allowed byDistrict Forum - State Commission dismissed OPsappeal thereafter
Contd… Hence, instant revision petition - Whether the order of State Commission was justified and sustainable - Held, if the District Forum erred and held OP guilty of unfair trade practice, the State Commission went a step ahead in the same unwarranted direction and, in addition to the award of the District Forum, imposed a punitive cost of Rs.10,000/- on OP - State Commission, instead of examining the evidence on record, went off at a tangent to base its conclusions on general perceptions of its own - Impugned order of the State Commission therefore, totally unsustainable and hence set aside - Revision partly allowed.
This case is related to Automobiles in general and Motorbikes And this was reported in Times of India or IndianExpress.The case pertains to a Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle where Vehicledealer had promised a mileage of 100 + kms Since thecustomer could not get thepromised mileage he approached the dealer and during thesubsequent checking of the defective vehicle even by companyservice engineers could not achieve the promised figurescustomer demanded compensation.Since they refused to entertain any claims for compensationthe customer had no other option than approaching theconsumer forum.The case was finally settled by the national commission infavor of customer by awarding replacement of vehicle andmonetary compensation along with court cost.
Genesis Immigration Private Limited vs Arun Williams [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 22 Feb 2012]Consumer Protection - Consumer protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency inservice - Unfair trade practice - Complainant planned to study inAustralia for which he required a visa for travel and admission into asuitable college in Australia - Complainants father met Opposite partyno. 2 (OP-2) in this behalf and also met Opposite party no. 1 (OP-1) on hisadvice - An offer letter for admission in college was obtained by Ops -Complainant deposited Rs.2,67,000/- in the account of OP-2 - OP-2 wasalso paid Rs.50,000/- for his services and had sought anotherRs.50,000/- after the visa was obtained - Eventually complainant couldnot leave for Australia as his visa application was not even submitted tothe High Commission of Australia - Nor did he Complainant could not getthe refund of the course fee and the service charge paid to the OP-2 -Having failed to secure either access to the course in college or refund ofthe monies paid, complainant filed consumer complaint - District Forumallowed the complaint - Aggrieved by the order, OPs preferred appeals,State Commission dismissed both appeals
Contd…Hence, instant revision petition - Whether StateCommission was justified in dismissing the appeals -Held, OP-1 admitted that OP-2 was known to OP-1 andboth were in the same business - Yet it was claimed thatOP-1 was asked by OP-2 to guide him and he hadrendered the necessary assistance to the complainant inthe matter - OP-1 called it complimentary assistance,without explaining why an agency in the business ofimmigration services, should be providing free assistanceto a person who came through a business associate (OP-2)- OP-1 also admitted in the written statement thatenrolment/admission of complainant to the course wasthrough him as the authorized agent of the college - Nosubstance was found in the argument of OP-1 that theirrole was limited to offering complimentary assistance -Impugned order of State Commission was upheld.
Mahima Real Estate Private Limited Through Dhiredra Madan Managing Director Vs Radheyshyam Sharma Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 s. 21 (b) - Sale - Refund of excess money paid - Petitioner agreed to sell Office with super built up area of 436 sq. ft. at Rs. 3,600/- per sq. ft. to respondent - Respondent paid 15%, of amount through cheque and financed Rs. 11,79,016/- from the bank and paid to petitioner - Petitioner allotted 327.40 sq. ft. built up area, whereas amount of Rs. 16,71,616/- was mentioned in the letter, this amount comes for 436 sq. ft. whereas only 327.40 sq. ft. area was allotted to the respondent - Price of allotted area comes to Rs. 11,78,640; a sum of Rs. 3,92,976/- was charged in excess from the respondent which he was entitled to recover with interest - Respondent filed complaint and prayed that excess amount be returned back to him and petitioner be directed to deliver possession of office to respondent as agreed - District Forum allowed the complaint - On appeal by petitioner, State Commission dismissed the same
Contd… Hence, instant revision petition - Whether the Commission below was justified in dismissing the appeal of petitioner - Held, defence taken by petitioner in instant petition was that, 327.40 sq. ft. was the carpet built up area whereas, super built up area was 436 sq. ft. and respondent had to pay the payment for 436 sq. ft., the super built up area - Respondent made payment for 436 sq. ft. area, therefore petitioner could not be allowed to state that 436 sq. ft. was the super built up area and not the carpet area - There was no illegality or material irregularity in instant case on the part of State Commission - Impugned order upheld - Petition dismissed.
Life Insurance Corporation of India VsSudesh [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 27 Feb 2012] Consumer Protection - Insurance - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Claim - Repudiation - Entitlement of - Respondents husband (deceased) obtained a policy for life of Rs.5 lakhs from appellant LIC of India - Deceased died 13 months later after taking the policy and the claim under the policy was repudiated by appellant on the ground that the deceased had withheld material information at the time of seeking the insurance cover - Respondent filed complaint, which was allowed by State Commission
Contd…Hence, instant appeal - Whether the State Commission wasjustified in allowing the complaint - Held, appellant reliedentirely on the record of treatment for repudiation of the claimunder a policy taken more than one year - Appellant could notpoint to any other evidence produced before the StateCommission, which could show that the deceased suffered fromany or all of those ailments at the time when the proposal forinsurance was made - Question of disentitlement under theinsurance policy, on the ground of concealment/suppression ofinformation, would have arisen in case only if there was evidenceto show that the insured had undergonehospitalization/treatment for any disease in near proximity of thetime when insurance policy was obtained and had chosen not todisclose it - Further, voluntary disclosure of information relatingto occasional drinking, as made in the proposal form by thedeceased, was not investigated further before appellant chose toissue the insurance policy in favour of the deceased - Impugnedorder of State Commission was upheld - Appeal dismissed.