The document discusses consumer protection laws in India. It provides an introduction to consumer protection, stating that these laws are designed to ensure consumer rights and fair competition. They aim to prevent businesses from engaging in fraud or unfair practices. Consumer protection laws require businesses to disclose detailed product information, especially regarding safety and health issues. They are linked to the concept of consumer rights and the formation of consumer organizations to help consumers make choices in the marketplace.

1. CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACT1956
Presented by:- Roll Num
P.Vinod Kumar 1131
Pawan Kumar PRESENTED BY:- 1132
Pooja Chaudhary 1133
Prachi Sharma 1134
Pradeep Singha 1135
Praveen kumar 1136
Punitha P. Reddy 1137
Rajkumar Shah 1138
Rajnish Deo 1139
Ramkrishna 1140

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. CONTINUED BY:-
VINOD

5. 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

6. Contd…
On appeal, National Commission partly allowed the appeal and
remanded back the matter to State Commission for reconsideration -
State Commission reconfirmed the earlier order and again dismissed
the complaint - Hence, instant appeal - Whether DOS policy did not
cover any loss due to deterioration of stock arising out of damage to
the set - Held, Opposite Party had categorically taken a position that
the DOS policy did not cover any loss due to deterioration of stock
arising out of damage to the generator set - 'Oil Engines/DG sets
were never endorsed in the DOS Policy as per procedure norms for
issuance of policy' - No evidence was placed on record by
complainant against alleged disconnection of power during that
period - Complainant did not produce any evidence before the State
Commission to show that the policy documents were not sent to him
or, if sent, were not delivered to him - Impugned order of State
Commission upheld - Appeal dismissed

7. CONTINUED BY:-
PAWAN

8. 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

9. 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.

10. CONTINUED BY:-
POOJA

11. 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
appellant's 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

12. 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.

13. CONTINUED BY:-
PRACHI

14. 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.”

15. CONTINUED BY:-
PRADEEP

16. (1) D. K. Enterprises; (2) Kawarlal and
Company Vs Commissioner of
Customs(Imports)
 [MADRAS HIGH COURT, 23 Feb 2012]
Health & Drug - Administrative - Drugs and Cosmetic
Rules, 1948, r. 43 - Import of Beverage Grade material - Not for
medicinal use - Licence - Validity - Petitioners were importing
Beverage Grade material not for medicinal use covered under
Pharma and drug use - Petitioners filed writ petition seeking for
quashing of the direction issued by drug authorities for the
production of Form 10 license of the Act, and to release the
goods without imposing any condition - Single Judge relying
upon report of Central Drug Laboratory had doubted about
labels affixed on the containers and found that an appropriate
investigation should be done and in the event of finding that
they were drugs to be used for human being, necessary licence in
particular form was to be obtained and directed respondents to
adjudicate the issue based on impugned notice issued

17. Contd…
Hence, instant appeals - Whether Single Judge was justified in
passing order - Held, u/r. 43 r/w sch. D of the Rules, petitioners
were entitled for exemptions and there was absolutely no
question of asking for licence in Form 10 and finding in that
regard, could not be accepted - Impugned orders in writ petitions
were set aside - Respondents were directed to release the said
goods to petitioners on the declared value, on verification of
proper compliance of r. 43 r/w sch. D of the Rules and label,
which had been affixed - Further, insofar as valuation of imported
goods were concerned, it was open to parties to move before
CESTAT, in which event, any condition that might be imposed by
Tribunal should be complied by petitioners - However, except one
of the item in respect of Bill of entry, others which were already
time barred were to be re-exported and if authorities come across
any material that imported substance cleared as an exempted
item was not used for declared purpose, it was open to
respondents to proceed against petitioners in accordance with law
- Appeals allowed.

18. CONTINUED BY:-
PRAVIN

19. 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 the
sum of Rs.50,000/- which entitled him to 26 tickets from
Opposite Party (OP) - Complainant could not make use
of any of those tickets because OP refused to allow him to
travel on the routes opted by him and also despite many
requests, did not refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid
by him - Complaint filed against OP was allowed by
District Forum - State Commission dismissed OP's
appeal thereafter

20. 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.

21. CONTINUED BY:-
PUNITHA

22. This case is related to Automobiles in general and Motor
bikes And this was reported in Times of India or Indian
Express.
The case pertains to a Bajaj CT 100 motorcycle where Vehicle
dealer had promised a mileage of 100 + kms Since the
customer could not get the
promised mileage he approached the dealer and during the
subsequent checking of the defective vehicle even by company
service engineers could not achieve the promised figures
customer demanded compensation.
Since they refused to entertain any claims for compensation
the customer had no other option than approaching the
consumer forum.
The case was finally settled by the national commission in
favor of customer by awarding replacement of vehicle and
monetary compensation along with court cost.

23. CONTINUED BY:-
RAJ

24. Genesis Immigration Private Limited vs
Arun Williams
 [NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 22
Feb 2012]
Consumer Protection - Consumer protection Act, 1986 - Deficiency in
service - Unfair trade practice - Complainant planned to study in
Australia for which he required a visa for travel and admission into a
suitable college in Australia - Complainant's father met Opposite party
no. 2 (OP-2) in this behalf and also met Opposite party no. 1 (OP-1) on his
advice - 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 was
also paid Rs.50,000/- for his services and had sought another
Rs.50,000/- after the visa was obtained - Eventually complainant could
not leave for Australia as his visa application was not even submitted to
the High Commission of Australia - Nor did he Complainant could not get
the 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 of
the monies paid, complainant filed consumer complaint - District Forum
allowed the complaint - Aggrieved by the order, OP's preferred appeals,
State Commission dismissed both appeals

25. Contd…
Hence, instant revision petition - Whether State
Commission was justified in dismissing the appeals -
Held, OP-1 admitted that OP-2 was known to OP-1 and
both were in the same business - Yet it was claimed that
OP-1 was asked by OP-2 to guide him and he had
rendered the necessary assistance to the complainant in
the matter - OP-1 called it 'complimentary assistance',
without explaining why an agency in the business of
immigration services, should be providing free assistance
to a person who came through a business associate (OP-2)
- OP-1 also admitted in the written statement that
enrolment/admission of complainant to the course was
through him as the authorized agent of the college - No
substance was found in the argument of OP-1 that their
role was limited to offering complimentary assistance -
Impugned order of State Commission was upheld.

26. CONTINUED BY:-
RAM

27. 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

28. 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.

29. CONTINUED BY:-
RAJNISH

30. Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs
Sudesh
 [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

31. Contd…
Hence, instant appeal - Whether the State Commission was
justified in allowing the complaint - Held, appellant relied
entirely on the record of treatment for repudiation of the claim
under a policy taken more than one year - Appellant could not
point to any other evidence produced before the State
Commission, which could show that the deceased suffered from
any or all of those ailments at the time when the proposal for
insurance was made - Question of disentitlement under the
insurance policy, on the ground of concealment/suppression of
information, would have arisen in case only if there was evidence
to show that the insured had undergone
hospitalization/treatment for any disease in near proximity of the
time when insurance policy was obtained and had chosen not to
disclose it - Further, voluntary disclosure of information relating
to occasional drinking, as made in the proposal form by the
deceased, was not investigated further before appellant chose to
issue the insurance policy in favour of the deceased - Impugned
order of State Commission was upheld - Appeal dismissed.