This document provides a summary of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 in India including its objectives, who qualifies as a consumer, consumer rights, and the redressal process. It establishes three levels of consumer courts - district forums, state commissions, and a national commission. It also presents two case studies as examples. The first case study describes a dispute between Thomas Cook India and customers over deficient visa services that impacted their travel plans. The second case study awarded compensation to an individual and family after the death of their wife/mother due to lack of safety measures at an army-run boat club.

1. CASE STUDY ON
CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT
By – Saloni Bansal, M.A in Tourism Administration
Submitted to – Prof. Sankar Kumar Mukherjee,
TTA740 Global Ethics & Tourism Business

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
TO CPA
01
REDRESSAL
AGENCY
04
OBJECTIVE
OF CPA
02
CASE STUDY
1
05
RIGHTS OF
CONSUMER
03
CASE STUDY
2
06

3. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986
1. In order to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumer the Consumer
Protection Bill, .1986 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 5th December, 1986.
2. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 is a social welfare legislation which was enacted as a
result of widespread consumer protection movement.
OBJECTIVES OF CPA
1. The main objective of CPA is to provide speedy and simple redressal to
consumer disputes.
2. It is one of the benevolent pieces of legislation intended to protect the
consumers at large from exploitation

4. WHO IS A CONSUMER?
Sec. 2 (1) (d) Any person who :
• Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or will be paid.
• Hires or avails any service for a consideration which has been paid or will be paid.
• It does not include a person who obtains goods for resale or any commercial purpose
RIGHTS OF CONSUMER
1. Right to Safety
2. Right to Consumer Education
3. Right to be Informed
4. Rights of Consumer
5. Right to Redressal Right to be Heard

5. REDRESSAL AGENCY
DISTRICT
FORUM
-It shall consist of a person who is
or has been or is qualified to be a
District Judge as its President,2 other
members, one of whom shall be a
woman.
-Every member of the District Forum
shall hold office for a term of 5
years or up to the age of 65 years
which ever is earlier.
-It shall have jurisdiction to entertain
complaints where the value of the
goods or services and the
compensation, if any, claimed does
not exceed Rs.20 Lacs..
STATE
COMMISSION
-It is established by SG by
notification.
-It shall have jurisdiction to
entertain complaints where the
value of the goods or services and
compensation, if any, claimed
exceeds Rs. 20 Lacs but does not
exceed Rs.1 Crore and appeals
against the orders of any District
Forum within the State.
NATIONAL
COMMISSION
-It shall consist of a person who is or has
been a Judge of the Supreme Court, as its
President. Not less than 4 and not more
than such number of members as may be
prescribed and one of whom shall be a
woman.
-Every member of the National commission
shall hold office for a term of 5 years or up
to the age of 70 years which ever is earlier.
-It shall have jurisdiction to entertain
complaints where the value of the goods or
services and compensation, if any, the claim
exceeds Rs. 1 Crore and appeals against the
orders of any State Commission.

6. CASE STUDY 1
05

7. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Thomas Cook India Ltd. Vs. Sh. R.K. Jain & Ors. on
12 July, 2013
1 Sh. R.k.Jain S/o Sh. M.R.Jain
2. Mrs. Sarita Jain W/o Sh. R.K.Jain
3. Sh.Ankur Jain S/o Sh.R.K.Jain (All r/o D-375, Anand Vihar, Delhi-110092)
4. Sh. Anil Gupta Travel Agent, Thomas Cook India Ltd.
C-33, Ist Floor, Inner Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Respondents CORAM :
S.A.Siddiqui - Member (Judicial) S.C.Jain – Member
● 08.09.2011 directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for
harassment, metal agony alongwith Rs. 75,000/- for providing deficient services specially on
account of not guiding the complainant properly in applying visa in time for Sh. Akash Jain
and also awarded Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.

8. ● the respondent-2 and respondent-3 decided to visit UK along with other places/countries and as
they had thought of visiting the foreign countries for the first time and as they were not the
frequent flyers, they decided to engage a dependent tour operator and they approached a branch
of Thomas Cook India Ltd. at Connaught Place, New Delhi. And there they came in contact with Sh.
Rakesh Bawa Branch Manager of the Company.
● On assurances given by the appellant, the respondent/complainant booked in one of the tour of
the appellant/OP to Europe i.e. European Extravaganza for the duration 13.06.2008 to 27.06.2008
and paid an initial amount of Rs. 45,000/- vide cheque bearing no. 065225 dt. 24.01.2008 in favour
of M/s Thomas Cook India Ltd.
● The appellant/OP assured the respondents/complainants that there would not be any problem in
materialising the said schedule/plan. The respondents/complainants completed all the necessary
formalities and handed over all the documents/papers etc.
● The respondents/complainants had stated that they had always gone by the advice of the
appellant/OP step by step only for the purpose of their convenience in fulfilling all the necessary
requirements for the said trip.

9. ● The respondents/complainants further stated in their complaint that inspite of all the assurances the
appellant/OP did not apply for the visa of their son in London well in time i.e. until the end of April,
2008 and by that time it has been too late for Sh. Aakash Jain to apply for Schengen Visa .
● The appellant/OP had booked the tour of the respondent/complainant from 13.06.2008 to 27.06.2008
so that they may be joined by Sh. Aakash Jain in London and can attending convocation ceremony
which was scheduled for 28.06.2008 and after that on 29.06.2008 the respondents/complainants
alongwith Sh. Aakash Jain had to come India via Dubai on 01.07.2008, the dates were clashing with
Sh. Aakash Jains convocation ceremony which they could not afford to miss at any cost.
● The respondent/complainant due to re-scheduling of the trip had to miss considerable five days out
of 17 days trip and had to spend additional money on staying at Cambridge without any purpose
which cost them around 2,000 Pounds.
● The company will not be responsible for none issuance of visa due to receipt of incomplete/delayed
document from the client. It is a possibility that the consulate may ask the passenger to appear for a
personal interview. This is at the sole discretion of the consultate/authorities.

10. JUDGEMENT
● Accordingly the District Forum, New Delhi had rightly allowed the complaint of the
complainant and we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the District
Forum, New Delhi and the order does not call for any interference.
● Judgment goes against the appellant themselves because the above discussion clearly
shows that the appellant had committed deficiency in service and even provided
inadequate and substandard services as were promised, due to which the
respondents/complainants had to suffer grave harassment, trauma along with financial
loses.

11. CASE STUDY 2
06

12. National Redressal Commission
Wg. Cdr. P. S. Sandhu and Ors Vs. Union of India on
15 March, 1998, New Delhi
● In case of Wg. Crd. P. S. Sandhu and Ors Vs. Union of India, by awarding a compensation of
Rs. 3 lakhs to Wg. Crd Sandhu and Rs. 2 .4 Lakhs each to his two children for the death of
Mrs. Sandhu in a boat tragedy.
● The National Commission made it clear that those who pay scant attention to safety will be
held liable for any losses or suffering caused as a consequence of such negligence.
● In this case, the Court held the Army Authorities who ran the Boat Club at Barapani Lake near
Shillong, guilty of negligence for not providing life jackets or any other safety measures.

13. THANK YOU
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?