LAW OF TORTS

CONSUMER RIGHTS
 Page | 1

Acknowledgement

I would like to take this opportunity to thank

every one who put forth their time and efforts to

help me to develop this project. This project took a

long time from the collection of information to the

compilation.

This project could not have been written

without the guidance of Prof. Jaimala who not only

served as our supervisor but also encouraged us to

make this project report.

 Page | 2

Table Of Contents

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Table of Cases 3

2. Introduction 4

3. Consumer Rights 5

4. Right To Safety 5

5. Right To Information 6
 Page | 3

6. Right To Choose 7

7. Right To Heard 7

8. Right To Seek Redressal 8

9. Right To Consumer Education 8

10. Case Study 9

11. Conclusion 13

12. Bibliography 14

Table Of Cases

Airport Authority of India v. Arun Kumar

Bhupinder Singh v. Air India

Dist. Engineer Telecom, Srinagar v. Dr. Tej Narain

Dr. Shiv Kumar Gautam v. Alima B.

 Page | 4

Harjot Ahluwalia v. Spring Meadows Hospital

Haryana S.E.B. v. T.R. Poultry Farm

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam v. Vinod Karkare

Shri Shivaji Pandurang Raut v. Commissionerate of

Income Tax

Introduction

According to section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act

1986 CONSUMER means any person who is :
 Page | 5

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid
or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any
system of deferred payment and includes any user of such
goods other than the person who buys such goods for
consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly
promised, or under any system of deferred payment when
such use is made with the approval of such person, but does
not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for
any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which

has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised,
or under any system of deferred payment and includes any
beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires
or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or
partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of
deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the
approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a
person who avails of such services for any commercial
purposes1

India has been observing 15 March since 1989 as the

National Consumers Day. This day has a historic importance as
it was on this day in 1962, when the Bill for Consumer Rights
was moved in the US Congress. During his speech President
John F. Kennedy had remarked If a consumer is offered inferior
products, if prices are exorbitant, if drugs are unsafe or
worthless, if the consumer is unable to choose on an informed
basis, then his dollar is wasted, his health and safety may be
threatened, and national interest suffers.

Consumer Rights

1 Consumer Protection Act, 1986, section 2(d)

 Page | 6

Consumer rights were recognized broadly in many

ancient Hindu, Islamic and Christian religious scriptures;
however, no literary work formalized them into a concise set
until the 1960s. Consumer rights in India and the modern world
owe their origin to the consumer revolution of the pre-60s in
the United States of America.

On March 15, 1962, US President John F Kennedy made a

historical speech about consumer rights as he introduced 'The
Consumer Bill of Rights' in the US Congress. Ever since,
countries all over the world have celebrated March 15 as the
Consumers Day. However, in India December 24 is celebrated
as the National Consumer Day since the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 was enacted on this day by the Indian Parliament.

Kennedy strongly believed that it is vital to United States

National Interest to ensure the welfare of the consumers, as it
is the consumer who fundamentally drives the economy. He
formulated four rights for consumers, namely the right to
safety, right to choose, right to information and right to be
heard which, in 1985, was accepted by the United Nations
(UN). The UN added to this list the right to basic needs, right to
representation, right to consumer education, and right to
healthy environment.

In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of India, the

following six consumer rights have been recognized.

Right to Safety

As stated in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, this

consumer right is defined as the right to be protected against
marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life
and property. Specifically significant in areas such as
healthcare, food processing and pharmaceuticals, this right
spans across any domain that could have a serious impact on
the consumers health or well being such as Automobiles,
Travel, Domestic Appliances, Housing etc. Violation of this right
 Page | 7

is almost always the cause of medical malpractice lawsuits in

India. Every year, it is estimated that thousands, if not, millions
of Indian citizens are killed or severely hurt by unscrupulous
practices by hospitals, doctors, pharmacies and the automobile
industry. Yet the Indian government, renowned for its
callousness, fails to acknowledge this fact or to make a feeble
attempt at maintaining statistics of these mishaps. Indian
government is required to have world class product testing
facilities to test drugs, cars, food, and any other consumable
that could potentially be life threatening. It is not a coincidence
that Tata Nano sells in India for half of what it would cost in an
industrially developed country; this being a classic case of
need for a cheap product outweighing the need for safety of
self and family. In developed countries such as the United
States, stalwart agencies oversee the safety of consumer
products; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food and
drugs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) for automobiles and the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) for all other consumer products, just to
name a few. This right requires each product that could
potentially endanger our lives to be marketed only after
sufficient and complete independent verification and
validation. With respect to empowering this right completely
and adequately, India is about 50 years away.

Right to Information

This consumer right is defined as the the right to be

informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard
and price of goods or services, as the case may be so as to
protect the consumer against unfair trade practices in the
Consumer Protection Act of 1986. In the Indian market place,
consumers get consumer information through two popular, yet
unreliable means, namely advertising and word of mouth. Due
to this, the consumers in India seldom have accurate and
complete information to assess the true value, suitability,
safety or reliability of any product. Mostly we find out hidden
costs, lack of suitability, safety hazards and quality problems
 Page | 8

only after we have purchased the product. Another right again

trumpeted by our government on paper, this right should
ideally ensure that all consumable products are labeled in a
standard manner which contains the cost, the ingredients,
quantity, and instructions on how to safely consume the
product. Unfortunately, even the medicines in India do not
follow a standard labeling convention. Unit price publishing
standards need to be established for consumer market places
where costs are shown in standard units such as per kilogram,
or per liter. We, as consumers, should be informed in a precise
yet accurate manner of the costs involved when availing a
loan. For benefit to the society from this right, advertisers
should be held against the product standards in the
advertisements, pharmaceuticals need to disclose potential
side effects about their drugs, and manufacturers should be
required to publish reports from independent product testing
laboratories regarding the comparison of the quality of their
products with competitive products, just to name a few.

Right to Choose

Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines this right as the

right to be assured, wherever possible, to have access to a
variety of goods and services at competitive prices.
Competition, invariably, is the best regulator of a market place.
Existence of oligopolies, cartels and monopolies are
counterproductive to consumerism. How often have you
noticed a conglomerate of companies that lobby the
government to compromise consumer rights? Our natural
resources, telecommunications, liquor industry, airlines have
all been controlled by a mafia at some point. Coming from a
socialistic background, tolerance of monopolistic market forces
are ingrained in the blood of Indian Consumers. It is not very
often we can say we are going to switch the power company,
when we have a blackout at home! Interestingly, even micro
markets such as the fish vendors in particular cities have
known to collude to drain the bargaining power of the
consumers. In any size, any form, or any span, collusion of
 Page | 9

companies selling a similar type of product is unethical, less

illegal. We estimate that India has about 20 years more of
stride to empower our citizens fully in this right.

Right to Heard

According to the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the right

to be heard and to be assured that consumer's interests will
receive due consideration at appropriate forums is referred to
as the right to be heard. This right is supposed to empower
Indian consumers to fearlessly voice their complaints and
concerns against products and companies to ensure their
issues are handled efficiently and expeditiously. However, to
date the Government of India has not created a single outlet
for the consumers to be heard or their opinions to be voiced.

Right to Seek Redressal

The right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices

or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of
consumers is defined as the right to redressal in the Consumer
Protection Act 1986. The Indian Government has been slightly
more successful with respect to this right. Consumer courts
such as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums at the
district level, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have
been established through the consumer protection act. Each of
these consumer grievance redressal agencies has fiduciary and
geographical jurisdictions to address consumer cases between
consumers and businesses. Consumer cases less than 20 lakhs
are heard in the district consumer forum, between 20 lakhs
and one crore are heard in the state consumer court and cases
more than one crore are heard in the national consumer court.
On paper these sound nice; but hold on before you rejoice.
Once started as the guardians of consumer protection and
consumer rights in India, these courts have today been
rendered ineffective due to bureaucratic sabotages,
callousness of the government, clogged cases and decadent
 P a g e | 10

infrastructure. Very few of the district forums have officials

appointed in a timely manner, and most of them are non-
operational due to lack of funding and infrastructure. Estimates
put the open legal cases in India at 20-30 million, which will
approximately take 320 years to close. With the legal system in
this manner compromised, consumer cases that form mere
civil litigations will be pushed down the bottom of the priority
list. We estimate that India is 10 years behind in effectively
ensuring this right to every Indian consumer.

Right To Consumer Education

The right of each Indian citizen to be educated on

matters related to consumer protection and about his/her
rights is the last right given by the Consumer Protection Act
1986. This right simply ensures that the consumers in India
have access to informational programs and materials that
would enable them to make better purchasing decisions.
Consumer education may mean both formal education through
school and college curriculums and also consumer awareness
campaigns run by both governmental and non governmental
agencies (NGO). Consumer NGOs, with little support from the
Indian government, primarily undertake the ardent task of
ensuring this consumer right around the country. India is 20
years away from ensuring this right empowers the common
citizen consumer.

Case Study

Above discussed rights can be explained with the help of

few cases based on Consumer Rights under Consumer
Protection Act 1986.

Dr. Shiv Kumar Gautam V. Alima B.2

Alima Jafar from Madhya Pradesh went to the District

Forum with a complaint that her husband was admitted as an
2 2001 (1) cpc 144 N.C.
 P a g e | 11

indoor patient in the clinic of Dr. Shiv Kumar Gautam on

04.06.1992. She submitted that her husband was given
allopathic medicine (Glucose Pextrone) drip and was
administered some injections. As a result, her husbands
condition started deteriorating. Alima and her brother-in-law
forcibly took him to a Government hospital on 06.06.1992 at
around 4 pm where he died after an hour. An Autopsy was
done and the post- mortem report could not give any clear
reason for the death. Alima had the necessary evidence to
establish that Dr. Shiv Kumar Gautam administered allopathic
treatment whereas he is a Homoeopathic doctor and not
qualified to give allopathic treatment. Dr. Gautam also
admitted that the deceased was having swelling in the
stomach and pain in the legs, rashes on the lips and fever for
the last 5 to 6 days. He stated that after diagnosis, he had a
suspicion that the deceased was suffering from Septicemia.
The doctor produced some internship certificates issued by the
District Hospital that he is entitled to administer allopathic
treatment. The District Forum observed that the certificate
was issued on 15.9.1992 whereas the case was filed on
8.8.92. Hence, Dr. Shiv Kumar Gautam cannot take support of
the said certificate for administering allopathic treatment. The
District Forum awarded Rs. 62,600/- to Alima B. in respect to
this case. Moreover The National Commission dismissed the
revision petition no. 586 of 1999 filed by Dr. Shiv Kumar
Gautam against the decision of District Forum and State
Commission.

Shri Shivaji Pandurang Raut v. Commissionerate Of

Income Tax3
The CPIO mentioned that the appellant had sought
information relating to the details of assessed and paid taxes
by the people in Satara district. The CPIO mentioned that the
information sought was denied u/s. 8(1)(d) of the Act. The
3 511/IC(A)/2007
 P a g e | 12

appellant has pleaded that the denial of information is illegal

and the penalty should be imposed on the PIO for inordinate
delay in response.

Commission's Decision :

The denial of information relating to collection of taxes is

not justified. The CPIO is therefore directed to furnish the
information sought by the appellant without disclosing the
identities of individual tax payers. The information sought
should be furnished within fifteen working days from the date
of issue of this decision. The CPIO explained the reasons for
delay in his office response to RTI application for the
information and assured the Commission that such delays
would not occur in future. Plea for imposition of penalty by the
appellant is therefore rejected.

Airport Authority of India v. Arun Kumar4

In this the complainant parked his car at the parking lot
managed by the licensee of the parking lot. A token receipt
was given to the complainant and a fee of Rs. 5/- was charged
from him. The car was lost. There was held to be bailment of
the car in this case and the person managing the parking area
was held liable to make god the loss.

The Airport Authority of India had given the license of

parking to the licensee. The Airport Authority was not liable for
the loss of the car.

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam v. Vinod Karkare 5

In this it has been held that if a telephone complaint
remains unattended for over six months, that amounts to

4 I(1997) CPJ 247 (Delhi S.C.D.R.C.)

5 II (1991) CPJ 635

 P a g e | 13

deficiency in service. In such a situation, the telephone

department has been held liable to pay compensation of Rs.
6600 for the same and also to give rebate in the telephone
charges. In this case, the claim was allowed in favor of the user
of the telephone although he was not the subscriber of the
telephone. It was further held that the remedy under the
Consumer Protection Act for negligence of the Telephone
Authorities was not under section 9 of the Indian Telegraph Act.

Dist. Engineer Telecom., Sriganganagar v. Dr. Tej

Narain6
In this the dues of the telephone bill had been deposited
by the complainant after the due date, 22 days after this
deposit the telephone was disconnected without even
reminding the complainant on phone. The phone remained
disconnected for 15 days.

The disconnection was held to be due to the negligence

of the O.P. and the same amounted to deficiency in service.

The District Forum awarded Rs. 800/- as economic loss

and Rs. 2000/- as compensation for mental distress, agony and
loss of reputation.

Bhupinder Singh v. Air India7

In this the complainant got a confirmed ticket from the
O.P. for 3-4-1993 from Delhi to Toronto in Canada. Due to the
strike by the employees of the O.P., i.e., Air India, the flight did
not take off on that day. The complainant thereafter was
booked for another flight scheduled for 15-4-1993, but by that

6 III (1995) C.P.J. 225

7 I (1996) C.P.J. 344 (M.P. S.C.D.R.C.)

 P a g e | 14

time the fares had increased and the complainant was required
to pay excess fare charged from him.

It was held that charging excess fare in this case

amounted to deficiency in service and the complainant was
held entitled to the refund of excess fare charged from him.

Haryana S.E.B. v. T.R. Poultry Farm8

In this the complainant was having an electricity
connection for his poultry farm. An electric transformer got
burnt, the same was not replaced for 25 days, whereby the
electric supply to the poultry farm got disrupted. 3080 pets
died as a result thereof. The O.P. demanded Rs. 12560 from the
complainant without justification, which was paid under
protest. The State Commission ordered the refund of Rs. 12560
and allowed compensation of Rs. 75000/- to the complainant
for loss of pets. The decision of the State Commission was
upheld by the National Commission and a cost of Rs. 2000/-
was awarded by the National Commission to the respondent.

Harjot Ahluwalia v. Spring Meadows Hospital9

In this Harjot Ahluwalia, the complainant, a minor, the
only child of his parents, who had high fever was brought to
the Spring Meadows Hospital, East of Kailash, New Delhi. He
was administered certain medicines, and intravenous
chloroquine injection by an unqualified nurse without prior test.
Immediately thereafter, the child collapsed and suffered
cardiac arrest. No oxygen was given as gas cylinder was no
8 II (1996) C.P.J. 15 (N.C.)

9 II (1997) C.P.J. 98 (N.C.)

 P a g e | 15

available. The child suffered irreparable brain damage,

rendering the child into a vegetable state for the rest of his
life. The National Commission held that there was deficiency in
service on the part of the O.P. It awarded compensation of Rs.
12.5 lacs to the minor child, Harjot Ahluwalia and Rs. 5 lacs to
his parents.

Conclusion
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the Act), is
a benevolent social legislation that lays down the rights of the
consumers and provides their for promotion and protection of
the rights of the consumers. By spelling out the rights and
remedies of the consumers in a market so far dominated by
organized manufacturers and traders of goods and providers of
various types of services, the Act makes the dictum, caveat
emptor (buyer beware) a thing of the past. The Act mandates
establishment of Consumer Protection Councils at the Centre
as well as in each State and District, with a view to promoting
consumer awareness.

The Central Council is headed by Minster, In-charge of

the Department of Consumer Affairs in the Central Government
and the State Councils by the Minister In-charge of the
Consumer Affairs in the State Governments. It also provides for
a 3-tier structure of the National and State Commissions and
District Forums for speedy resolution of consumer disputes. To
provide inexpensive, speedy and summary redressal of
consumer disputes, quasi-judicial bodies have been set up in
each District and State and at the National level, called the
District Forums, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commissions and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission respectively. At present, there are 629 District
Forums and 35 State Commissions with the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) at the apex.
 P a g e | 16

Bibliography

1. Bangia R.K., Law of Torts, 22nd ed., Allahabad Law

Agency, Faridabad, 2011.
2. Jangra V.K., Consumer Protection Cases Digest,
Chandigarh, 2009.
3. www.consumerdaddy.com
4. www.ndrdc.com
5. www.ejurix.com