CONSUMER EDUCATION

McDonalds outlet in Bangalore fined for serving non-veg food on Veg order
An outlet of McDonalds in Bangalore, located near MS

Ramaiah College, has been slapped a fine of Rs 15,000

and shut down for a day and a half after it allegedly

served non-vegetarian food to a family that had ordered

vegetarian fare.

Consumer cases
The medical negligence have been fined for Rs. 1 Cr. , the lower part of patient gets paralyzed THE COMPANY WAS FINED RS. 1,00,000/- for foreign particle in a bottle of a soft drink A MAN USED A COIN-BOX PHONE AND THE CALL BECAME ONE-WAY i.e. His voice did not reach the other person. He tried calling thrice and every time, the same happened. ON COMPLAINING, HE GOT A COMPENSATION OF Rs 1250 AND HIS 3 RUPEE BACK.

Consumer Protection Act

The consumer protection Act 1986 seeks to provide for protection of the interests of the consumers in general. On 24 December 1986 Govt. of India Enacted the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to: Ensure Rights of Consumers Provide Remedies for deceived Consumers

WHO IS A CONSUMER?
Two kinds of consumer under the Act
Consumer of goods
buys or agrees to buy goods any user of such goods

Consumer of services
hires or avails any services any beneficiary of such service

1. Right to Consumer education 2. Right to SAFETY (Against hazardous goods and services) 3. Right to seek REDRESSAL 4. Right to CHOOSE ( from a variety at competitive prices)

5. Right to BE HEARD
6. Right to be INFORMED (About quality, quantity, purity, standard, price )

CONSUMERS NEED PROTECTION AGAINST

Unfair trade practice Restrictive trade practice Defects Deficiencies

CONSUMERS NEED PROTECTION AGAINST

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
Adopting unfair methods or deception to promote sale, use or supply of goods or services e.g. Misleading public about price (e.g. bargain price when it is not so). Charging above MRP printed. Misleading public about anothers goods or services. Falsely claiming a sponsorship, approval or affiliation. Offering misleading warranty or guarantee.

CONSUMERS NEED PROTECTION AGAINST

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE
Price fixing or output restraint re: delivery/flow of supplies to impose unjustified costs/restrictions on consumers.
Collusive tendering; market fixing territorially among competing suppliers, depriving consumers of free choice, fair competition. Supplying only to particular distributors or on condition of sale only within a territory. Delaying in supplying goods/services leading to rise in price. Requiring a consumer to buy/hire any goods or services as a pre-condition for buying/hiring other goods or services.

CONSUMERS NEED PROTECTION AGAINST

DEFECTS
Any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.

DEFICIENCY
Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

FORUM & JURISDICTION

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums (District Forum)
Claims less than or equal Rs.20 lacs.

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (State Commission)

Claim more than Rs.20 lacs & less than Rs.1 crore & appeals.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission)

Claim equal to Rs.1 crore & appeals

FILING OF COMPLAINTS
A complaint may be filed by a) b) c) The consumer to whom the goods are sold or services

are provided
Any recognized consumer association One or more consumers with same interest

d)

The central government or state government

12

Complaint
Any complainant can file a complaint alleging
any of the following consumer disputes
Defective Goods Deficiency in services Charging of excess price for goods or service

Offering of goods and services that are

hazardous to life and safety

ESSENTIAL INFORMATION IN THE APPLICATION Name and full address of complainant Name and full address of opposite party Description of goods and services

Quality and quantity

Price Date & proof of purchase Nature of deception Type of redressal prayed for

Sr. No. 1 2 3

Value of Goods / Service and Compensation Upto Rs. 1 lakh rupees Rs. 1 Lakh and above but less than Rs.5 lakhs Rs. 5 Lakhs and above but less than Rs. 10 lakhs

Amount of Fees Rs. 100 Rs. 200 Rs. 400

Rs. 10 lakhs and above but less than Rs. 20 lakhs Rs. 500

There is no fee for filing a complaint before the state commission or the national commission
15

Time limitation for filling Complaint

Consumer protection Act provides that the district forum, the state commission, or the national commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filled within TWO years from the date on which the cause of action

has arisen

BENEFITS & RELIEFS

Benefit
Disposal within 90 days

No adjournment shall ordinarily be granted - Speedy trial

Relief
Removal of defects in goods or deficiency in services Replacement of defective goods Refund against defective goods or deficient services Compensation Prohibition on sale of hazardous goods

Appeal at State Commission: Any person aggrieved by an order made by the district Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to state commission with in a period of 30 days from the date of order. Delay in filing appeal may be condoned if there is sufficient cause.
Appeal at National Commission: Any person aggrieved by an order made by the state commission in exercise of its power may prefer an appeal against such order to the national commission with in period of 30 days. Delay in filing appeal may be condoned if there is sufficient cause.
18

 Where a complaint instituted before the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, is found to be frivolous or vexatious, it shall, for reasons to

be recorded in writing, dismiss the complaint and make an

order that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party such Cost, not exceeding ten thousand rupees, as may specified in the order.

19

Where a trader or a person against whom a complaint is

made (or the complainant) fails or omits to comply with

any order person (or made by the District Forum, the State complainant) shall be punishable with Commission or the National Commission, such trader or imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.
20

PECUNIARY (Money) JURISDICTION

In Krishan Dass Chaurasia V. State Bank of India (1995): The total claim in a complaint did not exceed Rs. 1,00,000/-. It was held that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the State Commission and such a claim was rejected by the State Commission. The Complainant could seek the remedy from the District Forum. Therefore, jurisdiction, which is vested in a district Forum cannot be created for State Commission by merely exaggeration of a claim. 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 to the State Commission for presentation in proper District Forum with necessary correction.
21

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION In J. K. Synthethetics Vs. Smt. Anita Bhargava (1993) the registered office of the Opposite Party was situated at Kanpur. Payment was made through Bank in Delhi. The complaint filed in Calcutta was held to be outside the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum. The Order passed by the Calcutta District Forum was set aside in Appeal

22

AFFIDAVITS PERMITTED TO DETERMINE DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE AS WELL AS DAMAGES

The Consumer Protection Act contemplates speedy disposal of complaints, which are required to be disposed off within 90 days of service of notice to Opposite Party. The Consumer Protection Act, therefore, does not contemplate regular trial as is usually done in civil suits. In Prem Prakash Mehra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1995) it has been held that the parties can be called upon to lead evidence on affidavits not only on question of deficiency in service but also on subject of determination of damages. This in consonance with the objective of the Consumer Protection Act, for speedy disposal of cases.
23

NON-SPEAKING ORDER CAN BE SET ASIDE

In S.D.O. Telephone Vs. Rama Shankar Pandey (1997) the District Forum, Handoi, allowed the complaint and directed that the telephone bills of the complainant be revised on the basis of average consumption and awarded Rs. 200/- compensation to the complainant. No reasons were given for such order The State Commission held that the order of the District Forum should be a speaking one. It should give, however briefly, the essential facts and material, considered by it as well as the reasons for the conclusion. Else the order becomes arbitrary in the eyes of law The order of the District Forum was set aside and the case was sent back to the District forum for re-consideration in accordance with law after notice to the parties

24

REMAND WHEN ORDER SIGNED BY PRESIDENT ONLY

In S. Ravisankar Vs. Aslo Steel Ltd., the order of the District forum was signed only by the President of the Forum. No other member had signed it. Section 14 requires that every order shall be

conducted/signed by the President and at least one

member. The present order was held to be invalid, and the matter was remanded to the District Forum.

25

PRESIDENT SITTING SINGLY

It has been held by the National Commission that the orders passed by the President of the State Commission sitting singly without the junction of any other member is

contrary to Section 14(2) of the Consumer Protection Act,

1986. Such an order is invalid (Raj kumar Mangla Vs. R.S. Singh (1995)

26

PRESIDENT SITTING SINGLY

In Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Avtar Krishan Ambedkar (1998) the revision petition was filed against the order of the President of the District Forum, Gurgaon dated 11.7. 1997, which was passed by the President sitting singly, i.e. without associating any of the two companion members. It was held that Section 14(2) requires that all proceedings shall be conducted by the President of District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together. It was held that the President sitting singly was acting without jurisdiction. The said order was set aside and the case was referred back to the District Forum for fresh decision in accordance with law.
27

PREGNANCY NO GROUND FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

In Registrar, University of Pune Vs. Mrs. Puja Pravin Wagh (1999) the complainant filed a complaint 3 1/2 months after the expiry of the limitation period of 2 years against the University of Pune for the wrong declaration of result. The reason for delay in filing the complaint given by the complainant was her pregnancy. The District Forum condoned the delay and awarded compensation of Rs. 2,5000/- to the complainant. On appeal it was held that the fact of pregnancy was no justification for the delay. The complaint being time barred the order of the District Forum was set aside.

28

DAMAGES
In Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital (2000) it has been held by the Supreme Court that while quantifying damages, Consumer Forums are required to make an attempt to serve the ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation.
29

DAMAGES
In Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yahama Ltd. AIR 2000 the Supreme Court has held that Consumer Forums have jurisdiction to entertain complaints against carriers regarding loss of or damage to goods entrusted to carrier for transportation. In Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi (2000) the Supreme Court has held that an employee, who is a member of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, is a consumer and duties performed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under such scheme is service and thus, in case of delay in release of provident fund, complaint for deficiency in service, is maintainable.
30

THANK YOU