2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02
-
Upload
sunil-gupta -
Category
Business
-
view
356 -
download
0
Transcript of 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02
![Page 1: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: CASES
Reeturaj Borgohain (168)
![Page 2: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
HISTORY: 1962-2011
CONSUMERS: Who are they and what are their rights
WHERE AND HOW TO COMPLAINT ?
Benefits and reliefs
CASES
OUR AGENDA
![Page 3: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
1970 19801960
KENNEDY'S BILL OF CONSUMER RIGHTS15 March 1962
On 24 December 1986 Govt. of India Enacted the Consumer Protection Act 1986
![Page 5: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
2000 20101990
Amendments in the year 1993
Amendments in the year 2002
![Page 6: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CONSUMERS
![Page 7: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Consumer of goods
Consumer of services
![Page 8: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
if it is used for commercial purpose
If it is free of cost
If it is used for resale
Even a person buys a good or a service he is not a consumer
![Page 9: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Unfair trade practice
Restrictive trade practice
Defects
Deficiencies
Consumerprotection
![Page 10: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• Misleading public about price and Charging above MRP printed
1• Misleading public about
another’s goods or services.2• Falsely claiming a sponsorship,
approval or affiliation.3• Offering misleading warranty
or guarantee4
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE
![Page 11: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• Price fixing or output restraint 1
• Collusive tendering2• Delaying in supplying
goods/services leading to rise in price
3• Supplying only to particular
distributors.4
RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE
![Page 12: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
DEFECTS
![Page 13: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
DEFICIENCY
![Page 14: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
www.themegallery.com
Right to SAFETY against hazardous goods and services
Right to be HEARD
Right to CHOOSE from a variety at competitive prices
1 2 3 4
CONSUMER RIGHTS
Right to be INFORMED about quality, quantity, purity, standard, price
![Page 15: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Right to SEEK REDRESSAL
Right to CONSUMER EDUCATION
5 6
CONSUMER RIGHTS
![Page 16: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums (District Forum)
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commissions (State
Commission)
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (National
Commission)
Where to complaint ?
![Page 17: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
The consumer
Recognized
consumer associatio
n
A group of consumers
having same
interest
The central
and state governme
nt
A complaint may be filed by
![Page 18: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
BENEFITS AND RELIEFS
![Page 19: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
REMOVAL OF DEFEC
TS
REPLACEMEN
T OF GOOD
S
RETURN THE
PRICE
PAY COMPENSAT
ION
DISCONTINUE OF UNFAI
R TRADE PRACTICES
![Page 20: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
cases
![Page 21: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
PECUNIARY 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.
![Page 22: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
PECUNIARY JURISDICTION
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 but the State Commission for presentation in proper District Forum with necessary correction.
![Page 23: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Union of India Vs. Ramswaroop Chandil (1998)
• Respondent had a circular ticket in his possession during journey which was locked in his box. He was not allowed to break open the lock and produce the ticket and was forced to pay excess charge for four persons. The District Forum awarded compensation in his favour for refund of fare and excess charge and for inconvenience, humiliation and Advocates fee, etc.
![Page 24: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
APPEAL
• In appeal by the Railway Authorities it was pleaded that the complainant had not produced any witness to support his claim. Dismissing the appeal it was held that he had narrated his case in the affidavit and the same was not rebutted by the Opposite party.
![Page 25: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Charan Singh Vs. Healing Touch Hospital (2000)
• according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch Hospital for treatment . The hospital operated him twice but the situation worsened with paralyzing his right half part of the body and missing his left kidney without his consent. He also lost his job due to health reasons caused by the hospital
![Page 26: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The appeal
• He complaint to the national consumer court for 34 lakh compensation but the court rejected the case saying the compensation asked is exaggerated.
• After appealing in the supreme court, the court asked the consumer court to accept the appeal as the job compensation should not be the only criteria for compensation
![Page 27: 2lawnov2011 120727092036-phpapp02](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022070314/554c4343b4c9056b648b50b1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
THANK YOU