Note On Consumer Protection Act
Note On Consumer Protection Act
Note On Consumer Protection Act
When I open a bank account, take an insurance policy, get my car repaired, I
could be the consumer of services.
The consumer protection Act, 1986 tries to help a consumer when for
example, the goods purchased are defective or the services rendered to him
are subject to so deficiency.
Prior to the consumer Protection Act, 1986 for any consumer complaint one
had to go to an ordinary Civil Court. He had to engage a lawyer, pay the
necessary fee, and be harassed for years or decades before any outcome,
positive or negative, was there in that litigation.
Under the Consumer Protection Act, no Court fee has to be paid and the
decision on the complaint is much quicker, as the Court can evolve a
summary procedure in disposing off the complaint.
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.
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.
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.
It was held that the evidence by affidavit was legal and sufficient to support
the complainant’s case.
In Prem Prakash Mehra Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (1995) it has
been held that the parties can be called upon tom 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.