Any person (firm, HUF, co-operative, association) who buys any goods or hires any service (fully or partly

paid for).

NOT goods or services obtained for resale or for any commercial purpose (except self-employment).
NOT any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

Two kinds of consumer under the Act

Consumer of goods [Sec 2(1)(d)-I] buys or agrees to buy goods any user of such goods with the consent of buyer Consumer of services [Sec 2(1)(d)-II]

hires or avails any services

any beneficiary of such service with the consent of availer

Amendments
Amendments in the year 1993
Amendments in the year 2002

Exclusive courts for consumer disputes in all districts, state and national capitals. 6 consumer rights specified. Consumer Protection Councils from national to state and district levels. Covers private, public, cooperative sectors.

Government of West Bengal's Infrastructure for Consumer Protection CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
(the only State Government having this)

State Consumer Protection Council District Consumer Protection Council

LEGAL METROLOGY DIRECTORATE

CONTROLLER JOINT CONTROLLER Deputy Controllers

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORA STATE COMMISSION DISTRICT FORA 17+2+2

CONSUMER AFFAIRS & FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES DIRECTORATE (unique in India)

DIRECTOR
JOINT & DEPUTY DIRECTOR

Assistant Controller of District

Assistant Director of District & some Subdivisions

Inspectors of Legal Metrology in Subdivisions

CONSUMER WELFARE OFFICER

1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

Right to SAFETY against hazardous goods and services Right to be INFORMED about quality, quantity, purity, standard, price Right to CHOOSE from a variety at competitive prices Right to BE HEARD Right to seek REDRESSAL Right to CONSUMER EDUCATION

Unfair trade practice

Restrictive trade practice

Defects
Deficiencies

Continued.

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICE

Adopting unfair methods to promote sale, use or supply of goods or services e.g. Misleading public about price.

Charging above MRP printed.

Misleading public about anothers goods or services. Offering misleading warranty or guarantee.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICE

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.

DEFECTS
Any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, 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.

 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.

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.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) Claim equal to Rs.1 crore.

NATIONAL COMMISSION

STATE COMMISSION

DISTRICT FORUM/DISTRICT COURT

Who can file a complaint [Sec 12(1)]:Consumer [Sec 2(1)(d)]

Consumer Association Central Government/State Government Group of Consumers having common complain

Where to file a complaint How to file a complaint

What constitutes a complaint

Procedure for filing the appeal

 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

Procedure followed by District Forum on admission of complaint :

Section 13(1): Procedure on admission of complaint if it relates to any goods which require Laboratory Testing. Section 13(2): Procedure on admission of complaint if it relates to any services which do not require Laboratory Testing

Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months if it requires analysis or testing of commodities.
Where during the pendency of any proceeding before the District Forum, it appears to it necessary, it may pass such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

Complainants (Petitioner):
1. 2. 3.

Opposite Parties (Respondents):

1. 2. 3.

Jagrut Nagrik, Gujarat Pradeep Kumar Thakur, Delhi Awaz

4.
5.

Judges:
1. 2. 3.

RBI, Mumbai HSBC Ltd, Mumbai American Express Bank Ltd, Gurgaon Citibank, Chennai Standard Chartered Bank Credit Card Division, New Delhi

Honble Mr. Justice M. B. Shah, President Honble Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member Honble Mr. Anupam Dasgupta, Member

Following complaints of a lot of consumers regarding hefty interest rates in case of credit card dues, the consumer protection organizations Jagrut nagrik and Awaz filed a case againt HSBC, CitiBank, American Express, Standard Chartered Bank and RBI contending that various commercial banks are indulging in unfair trade practice by charging usurious interest on the loans advanced by the Banks as well as on the amounts payable under credit cards. It is pointed out that: 1. On credit cards, the banks are charging interest roughly at the rate of 36% per annum 2. Banks are charging various financial charges, such as, late payment fee of Rs.200/- to Rs.500/- despite the decision of the Apex Court that penal interest cannot be capitalized and no interest can be charged on penalty 3. The banks are charging transaction fee of 2.5% for cash advance against credit card, ATM, etc. - this is over and above the interest at the rate of 2.95% per month on credit facility 4. Late fee of 30% of the minimum due is being charged up to Rs.500/per month, if the credit card bill is not paid by the due date

1.

The complainants have no legal standing to file this complaint. Complainants No.1 and 2 are not voluntary consumer organizations registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer fora have no jurisdiction to determine the fixing of rates of interest on credit cards by the banks contrary to the directives of the RBI under the statutory provisions. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not provide for interference by the National Commission in the functioning of the regulator (RBI). As long as the banks are functioning within the four corners of the statutory guidelines under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, there is no cause of action available to even assert a plea of unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service. The credit card operations are in the nature of high risk unsecured lending and hence there is justification of a higher rate of interest

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

Whether the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the RBI) is required to issue any circular or guidelines prohibiting the Banks / Non-Banking Financial Institutions / money lenders from charging interest above a specific rate?

2.

Whether banks can charge the credit card users interest at rates ranging from 36% to 49% per annum if there is any delay or default in payment within the time specified?

3.

Whether interest at the above-stated rates amounts to charging usurious rates of interest?

Under Section 2(1) (d) (ii), a voluntary consumer association can file a complaint under CPA.

At the outset, it is made clear that a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to curb unfair trade practice(s) adopted by the banks is maintainable. One of the objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is, the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods to protect the consumer against unfair trade practice. 2(1) (r) unfair trade practice" means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice

Thereafter, section 2(1)(o) reads as under:

2(1)(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service; The aforesaid sub-section would establish beyond doubt that if the service provided by the bank in connection with banking facilities is deficient, then it would be service as contemplated under the Act and any dispute pertaining to such service would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Hence, if there is any unfair trade practice on the part of banks, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be applicable and the banks can be directed, as provided under sec.14(1)(f), to discontinue such unfair trade practice and not to repeat them. Hence, to contend that a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the banks is not maintainable, is of no substance.

All these provisions read together would establish beyond doubt that the present complaint is maintainable, if unfair trade practice is adopted by the banks. Further, complainant no.1 is a registered public trust; complainant No.2 is a consumer organization; and complainant No.3 is a consumer. Therefore, the complaint filed by them for the alleged unfair trade practice of the banks is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Not only this, the word deficiency as defined would mean any shortcoming or inadequacy in the manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 requires that the RBI shall discharge certain functions in the public interest and the RBI does not discharge such functions, it would amount to unfair trade practice. But that question is not required to be dealt with finally in this matter.

Charging of interest at rates in excess of 30% p. a. from the credit card holders by banks for the formers failure to make full payment on the due date or paying the minimum amount due, is an unfair trade practice.
Penal interest can be charged only once for one period of default and shall not be capitalized.

Charging of interest with monthly rests is also an unfair trade practice.

Hence, the banks are directed not to indulge in the aforesaid unfair trade practices or repeat them.

CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs. SHIV KUMAR JOSHI

Shiv Kumar JoshiDefendant (inception 1988) Resident of Faridabad Eligible for ` 65,000 as Provident Fund Wrote more than 1000+ letter to CPFC Approached civil court at Faridabad for the amount ` 65,000 + 18% interest

Continued

Civil court judge guided him to go to consumer court for quick and economic justice He moved his petition & approached district forum at Faridabad DF under CPA acted immediately asking commissioner for the aforesaid amount + interest The case moved to the supreme court as the govt. of India took it as a prestige issue and only 1 appeal was allowed

Is Mr.Joshi a consumer under Sec. 2 (1) (d)? Are the services to CPF covered under Sec. 2 (1) (o)? If both the issues are found to be true ,then what should be the appropriate compensation?

1. (a) The job of maintaining such a record is not free of charge (b)There are many surplus amount lying with the government hence payable penalty (c) It is not a sovereign act as its not related to defending India anywhere 2. The dispute is not between an employer rather it is between the commissioner and Mr.Joshi 3. Adequate compensation comes out to be Principal amount 65,000 + 18% interest p.a. for 12 years = `

4,73,694

One of the biggest achievement of the amendment - The conferment of First Class Magistrates powers to the Consumer Forums or Commissions.
Main problem - the Gazette notification for the conferment of First Class Magistrates powers to the Consumer Forums or Commissions is still not issued - Practically impossible for the Forums or Commissions to exercise this power.

Sec. 24 (Finality of order) implies that non- preferment of appeal renders the order final. Thus, preferring an appeal means order is not final --> One gets a stay against the execution by preferring an appeal and thus cannot get the execution done. Can be misused to buy time --> The consumer cannot get the execution of the original order done. Justice still eludes the hapless consumer while the seller more often than not manages to get adjournment. This Section urgently calls for amendment substituting the words appeal preferred with the words "stay granted".

Sec.25: Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission:(1) Interim order - property of the person. (2) Sell off the property after 3 months (3) Issue of certificate to collect the amount from the Collector. Compensations are usually awarded under final order, not interim orders. Interim orders are seldom used to attach or seal the properties. More practical to replace the word interim order with all orders. Also, according to Sec. 25 (3), the consumers have to contact the Collector for recovery of their dues. Thus, the hapless consumers still have to undergo the rigor of going to the collector for the realization of the dues. Provisions should be made for the revenue department to send the amount to the Forum itself for reimbursement to the consumer.

THINGS WE MUST KNOW AS A CONSUMER

To safeguard their interest consumers must check:

In any packaged material, the MONTH & YEAR OF MANUFACTURE, NET QUANTITY or WEIGHT & M.R.P.
Check whether you are getting RIGHT GOODS AT THE RIGHT PRICE. Dont pay more than M.R.P. If imported, it must carry the NAME & ADDRESS OF IMPORTER WITH VALID REGISTRATION. ISI Logo for purchase of appliances, electrical goods etc.

Verify HALLMARK to ensure purchase of pure quality of gold. Verify FPO mark on packaged on packaged jam, jelly, sauce, pickles, fruit juice etc. & MFPO on Meat/Fish. Prefer Ecomark Logo on marked products. Verify Agmark on packets of spices, ghee,cooking oil etc Check date of expiry/ best before printed on the packet.

Take the official bill of the product from the shop which has the product name, price, date and signature/stamp of the shopkeeper. If the pricing label is missing from the product, then you can sue him for having removed the label for which too you require the bill. The State legal metrology department has started a new helpline for consumer complaints in Maharashtra having the following numbers: 022- 22023354, 022-22045706 Or you may hire a lawyer and approach the Local Consumer Court.

In the case of airports, multiplexes and malls the products are sold prices much higher than the MRP. The reasons cited are Airport taxes, Custom tax and every other tax under the sun. Well, the only tax that can be applied is the Service Tax which is not applicable at any shop or stall, wherever it may be located. Another example: A Bisleri bottle costing (say) Rs. 25 inside PVR, and the 'same' bottle costing Rs. 12 outside. The only remedy is to ask Excise Dept under RTI, if the Excise Duty is paid on the MRP of Rs. 25/- or continues to be paid @ Rs. 12/- per bottle. Another method is to challenge the prohibition of exit-entry during interval by Multiplexes on the pretext of security, which is wrong. In Mumbai, there is no order from the police for the same & it is a high handedness of the Multiplexes, so that they can loot the people by compelling them to buy at exorbitant prices.

For all those who think this is a waste of time let me cite a case which took place in New Delhi in July, 2006 where the customer was asked to pay Rs. 8 for a Coke bottle priced at Rs. 7. When told about the crime the local stall was performing, the shopkeeper misbehaved with the customer and shooed him away. The Customer lodged a complaint with the Delhi Consumer Court. The proprietor of the shop was asked to pay Rs, 5000 on account of overcharging, deficiency in service and for causing mental agony to the complainant. Besides he was also asked to pay the Court, the litigation fee of Rs. 500.

http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/employeepfact/s2.htm (Section 2(1)(o) and Section 2(1)(d) http://www.wikipedia.com http://www.legalserviceindia.com/laws/consumer_l aws.htm http://www.merinews.com/article/consumerrights-never-pay-above-the-mrp/125268.shtml

THANK YOU