Consumer Law

Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Any individual who buys any goods or avails any services in exchange of some money is called to be a consumer. An individual who uses such goods or avails services with the approval of the purchaser is also falls under the category of consumer. It might be relevant to note here that the purchaser of goods with deferred payment can also be treated as a consumer. However, any individual who purchases goods or avails services for a commercial purpose is not a consumer unless it is for earning his own livelihood.

The procedure involves in setting legal machinery in force under Consumer Protection Act is not much complex. Even the complaint can be filed on plain paper. It must contain the details of the complainant and the opposite party.   Further, you need to pay the prescribed fee along with the complaint, which will be a nominal fee according to your claim. 

There is a limitation period of two years for filing a complaint. You can file a complaint before the consumer court with the span of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. Nonetheless, a complaint may be entertained after the said period on the satisfaction of the court that the complainant has sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.

Some of the decided claims are mentioned as under;

Insurance related claims:

• Unfair and deceptive act and amounts to unfair trade practice: National Consumer Commission held that the Insurance Company had obtained and used a “suspicious medical certificate” for denying the claim. “It is an unfair and deceptive act and amounts to unfair trade practice”, the commission said and directed the company to pay the Complainant 75% of his claimed amount, i.e. Rs. 4,15,030/- along with Rs 1 lakh for mental, financial and physical hardship and the amount be paid within four weeks.

• Failure to inform about rejection of insurance within reasonable time: Supreme Court opined that the rejection of the policy must be made in a reasonable time so as to be fair and in consonance with the good faith standards. In this case, the enormous delay to reject the policy was not excusable. Moreover, it was borne from the records that the premium was only re-paid after a delay of more than one year, five months. In the light of the above, the Supreme Court directed the Insurance Company to honor the claim of the Insured.

Developer related claims

• Delay in granting possession: The Supreme Court observed that failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency. In cases where there is a gross delay in the handling over the possession beyond the contractually stipulated period, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation is not constrained by the terms of a rate in builder agreement.

• Installing lifts without proper power back up: National Consumer Commission held that providing lifts in a multi-storied residential building by the builder without even minimum power back up is a negligent act and deficiency in the service. Such incident would not have happened if there was power backup, since the lift car would have been on the landing floor and the deceased would not have been stuck on account of power failure. National Consumer Commission awarded a total compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/-.

Banking related claims

• Documents lost from Bank’s custody: Consumer Commission observed that Bank has admitted that the said title deeds had been misplaced and hence, they were not in a position to return the same to the Complainant. The Consumer Commission held that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the Bank towards the Complainant, as the title deeds had been lost from their custody only. The Bank is, therefore, liable to compensate the Complainant. The Complainants shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation from the Bank for the loss of title deeds, along with a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

• Bank refusing to encash cheque: The Complainant filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of bank in denying to encash cheque presented by him as he was in need of Rs. 3 lakhs to be deposited in the hospital for the treatment of his ailing mother. The cheque was given to Complainant by his nephew. The Consumer Commission held that no doubt Complainant had not furnished his ID but fact remains that admittedly not only cashier but also Bank Manager separately rang up account holder on his mobile number who verified having issued the subject cheque and gave clearance for encashment. Bank officials however declined to encash the cheque. This is clear deficiency in the service. The National Consumer Commission considered this case of unnecessary harassment and humiliation and directed the bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.

Unfair Trade Practice related claims

• Changing tour package at the last minute: National Consumer Commission observed that since the so-called final itinerary was given to the Complainants only three days prior to the scheduled date of departure, he was forced to undertake the tour to his utter dissatisfaction. Further, the word ‘tentative’ could not be misused to say that there was no fixed program for any sight-seeing. The word ‘tentative’ only meant that in certain uncontrolled situation the itinerary may be changed by the Petitioner. Finally, the Commission held that the practice on part of the Petitioner, to induce its customer by sending an itinerary which they allege is a provisional one and later on completely changing the said itinerary and supplying a totally different itinerary after receiving the entire tour amount and leaving no option with the consumers for cancellation of the tour, threatening the customer with forfeiture of their entire amount, amounts to deceptive, restrictive and unfair trade practices. Accordingly, the tour operator was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony.

• Practice of making parents and children’s to sign one sided agreement at the time of enrolment is unfair trade practice: The Consumer Forum held that Coaching Institute could not charge full advance fee for Two years and held the Complainant entitled for receipt of refund of fee taken in advance from him by Coaching Institute.

Deficiency in Service claims

• Misplacing of luggage: Consumer Commission observed that the fact remains undisputedly the luggage of the Complainants got misplaced and insofar as the same was handled by the men of Respondent airline, it cannot shrug off due responsibility in the matter. Commission found that the Complainants Suffered considerable financial loss to them and were subjected to severe stress and mental agony in arranging necessary dresses. Hence complaint was allowed by State Commission against Air India and was directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost to each of the Complainants within 40 days.