Source: https://deveshwar.in/the-consumer-protection-act-1986/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 19:17:11+00:00

Document:
Following is the full Consumer Protection Act of 1986 which I got from an official document on KSCDRC, thanks to a reader who sent the link to the doc. It also has the amendments of 2002 and includes comments. This can be useful to search and check for specific definitions of consumer, goods, service, defect, deficiency etc as provided in the act. And for those who have the legal stomach!
Or go here if you want to know how to file consumer court complaint in India (specific to Bangalore).
1. Inserted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
2. Inserted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
3. Substituted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
4. Substituted for “any trader” vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Explanation: Where a manufacturer dispatches any goods or part thereof to any branch office maintained by him, such branch office shall not be deemed to be the manufacturer even though the parts so dispatched to it are assembled at such branch office and are sold or distributed from such branch office.
1. Substituted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
2. Inserted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Aact, 2002.
4. Inserted by Act 50 of 1993.
1. Substituted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
2. Substituted for “users and includes the provision of”, abid.
3. Inserted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
4. Inserted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
5. Substituted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
1[(3A) withholding from the participants of any scheme offering gifts, prizes or other items free of charge, on its closure the information about final results of the scheme.
1[(6) manufacture of spurious goods or offering such goods for sale or adopting deceptive practices in the provision of services.
1. Inserted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Laboratory, a derivative from the Latin Laborariosus, means a room or building fitted out for scientific experiments, research, teaching, or the manufacture of drugs and chemicals.
The definition under sec. 2(1)(b) includes three categories, first being “consumer” as defined under the Act; secondly, any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law, and thirdly, either the Central or the State Government. Thus a complainant must either be a consumer of goods or services, barring voluntary consumer associations and the government whether the State or Central. – Inderjit Kumar v. Haryana State Electricity Board (1991) 1 CPJ 115.
Where a cause of action has already been adjudicated upon, the same cause of action cannot be agitated once again before a court of law or other adjudicating forum. Such a principle is enunciated to obviate multiplicity of litigation. Though all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are not having their application while a case is being governed by consumer forum yet the sound principles of law and procedure embodied under Code of Civil Procedure are followed by the forums. – Branch Manager, LIC of India v. Smt. Zareena Sulaiman 1995 (1) CPJ 4.
In order to satisfy the requirement of sec. 2(1)(d) there must have been transaction of buying goods for consideration. The transaction of sale and purchase must be complete transaction. The person who only enters into an agreement for purchasing the goods does not fall in the scope of said definition. Under clause (II) of Sec. 2(d) in order to become a consumer a person has to satisfy the three conditions: (I) the service should have been rendered to him, (II) the service should have been hired by him, (III) he should have paid the consideration for hiring the service, in accordance with the manner laid down under sec. 2(1)(d)(II) of the Act.
Consumer Protection Act does not define the term “goods” definition of which is imported from the Sale of Goods Act, S.2(7) of which defines goods “as every kind of moveable property other than actionable claims and money; and includes stock and shares, growing crop, grass and things attached to or forming part of land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale”.
Thus the goods means every kind of moveable property except actionable claim and money. If the shares and stock which represent the proprietary interest in the property of a company are considered to be movable properties, there is no ground to exclude the debentures because debenture is a transferable movable property. Hence the holders of the debentures are entitled to get the benefit of the Consumer Protection Act. – Kartik Magenlal Padia v. Pratap Rajasthan Special Steel Ltd. 1992 (1) CPR 222.
A customer of a bank is a consumer within the meaning of s. 2(1)(d) entitled to seek compensation, and the bank is liable for deficiency in service. – Vimal Chandra Grover v. Bank of India (2002) 110 Comp. Cas. 499 (SC).
In case the appellant and the respondent enter into contract and according to the terms of the contract appellant has to supply some iron rods to the respondent at a fixed rate and quantity, the matter is purely one of the description of breach of contract. In no way it amounts to consumer dispute as envisaged by the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant in the instant case must approach the civil court. – Suraj Steel Hazaribagh v. R.P. Sharma 1991 (1) CPR 331.
In case the respondent does not pay to the petitioner the amount due by way of pension and the petitioner has served the respondent such dispute, as the petitioner is not a consumer, would not amount to consumer dispute. – Ch. Veerabhadraya v. Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society 1992 (3) CPJ 3.
Where the claim of insurance is repudiated by the opposite party, that would amount to consumer dispute as defined under s. 2(1)(e) of the Act. – N.G.Rao v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1993 (2) CPJ 641.
There are two aspects regarding quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard as mentioned in the definition. First, the same may either be required to be maintained by any law or rules for the time being in force. Secondly, where there is no such statutory mandate, then in the alternative what is claimed by the trader in relation to any such goods. The term “defect” is defined as regards the standard required to be maintained by law or in the alternative as claimed by trader expressly or impliedly in any manner whatsoever. – Chaman Singh v. German Remedies 1992 (1) CPR 603.
It is not necessary under the Act that there must be any manufacturing defect in the vehicle sold to the purchaser. It is enough that there are defects as defined in s. 2(1)(b) as 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 as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.
Deficiency like any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained under any law or which have been undertaken to be performed must be shown and proved. When the potential consumer performs his part of contract but the other party does not accept the offer or may refuse to grant the services, the question of deficiency in service arises only when the Commission concludes that non-extending service is itself a deficiency. – Gujarat Electricity Board v. Suleman Mithabhai 1993 (2) CPR 294.
“Goods means every kind of moveable property other than actionable claims and money and includes stocks and shares, growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under contract of sale.
The expression “sale of goods” is a composite expression consisting of various ingredients or elements. Thus, there are the elements of a bargain or contract of sale, payment or promise of payment of price, the delivery of goods and the actual passing of the title and each one of them is essential to a transaction of sale, though the sale is not completed or concluded unless the purchaser becomes the owner of the property. – Poppat Lal Shah v. State of Madras AIR 1953 SC 274.
Sec. 2(1)(j) defines the word “trader” which include manufacturer. In case vehicle has any defect it is the liability of the manufacturer but where excess price is recovered it is only the dealer to bear the liability for it is his own act and not that of the manufacturer. – Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. Raj Motors 1992 (2) CPR 518.
The word “person” has to be given its plain meaning unless it leads to absurdity or is susceptible of another meaning and if no such alternative construction is possible, the ordinary rule of literal construction must be adopted. Definition of the term person under sec. 2(1)(m) is not exhaustive. Sec. 3(42)of General Clauses Act, 1897 defines “person” as person shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not”, hence within the term “person” even a company falls. – Rambal Engineering Products (P) Ltd. v. Patel Roadways Ltd. 1994 (1) CPR 559.
The word “service” has to be construed in the context of the definition of the words “consumers”, “restrictive trade practices” and “unfair trade practices” as also the nature of constitution, the powers and the summary adjudicatory procedures prescribed under the Act and the need to read the provisions in such a way which would promote its constitutionality than expose the provisions to be susceptible to the attack of unconstitutionality. Therefore, the words “consumers” and “service” defined under sec. 2(1)(d) and (o) respectively should be construed to comprehend consumer of services of commercial and trade oriented nature only in the context of an unfair trade or restrictive trade practice and not otherwise. – Dr. C.S. Subramanian v. Kumarasamy (1994) 2 CTJ 294.
Where services are rendered at a government hospital on payment of charges and also free of charges, the free service also comes under “service” as defined in sec. 2(1)(o) of the Act and the person availing of such service is “consumer” within the meaning of the Act, entitled to file complaint thereunder. – Sukhwarsha Rani v. General Hospital, through its Medical Superintendent & Others 2000 (1) CPR 337 (Chd-UTCDRC), following Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shanta 1995 (3) CPR 412 (SC).
The definition of “complaint” and “consumer” makes it apparent that basic privity of contract is between the consumer buying the goods for consideration and the trader selling them either as a seller or distributor of the goods. It can well be imagined that purchaser does not even know who the manufacturer is. In such cases the trader becomes the necessary party and in case of filing of complaint various relief may be claimed against him as laid down under the Act. It is not the requirement of the Act nor the Rules framed thereunder that simultaneous with the trader, manufacturer as well must be made a party in case the goods so sold suffer any defect. – Chaudhary Automobiles v. Anil Kumar 1991 (1) CPR 470.
Trader is respecting goods and not respecting service which is made clear by the definition itself laying down trader in relation to any goods is a person selling or distributing goods for sale and within it is included the manufacturer of the goods and in case the goods are sold or distributed in package, packer of the goods. – H.K. Purohit v. Jodhpur University 1992 (2) CPR 530.
Where the fee is charged but no service rendered or service is to be provided not at present but in future and which has no relation with the present, that may amount to unfair trade practice. – Champaben Babulal v. C.U.Shah Medical Center 1992 (3) CPJ 388.
Where a trader intentionally delays the delivery of any goods to the consumer, because of which consumer suffers, it shall amount to “unfair trade practice”. – Om Prakash v. Asst. Engineer, Haryana Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. 1994 (2) CPJ 1.
The provisions of the Act are in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Manifestly, provisions of the Act grant additional remedy to the consumers but where the remedy itself is barred by some provisions of some other Act then the remedy which the consumer prays cannot be granted by the various forums constituted under the Act. – Presidency Post Master v. Dr. V.Shanker Rao 1993(2) CPJ 141.
Where the additional rights and remedies are granted to the consumers by the act itself, courts are not to interpret the same in such a manner as to cut and abridge the scope thereof. Rights and remedies under the Act cannot be curbed either by statutory arbitration provision contained in an earlier law or by some arbitration agreement entered into by the parties themselves. If that is not so, not only the scope of the Act would be entailed but by introducing arbitration clause whole of the Act would be rendered inapplicable. – Jagdamba Rice Mills v. Union of India 1991 (1) CPJ 273.
(1) The Central Government 1[shall, by notification, establish with effect from such date as it may specify in such notification, a council to be known as the Central Consumer Protection Council (hereinafter referred to as the Central Council).
(1) The Central Council shall meet as and when necessary, but 2[at least one meeting] of the council shall be held every year.
1.Substituted for “may” vide Consumer Protection(Amendment)Act, 2002.
2. Substituted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
(1) The State Government 1[shall], by notification, establish with effect from such date as it may specify in such notification, a council to be known as the Consumer Protection Council (hereinafter referred to as the State Council).
(4) The District Council shall meet as such time and place within the district as the Chairman may think fit and shall observe such procedure in regard to the transaction of its business as may be prescribed by the State Government.
1. Substituted for “may” vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
3. Inserted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Though District Forum, State Commissions and National Commissions appointed under the Act are conferred with some of the powers of a civil court, yet they in no sense can be termed as court. They are quasi-judicial tribunals existing to provide speedy and inexpensive remedies to the aggrieved consumers in case of disputes which may take place between the consumers and supplier of goods and service. While approaching the Redressal agencies, it is not required to pay court fee or to follow the rigid procedure of a court nor is it needed that the complaint be moved by the complainant himself for his cause, it may be presented by any recognized consumers’ association. In the case of a complaint wherein large number of consumers are interested, the moving of the complaint can be by one or more of them and even the Central Government or the State Government are authorized to approach the Redressal agencies on behalf of the consumer. – Laxmi Engineering works V. P.S.G. Industrial Institute 1995 (2) CPJ (1).
1. Omitted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
2. Inserted by Act 50 of 1993, w.e.f. 18.06.1993.
4. Substituted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Sec. 10 empowers the State Government to nominate a person to act as the President of the District Forum provided he is or has been or is qualified to be a District Judge. But where there is no nomination of the president of the District Forum by the State Government, it would not mean that District Judge would automatically become the President of the District Forum. Appointment of the District Judge as President of the Forum is not persona grata. – Sudha Industries, Dal Mill Owner v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge 1992 (1) CPR 767.
Remedy lies under art. 226 of the Constitution of India to move the High Court so that “mandamus” is issued, where the officer concerned does not act in accordance with law or has acted in excess of his jurisdiction. – Nirmal Taneja v. Calcutta District Forum 1992 (2) CPJ 591.
While entertaining complaints, District Forum and the State Commission must not entertain the complaints meant solely to cause harassment to the opponent more so when the entertainment of the writ petition by the High Court is with restraint. – A.V. George Kutty v. State of Kerala AIR 1994 Ker 19. In case a writ of certiorari is moved it is within the power of the High Court to enter into the question to see if the authority entertaining the matter was empowered to entertain that as such and to take decision upon the question pertaining to initial lack of jurisdiction. – Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority v. Union of India AIR 1993 Cal. 4.
In case the matter involves complicated question of law and facts, matter must be heard by the civil court and not by Consumer Forum. – Ghanshyambhai Bahecharbhai Patel v. New India Assurance Co. 1993 (1) CPR 571.
Pendency of criminal case on the same issue does not bar jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain a complaint under Consumer Protection Act alleging negligence or deficiency in service as subjudice, the subject-matter and parties being different, and the decision of the criminal court not being binding on the Forum and vice versa. – Smt. Anuradha Kapil v. Dr. Suresh 2001 (1) CPR 336 (MP-SCDRC).
Questions requiring consideration of voluminous evidence and examination of expert witnesses cannot be entertained by the Forum. – Smt. Supriti Modak v. Dr. Gokul Ch. Modak 2001 (2) CPJ 219 (WB-SCDRC).
3. Substituted for “five lakhs” vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
(4) Where a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with under sub-section (3), the District Forum may proceed with the complaint in the manner provided under this Act.
PROVIDED that where a complaint has been admitted by the District Forum, it shall not be transferred to any other court or tribunal or any authority set-up by or under any other law for the time being in force.
CPJ 400. In case the Consumers Forum detects some deficiency in service from the fact placed in the complaint, though such deficiency is not specially formulated in the complaint by the complainant, as the Consumer Forum is meant to protect the interest of the aggrieved, it would be well within its jurisdiction to take cognizance suo motu of any deficiency in service so noticed by them or to take cognizance of any unjust reduction in the amount that is payable to the complainant. It must at the same time not be forgotten that the opponent is given the opportunity of defence and justify its action. – United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohan Lal & Sons 1992 (1) CPR 364.
2. Substituted for “on receipt of a complaint”, ibid.
(g) the District Forum shall thereafter give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant as well as the opposite party of being heard as to the correctness or otherwise of the report made by the appropriate laboratory and also as to be objection made in relation thereto under clause (f) and issue an appropriate order under section 14.
(ii) 2[ex parte] on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum.
2[(c) where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, the District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merits.
Sec. 13 mentions the procedure the District Forum has to follow in case a complaint is moved before it. Sub-s. (4) of the said section confers the similar powers with the District Forum as are vested in the civil court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as regards: (1) summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath, (2) the discovery and production of any document or other material objects producible as evidence, (3) the reception of evidence on affidavits, (4) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source, (5) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness, and (6) any other matter which may be prescribed. Sec. 18 permits the application of the above provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to the State Commission and in case of non-compliance with the Order of the Commission, Commission is given the power to impose sentence of imprisonment or of fine by s.27 of Consumer Protection Act. – Dhami Dhar v. Air Mauritius 1992 (1) CPR 500.
Provision of 30 days time with provision for extension by 15 days as provided in s.13(2)(a) for filing reply to complaint is not mandatory, but directory.
bar of limitation in filing of the reply within extended time though beyond 45 days in all. The reply is not necessarily to be rejected. All facts and circumstances of the case must be taken into account. – Topline Shoes Ltd. V. Corporation Bank (2002) 111 Comp. Cas. 515 (SC).
On a question whether a second complainant would be maintainable in the event of dismissal of the first complaint, the Supreme Court observed that justice cannot be denied by the rule of technicality. It held that the Code of Civil Procedure can be applied to proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act only to a limited extent, and the Act being enacted for protection of consumers, the interest of justice cannot be defeated by a rule of technicality. – New India Assurance Co. v. Srinivasan (2000) 2 CPR 27 (SC).
(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect.
3. Substituted by Act 34 of 1991, w.e.f. 15.06.1991.
Award of compensation must be based upon the quantification of damages and not arbitrarily where the opposite party is negligent and the negligence results in loss or injury which the consumer suffers, the compensation is awarded. Compensation has to be quantified on a rational basis after considering the material that may be produced before the adjudicating forum showing the extent of injury suffered and the manner in which and the extent to which the monetary loss had been caused to the complaint. – Devanand Gehlot v. Rajasthan Patrika Ltd. 1991 (1) CPR 526.
Where the District Forum or the State Commission reaches the satisfaction that the goods are defective as mentioned in the complaint or the service is deficient as alleged, then and only then an order directing the opposite party to do one or more of the specified things in s. 14 can be made. In case the allegations or any of them as made in the complaint are proved, the District Forum or State Commission is to record the finding to that effect. The decision must clearly mention the allegation and the evidentiary material supporting it and whether the allegation is established or not. Though the Redressal agencies under the Act are not civil court in strict sense yet they are quasi judicial in nature and every order quasi judicial in nature must be supported by reasons telling how the forum drew the conclusion more so where there is the provision for appeal. – State Bank of India v. Dharmadas Pal 1995 (1) CPR 832.
Sub-s. (3) suggests that the power to make rules has been made subject to sub-sections (1), (2) and (2A). Accordingly, rules can be made in exercise of the said power only in a manner which is consistent with the said sub-sections. Otherwise, the rules would be ultra-vires and void to the extent the same are inconsistent with the said sub-sections. – Murali Udyog Ltd. v. V.K. Jain (1991) 1 CPR 162 (NC).
1[PROVIDED FURTHER that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less].
The High Court is not a statutory, appellate or revisional authority under the provisions of the Act. An order made by the District Forum is appealable under s. 15 only before the State Commission. An order passed by the State Commission is appealable only before the National Commission under s. 19 and the order of the National Commission could be challenged in appeal only before the Supreme Court under s. 23. – K.V. Padmanabhan v. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ernakulam AIR 1992 Ker 179.
1[PROVIDED that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.
department, it was held that departmental delay was not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. – Jyotsna Arvind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust (1999) III CPJ 1 (SC).
(1B) (i)The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.
2. Substituted vide Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2002.
PROVIDED that a member shall be eligible for re-appointment for another term of five years or up to the age of sixty-seven years, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that he fulfils the qualifications and other conditions for appointment mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (1) and such re-appointment is made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee.
PROVIDED ALSO that a member may resign his office in writing under this hand addressed to the State Government and on such resignation being accepted, his office shall become vacant and may be filled by appointment of a person possessing any of the qualifications mentioned in sub-section (1) in relation to the category of the member who is required to be appoint under the provisions of sub-section (1A) in place of the person who has resigned.
Within the scope of s. 17(a)(i) two situations are contemplated first being when there is no claim for compensation. In such a case, the determining factor for conferring jurisdiction is the value of goods and services which should exceed Rs.1 Lakh (now five lakhs but does not exceed Rs.20 Lakhs)4. Second situation is where the compensation is specifically claimed in the complaint then both the value of the goods and service and the said claim must exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs.1 Lakh (now five lakhs but does not exceed rupees 20 lakhs) so as to exclude the jurisdiction of District Forum. – Dr. B.S. Gaba v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. 1991 (1) CPJ 631.
1. Existing section renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof, vide C.P. (Amdt.) Act, 2002.
2. Substituted for “five lakhs but does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs”, ibid.
no provision in the Consumer Protection Act empowering the State Commission to set aside an ex-parte order. – Jyotsna Arvind Kumar Shah v. Bombay Hospital Trust (1999) III CPJ 1 (SC).
2[The provisions of sections 12, 13 and 14 and the rules made thereunder] for the disposal of complaint by the District Forum shall, with such modification as may be necessary, be applicable to the disposal of disputes by the State Commission.
Section 13 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the District Forum after receiving the complaint. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 13 deal with the manner of dealing with the complaint. Sub-section (4) of section 13 vests in the District Forum certain power exercised by a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These are the powers which a Civil Court exercises while trying a suit for the purpose of summoning, enforcing and examining witnesses; for discovery or production of any document; for receiving evidence on affidavits; for requisitioning report of the concerned analysis or test; and for issuing any commission for examination of any witness. These provisions have now been made applicable to the State Commission in terms of section 18. Thus, by virtue of the said sections, the State Commission is empowered with judicial functions and all the trappings of a Court. – Dharni Dhar v. Air Mauritius (1992) 1 CPR 500 (Del).
Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its power conferred by s.17(a)(i) may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission. Such appellate power is conferred only against the substantive orders of the State Commission made in its original jurisdiction on a complaint directly preferred before it. As the appellate powers under s. 19 are limited against the exercise of jurisdiction by the State Commission u/s. 17(a)(i) only; for that where the Sate Commission imposed a penalty u/s. 27, such an order would not be appealable. – Kohinoor Carpets v. Rajendra Arora 1991 (2) CPJ 429.
3. Omitted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
PROVIDED that not more than fifty per cent of the members shall be from amongst the persons having a judicial background.
3. Substituted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
1[(1A) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.
2. Substituted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Where the subject matter of a complaint is already pending before the ordinary civil court, a concurrent adjudication as regards that subject-matter would not be entertained by Commission under the Act. – Special Machines v. Punjab National Bank 1991 (2) CPJ 78. The jurisdiction of the National Commission in revision is limited to consumer disputes wherein a State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. – The District Manager, Telephones v. Niti Saran 1991 (1) CPJ 48.
1. Substituted for “twenty lakhs”, vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 21, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the Order.
National Commission might have made, could be appealed against. It concludes whenever the National Commission also chooses to act under sec. 27 and a penalty is imposed, the same cannot be made the subject-matter of any right to substantial appeal against it. – Kohinoor Carpets v. Rajendra Arora 1991 (2) CPJ 429.
Where the civil court prevents the cause of action being agitated on account of its having become barred for limitation raising of that cause of action cannot be permitted before the consumer forum as where the limitation period gets expired, with that expiry are settled the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute.
Civil rights as vested in the parties are determined before the forums constituted under the Act and the characteristics of a civil court are conferred upon them and as the complaint being in the nature of a civil suit, provisions of the Limitation Act are attracted to the proceedings under the Act. – Prabhat Bag Factory v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 1991 (2) CPJ 327. Before taking steps towards entertaining and adjudication of claims under the Act it is for the consumer forum to decide if cause of action is alive as regards the claim raised before it and where that is not so, the forum would not proceed further on the ground of the action being time barred. – Manick Chand Srenik Kumar Bansilal v. Telecommunication, Karnataka Grade 1992 (3) CPJ 28.
The plea of limitation can be considered at any stage of the proceedings. Where the National Commission did not consider the plea of limitation on the ground that there was no point in considering it at that stage it was held not proper by the Supreme Court in Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Bijoy Kumar Roy & Ors. (2002) 110 Comp. Cas. 527 (SC).
1. Now Rs. One crore vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
(1) Where an interim order made under this Act, is not complied with the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.
An order passed by the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission may be enforced by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a court in a suit pending therein and it shall be lawful for the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the registered office of the company is situated or in the case of an order against any other person, the place, where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
A consumer is exempted from paying any court fee but that does not mean that the consumer can ask for any amount in the name of damages. To check this approach of making exaggerated claims, the Commission may be required to pass orders directing such complainants to pay costs. – Labh Shanker Jiverambhai v. Managing Director, Reliance Industries 1992 (2) CPJ 461.
4[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall have the power of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the trial of offences under this Act, and on such conferment of powers, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, on whom the powers are so conferred, shall be deemed to be a Judicial Magistrate of the first class for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
that may be inflicted against him. The question of infliction of penalty is not to be brought into consideration at the moment the complaint petition is being disposed of. At the most at the time of disposing of the complaint it can be said that in case there is non-compliance with such order, action under sec. 27 would be initiated. – Union of India v. Chairman, Madras Provisional Consumer Association 1992 (2) CPJ 524.
In case the order of the District Forum as regards payment of amount is not complied with and the compliance is made later on, it is proper to impose the fine only and not substantial sentence under sec. 27. – Raymond Synthetics Ltd. v. Babu Lal Khemka 1993 (1) CPJ 559.
1. Existing section renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof vide C.P. (Amdt.) Act, 2002.
3. Proviso omitted vide Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002.
Commission or any officer or person acting under the direction of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission for executing any order made by it or in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done by such member, officer or person under this Act or under any rule or order made thereunder.
A thing shall be deemed to be done in good faith where it is in fact done honestly whether negligently or not. The question of good faith is one of the fact. The concerned person should show that the belief impugned in the statement had a rational basis and not a just simple belief and therefore simple or actual belief is not enough. – State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik AIR 1987 SC 1265.
It is necessary to establish that what is complained of is something which the Act requires should be done or should be omitted to be done. There must be a compliance or intended compliance with the provisions of the Act before the protection can be claimed. The section cannot cover a case of breach of the Act however honest the conduct be otherwise. – State of Gujarat v. Kansara Manilal Dhiklal AIR 1964 SC 1893. The burden of establishing malafide lies heavily on the person who makes such allegation and the court cannot permit such person to side-track the issue and escape the burden of establishing hostility and or malus animus. – S.N. Patil v. Mahesh Madhav AIR 1987 SC 294.
1[28A. Service of Notice, etc.
(2) The service of notices may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof by registered post acknowledgement due addressed to opposite party against whom complaint is made or to the complainant by speed post or by such courier service as are approved by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, or by any other means of transmission of documents (including FAX message).
notice or had refused to accept the notice by any other means specified in sub-section (2) when tendered or transmitted to him, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall declare that the notice had been duly served on the opposite party or to the complainant.
PROVIDED that where the notice was properly addressed, pre-paid and duly sent by registered post acknowledgement due, a declaration referred to in this sub-section shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement has been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, within thirty days from the date of issue of notice.
(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions contained in clause (a) of sub-section (1)of section 2, clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 4, sub-section (2) of section 5, sub-section (2) of section 12, clause (vi) of sub-section (4) of section 13, clause (hb) of sub-section (1) of section 14, section 19, clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of section 20, section 22 and section 23 of this Act.
(1) Every rule and every regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making and modification in the rule or regulation or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation.
2. Inserted by Act 34 of 1991, w.e.f. 15.06.1991.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 art. 226
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.