Open Access Research Article
“COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019”
Published Paper
Article Details
“COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
1986 & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019”
Authored By - Shaikh Karishma Hamid
Class- LLM II, Roll No-2
Academic Year 2022-23
Progressive Education Society’s Modern
Law College
ABSTRACT
Since the past when person comes into existence, needs some basic amenities to live a life as a human
and not mere as animal,
as said in article 21 of the Indian constitution also. These basic
amenities may be consisting of Food, cloth & shelter. And this
continues to be required throughout
the life of the person. Thus, we all are consumers in a basic sense. On the
other hand, when we go to the Market
to get the product which has utility for us, we expect some value for our money which we have paid to
the seller. That value could be the right quality of the product acquired/purchased, or quantity, right price, right information of the goods purchased
etc. We expect the sellers to fulfil their duty and meet
all our legitimate expectations. But there may be instances where
consumers aren't satisfied or get harassed or cheated by the sellers by way of hoarding, black
marketing, blackmailing and so on. In addition to all these we live in a world where there is perfect
competition, which also leads to unscrupulous
practices of the suppliers or sellers. The government felt the need to
protect the genuine and legitimate
buyers from unscrupulous suppliers, and in furtherance of the same, they made certain laws like sales of goods act,
dangerous drugs act, the agricultural produce act, the prevention of food adulteration act and many other, each having their own purpose
of establishment. This article has focused and described the comparative analysis
of both consumer protection act of 1986 & 2019.
Keywords: Consumer, Consumer Protection act of 1986 & 2019, Product, Services,
Deficiency, Mediation, Grievance Redressal, Jurisdiction.
INTRODUCTION:
Consumer
protection is the practice of safeguarding buyers of goods and services against unfair
trade practices in the market. It provides the steps adopted for the protection of consumers from
corrupt and unscrupulous malpractices by the sellers, manufacturers, service providers, etc. and to provide remedies
in case their
rights
as
a
consumer have
been
violated. To create a new support for the protection of the consumer, the
Government of India on 9th August
2019 enacted the new legislature which is known as the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The reason behind replacing the
“1986 Act” with the “2019 Act” was the limited
definition and scope of consumer interest and their rights. So to expand
the definition of consumers and to give enhancement to the rights of
consumers, the consumer protection act, 2019 being enforced.1
Just to ease & simplify quick disposal of consumers cases, the Indian
Government over the years has been amending
the act three times;
the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1991, The
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993, The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 but, there was the need of more
exhaustive legislation to cure the exploitation of consumers and to protect their interests as these changes in
acts were unable to provide appropriate
remedies to them. To do so, the new act; the consumer protection act of, 2019 finally
came into consideration.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:
The concept
of consumer protection was in existence
since then beginning
of human civilization. Every business needs to superior consumer
satisfaction which can be ensured
only when the government
takes responsibility to protect all consumers. Before 1986, consumers often used to face many issues
like the product of low quality,
not adhering to MRP, or if there is any adulteration, etc. In 1950, when the constitution came into force,
the central government enacted multiple legislation’s like-The Drugs
Control Act, 1950, The
Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954, The Essential
Commodities Act, 1956, The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade
Practices Act, 1969, etc.2
Just to overcome the issues of consumers, to
fulfil their needs, and protect their interests. However, because of the lack
of redressal mechanism and limited access to deal with the grievances of consumers, none of the laws succeeded in fulfilling the interest of consumers.
Earlier, It
took years to make aware to everyone regarding their rights and the issues
facing. There was no special act for
protecting consumers, the aggrieved party had to take a lengthy and expensive process just to initiate an
action by filing a civil suit. As a result, the cost and time
2
Consumer Protection Act: Meaning and Importance https://byjus.com/commerce/consumer-protection-study- materials/
invested by
the aggrieved party were not satisfactory to the compensation granted. These all-above-mentioned issues of consumers lead to a rise in the consumer protection act, 1986.
|
Sr.
|
Key Points
|
CPA 1986
|
CPA 2019
|
|
No.
|
|||
|
1
|
Pecuniary Jurisdiction
|
District Forum-
up to 20 lakhs, State Commission- from 20 lakhs
to 1 crore,
National Commission- from 1 crore & above
|
District
Forum- up to 1 crore, State
Commission- from 1 crore to 10 crore,
National Commission-
from 10 crore & above
|
|
2
|
MRP/Purchase Price
|
Earlier MRP was
a criterion to
decide Pecuniary Jurisdiction
|
Discounted price/ actual
purchase price
is the criterion
|
|
3
|
Territorial Jurisdiction
|
Where seller
has office
|
Where complainant resides or
works
|
|
4
|
Regulator
|
No provision
|
Central Consumer Protection Authority to be formed
|
|
5
|
Mediation
|
No provision
|
Court can refer for settlement
through mediation
|
|
6
|
Appeal
|
30 days
period was given to file appeal
against the order of District Forum
and 50% of award
amount or Rs.25000/-
whichever is less is to be deposited
|
45 days
period and 50% of award amount
|
|
7
|
Unfair Trade
& Practice
|
No provision
|
Power to State commission & National
commission to declare any terms
of contract
being unfair
to consumer, to null &
void
|
|
8
|
E-commerce
|
No provision
|
All provisions applicable to
direct seller
has been extended to E-commerce
|
|
9
|
Review
|
District Forum had no power
to review
the matter
|
District Forum
has power to
review
|
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,
1986 & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 20193
3
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS (1986 - 2019). 15 July 2021. https://lawessential.com/miscellaneous/f/comparative-analysis-of-consumer-protection-laws-1986--- 2019?blogcategory=Miscellaneous#:~:text=In%20the%20Consumer%20Protection%20Act%2C%201986%20t here%20was%20no%20such,refer%20for%20settlement%20through%20mediation.
A.
LIABILITY OF PRODUCT
MANUFACTURER UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 (SECTION 84)
A product manufacturer shall be liable in a product liability action, if— (a) the product contains a manufacturing defect;
or (b) the product is defective in design; or (c) there is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; or (d) the product does not conform
to the express warranty; or
(e) the
product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any
harm or any in a product
liability action even if he proves that he was not negligent
or fraudulent in making the express
warranty of a product.4
Chapter VI of the Consumer Protection
Act afford a all-inclusive machine for claiming compensation under an action for product
liability. It defines
product liability as the “Responsibility of a product and
manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product
manufactured or sold by deficiency in services relating
thereto”.
In 2015, there was a case of excess content of lead in Maggie. According
to a March 2019 recall, more than
50,000 Tiguan Volkswagen Golf, Jetta representations manmade from 2015 over 2019 are at hazard for tire catastrophes and clatters.
These two cases confirmation the deficiency of the old act in commerce
with the subjects correlated to confident defective goods and services.
B.
PROMOTION AND ADVERTISEMENT OF UNHEALTHY AND FATAL PRODUCTS (SECTION 89)
Alternative issue which could be decorated when it comes to state
the cause for the prerequisite of new legislation is the upgrade and announcement of morbid
and incurable products. We regularly
see personalities promoting the sales of Gutka, tobacco, pan masala and many
more unhygienic products. These types
of false and misleading commendations and commercials can indirectly distress the right to choose of an individual, clearly submitted in CPA.
4 Product Liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019: An Overview. January 20, 2022. By Bishwajit Dubey, Surabhi Khattar & Ashutosh Singh. https://corporate.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2022/01/product- liability-under-the-consumer-protection-act-2019-an- overview/#:~:text=(a)%20The%20product%20contains%20a,conform%20to%20an%20express%20warranty.
Misleading and false advertisements is one of the many aspects that were
announced by the 2019 Act. The repealed
Act did not deal with the perception of misleading and false advertisements.
Advertising is the promotion of a product
to a viewership to fascinate
assignation and sale of a merchandise, and
has
an
impression on
the
interests of
consumers Regulation of food advertising
methodologies is desirable to guarantee that the advertising strategies used
are
legitimate, and
ethically express the
detail
affecting to the product, thus protecting the interests of consumers.
Nevertheless there had been no unified statutory framework to
legalize food advertising, the Consumer Protection Act 2019 ('CPA 2019') now affords for parameter of
advertisements which 'mislead' consumers about
food products. The Advertising Standards Council
of India ('ASCI'),
along with supplementary media authorities, legalize the advertising media pleased by
supplying plans. The Food Safety and Standards
Authority ('FSSAI') is a statutory
body which cliques
morals for food commodities, and issues protocols
for their preparation and sale.
C.
THREE TIER REDRESSAL MECHANISM
Section 11(1) of the 1986 Act stipulated
that the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the "value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed" does not exceed rupees
twenty lakhs. Similarly, jurisdiction for State Commissions under Section 17(1)(a) was set for
disputes between twenty lakhs and one crore; and National Commission for Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") under
Section 21(a) for disputes valued
at one crore and above.
The government has Circumstance a
Three tier Redressal mechanism aimed at the prompt
and reasonable justice to the consumers. These Three were format at District, state and national
level, with their jurisdictions. Jurisdictions are as follows:
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which came into consequence from July 20, 2020, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
consumer courts was noticeably improved. Section
34 of the 2019 Act delivers that "...the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees..." Similarly, Sections 47 and 58 of the 2019 Act afford
that: (1) the State Commissions shall have jurisdiction for disputes whose
value exceeds INR 1 crore
but remains less than INR 10 crores; and (2) the
NCDRC is to have jurisdiction for disputes which are valued over INR 10 crores. Though, the effect of the 2019 Act is
forthcoming, which means that already
pending cases before the consumer courts shall not be shifted
to the troubled forum as per the reviewed jurisdiction.
There was no distinct regulatory body in 1986 legislation, but there is a
central consumer protection authority
to be fashioned.
D.
MEDIATION UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 (SECTION 74)
There was no legal provision for mediation in the old legislation however
bestowing to the new legislation, courts can permit settlement of disputes complete
mediation too.
The State Government will launch, by notification, a consumer mediation
cell to be attached to each of the
District Commissions and the State Commissions of that State. (2) The Central Government shall establish, by
notification, a consumer mediation cell to be attached to the National Commission and each of the
regional Benches. (3) A consumer mediation cell shall consist of such
persons as may be prescribed. (4) Every consumer mediation cell shall maintain— (a) a list of empanelled mediators; (b) a list of cases handled
by the cell; (c) record
of proceeding; and (d) any other information as may be specified by
regulations. (5) Every consumer
mediation cell shall submit a quarterly report to the District Commission,
State Commission or the National
Commission to which it is attached, in the method specified by regulations.5
E.
E-COMMERCE
There was no legal provision for E-commerce in the old
law making, however
all rules of direct selling
are prolonged to e-commerce.
Chapter 5 Section 74 of the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 states that a Consumer
Mediation Cell shall be recognized by the Central Government at the
national level and every state government shall create Consumer
Mediation Cell exercise
within the jurisdiction of that state. The mediator designated to carry
out the mediation shall comportment it within such stretch and in such method as
may be itemized by regulations.
Section 75 of the Act consultations
about the empanelment of the mediators. It conditions the qualifications, footings and settings of
service, the procedure for hiring, and the fee allocated to the empanelled mediators.
It is the burden of the mediator to release certain facts such as; any
individual, economic or proficient in the effect of the consumer dispute,
the surroundings giving
intensification to their
liberation or discharge and any other compulsory information for the
protection of consumer rights.
F.
PROVISIONS UNDER
IPC
The new Consumer Protection 2019 act, while has a number of recently made
provisions, one of the foremost
changes being illegalization of certain acts under IPC. Prior the remedy provisions were provided with respect to. civil remedies only.
Adulteration of food and drugs can be apportioned with under the Indian
Penal Code , under section 272 , 273 , 274 , 275.
Section 272 as it says for
adulteration of food or drink intended for sale -Whoever adulterates any artefact of food or drink, so as to
make such article poisonous as food or drink, planning to sell such article as food or
drink, or expressive it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished
with imprisonment of moreover description for a term which may extend
to six months, or with fine which whitethorn extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 273 as it says for sale of
noxious food or drink -Whoever sells, or offers or disclosures for sale, as food or drink, any piece which has been
rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state incapable for food or drink, knowing
or partaking reason
to believe that the
same is noxious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of
moreover description for a term which
may extend to six months, or with fine which may encompass to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 274 as it says for adulteration of drugs -Whoever contaminates any drug or medical
preparation in such a manner as to reduce the efficacy or change the
operation of such drug or medical
preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used
for, or knowing it to be likely
that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal determination, as if it had not endured such adulteration, shall be
punished with imprisonment of whichever description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which might
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 275 of IPC as it says for
sale of adulterated drugs- Whoever, expressive any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner as to decrease
its efficacy, to change
its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or exposes it
for sale, or issues it from any
dispensary for medicinal purposes as untainted, or causes it to be used for medicinal
purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, will be punished
with imprisonment of either explanation for a term which may extend to
six months, or with fine which may cover to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
In addition to these provisions
under IPC, Chapter VII of the Act affords for penalties, including imprisonment vacillating from up to six months and extending
to life imprisonment if the defective
goods or services centrals to
death of the consumer.
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS
1. Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Products
Ltd.6
In this case, both
revelries are manufacturers of nutritional drinks, though, Zydus advertised a television commercial trivialising the
products of Horlicks Ltd. The commercial was actuality broadcasted in countless languages plus English, Tamil and
Bengali. Consequently, the Delhi High
Court trusted on various judgments on misleading advertisements, belittling and
law governing the publication of
advertisements on television and held that the advertisement is disapproving as it does not afford any
concrete proof regarding the quality of the product. Further, electronic media shrubberies an impression on the minds
of the viewers thus, these types of advertisements would not only be unfavourable to the consumers but also the complainant would agonize irretrievable damage.
2. Veena Khanna v. Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd, NCDRC7
In this case,
the complainant presented to purchase a flat from the respondent which the respondent arranged to deliver on 1.6.1999
through a letter. But, the flat was not constructed indoors the quantified date and hence it was not delivered. For such deficiency in services, the complainant
commanded the refund of the deposited amount with interest at the rate of 18% pa which
was repudiated by the reverse party.
The National Commission pragmatic that outstanding to delays in construction and delivery of possession
it is quite problematic for a consumer to purchase a flat at market price. The National Commission quantified that it is
the obligation of the State Commission to through the builders to deliver the
possession of the flat as soon as it is accomplished and the
complainant should be bestowed appropriate compensation for the delay in
construction. The complainant just
appealed the repayment amount before the State Commission, but the case was incomplete before the commission for
five years and throughout that time there was a tremendous rise in the market prices of the immovable property.
The National Commission further
detailed that it was the duty of the State Commission to unswerving the
respondents to deliver the
possession of the flat or any other flat of comparable size to the complainant
with apposite compensation, due to the delay in delivering the possession within the specified
time. Or, adequate
compensation ought to have been provided to the complainant so that they could purchase a new flat of the same size at
the prevailing market rate in that same locality.
3. Sapient Corporation Employees v. Hdfc Bank Ltd. &
Ors.8
In
this case, a consumer complaint
was filed by Sapient Corporation Employees Provident Fund Trust against
HDFC bank Ltd. The complainant demanded that OP-Bank has dedicated deficiency of services by
withdrawing the account of the Complainant. The court in this case held that there was no deficiency of
service on the part of OP-bank and the arguments pleased by the complainant are unfounded. A behaviour that imitates to
the direction of regulatory authority cannot be
said to be negligence or service
deficiency.
6 14 May, 2020
7 9 July, 2007
8 1 November, 2012
CONCLUSION
The Consumer Protection Act has ended up
being some support to the shoppers and shielded them from being misused in the possession of tremendous
organizations and well-known brokers.
The merchants and the organizations are as yet chipping away at how to make marvellous benefits and one of the ways is
by mistreating the buyer. Associating to this the Legislature and the Judiciary are making fluctuations in the
demonstration now and again however the customer himself should
be vigilant and alert individuals on the lookout.
The Act is a welcome interchange as it looks
to cover the omissions of the old Act and it is being vacant during a pivotal stage wherein buyers and their
freedoms should be ensured as the worldwide
business sectors are turning out to be increasingly more shopper
driven. The Act tops more force on the District
Commission, State Commission while moreover informing their separate financial
locales subsequently weakening
the accountability of the National
Commission. With the accomplishment of the activities of the Act, the
mainstream expression 'purchaser be
careful' may be succeeded to 'merchant be careful' or 'producer is careful' if
they are institute in refutation of the Act since the assurance that is being
offered to the customers.
Article Information
“COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 & CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019”
Authors: Shaikh Karishma Hamid
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/12/19
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.