Consumers are king, or so has modern day consumerism has led us to believe. But in a digital era, wherein an individual has access to a plethora of tools and many more tools are being developed every day like anydesk, CRMs, UPIs, there is a significant amount of people out there who are not adequately trained or adept on using digital tools. As the total demand for products ordered digitally is seemingly going to reach 300 billion US dollars by 20301, consumers face all kinds of issues like not getting their desired product, or to the expected standards, to getting scammed entirely of their bank details and credit, along with data theft and more. This is an attempt to analyse, simplify and discuss the different redressal mechanisms one has, in order to really be the “king” of the demand supply chains.
Three-Tier Structure of Consumer Courts in India
Under the purview of The Consumer Protection Act(s), namely the 2019’s, structure the Indian Consumer Court as follows-
How to file a case in consumer courts:
1) District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; For matters up to 50 lakhs.
2) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; For matters from 50 lakhs up to 2 crore ruppees, and appeal on district forum’s decisions
3) National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; For matters above 2 crore rupees.
Let’s understand how we access the commissions, or are these just names on paper.
E-daakhil or E-jagriti(e-jagriti Platform:
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food, and Public Distribution, Government of India), is where one files their initial dispute, online; or lodges a formal complaint at the consumer helpline via sms/whatsapp api at 8800001915 or via call on 1915 or via the UMANG app for governance. The necessary documents may include but are not exhaustive, bills, invoices, warranties, emails/other communication made, and any/aff proof of how the consumer was at loss/peril/aggrieved. This is then drafted into a consumer complaint, similar to a petition, mentioning the prayers or the compensation one seeks before the court, and filed before the appropriate court after paying the due fees. The Central Consumer Protection Authority overlooks the entire grievance redressal mechanism via the helpline and sorts cases accordingly. Complaint spectrum can arise from anywhere of the following and more:- Aadhar, Agro insurance, Airlines, Automobiles, UPI payments/banking, Digital wallets, Direct selling, Drugs and cosmetics, food and safety, legal metrology, misleading advertisements, Public Distribution Systems, Ombudsman, Medical Negligence, Postal, Railways, Real estate, education, telecom, water, and more.
Case, being done, aims at redressal of the grievances. This can be achieved via compensation, primarily monetary, and can also look for apology or injunction, or other civil/quasi legal remedies available under the CP Act.
Newer acts
Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020: aimed at providing details like origin and details of the product and producers, and ensure no misleading ad has been used. Also ensures that the contract between consumer and seller is fair, valid and transparent, adding a compulsion to add a grievance redressal mechanism to the companies/businesses.
The Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022: aims to prevent deceptive ads and surrogate ads which mislead consumers to co-relate ads for reality. Fair and genuine feedback on a service is promoted, to the best interests of both the seller and the consumer.
The Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023: aimed at protecting consumers from deceptive practices, including hyperlinking and similar tricks or misleading means to affect one’s free consent, by ensuring transparency in the business processes.
Case laws
1) F. N. Bose vs. M/s. P&O Steam Navigation Co. (1996): This case established the principle of “strict liability” in product liability cases, holding manufacturers liable for defective products even if they were not negligent.
2) Jyoti Basu vs. M/s. Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. (1986): This case defined the concept of “deficiency in service, ” emphasizing that even services can be deficient if they fall short of reasonable standards.
3) Mohd. Haroon vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995): This case highlighted the importance of fair contracts, ruling that unfair terms and conditions can be declared void by consumer courts.
4) Mrs. Manju Latha K. Uppal vs. Best & Crompton Appliances India Ltd. (2002): This case emphasized the producer’s responsibility to provide adequate warnings about potential hazards associated with their products.
5) Consumer Protection Council vs. Honda Siel Cars India Ltd. (2010): This case dealt with the concept of “unfair trade practices, “holding that offering misleading discounts or making false claims about products can be considered unfair.
6) Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and others: The Indian Medical Association filed a writ petition seeking to exempt the medical profession from the Consumer Protection Act, arguing that medical negligence should be dealt with by medical experts under their Code of Ethics.Held that, the Supreme Court held that medical practitioners could be considered as rendering “service” under the Consumer Protection Act. However, services rendered free of charge by doctors and hospitals would not fall under the Act, except when free services are provided to the poor in government hospitals or when an insurance policy covers the treatment cost.
7) Manjeet Singh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr: Manjeet Singh purchased a second-hand truck under a hire purchase agreement. The truck was insured by the National Insurance Company. While driving the truck, a passenger asked for a lift. When Singh stopped the truck, the passenger assaulted him and fled with the vehicle. An FIR was lodged and the insurance company was informed of the theft. However, the insurance company rejected the claim, citing a breach of policy terms. Singh approached the District Consumer Disputes Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission, all of which rejected his case. Finally, he approached the Supreme Court. Held that,the Supreme Court held that Singh was not at fault.
Although there was a breach of policy terms, it was not fundamental enough to terminate the insurance policy. The court directed the insurance company to pay 75% of the insured amount with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the claim. Additionally, the insurance company was ordered to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation.
