Cases Consumer Protection

Cases Consumer protection Act 1986 1. Forum takes builder to task over delivery delay KOCHI: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Kohi re!eted the laim by a builder that an apartment o"ner does not ome under the purvie" o# the Consumer $rotetion %t and "as not entitled #or any relie# #or the delay in delivery. The #orum ordered the builder to pay a penalty to the apartment o"ner #or the delay. Dr &inil Kumar' based in Kannur' entered into an a(ree ment "ith D)F *outhern To"ns To"ns $rivate )td to purhase an apartment in the ei(hth #loor o# the +e" To To"n "n Hei(hts D)F "ith ar parkin( #aility #or Rs ,- lakh in Kakkanad in -/. He paid Rs 0 lakh to the builder in t"o installments the same year. He availed a loan #rom the )IC Housin( Finane in une -/. % supplementary supplementary a(reement "as entered into by the o"ner and the builder in -2' a(reein( that i# the pro!et "as delayed beyond Deember -11' the builder "ould have to pa y Rs 1 per s3 #t per month as ompensation #or the period o# delay. Kumar has paid a total o# Rs ,1. -- lakh to the builder sine -/. The ompany has #ailed to omplete the onstrution o# the apartment as a(reed. 4ut the builder has not paid the ompensation' #orin( Kumar to approah the #orum. The builder laimed that the buyer had de#aulted on payment. 4ut the #orum' headed by % Ra!esh' a##irmed that housin( onstrution "as 5a servie under the purvie" o# the Consumer $rotetion %t5. *o' the ontention o# the builder that the 6omplainant "as not a onsumer and the omplaint not maintainable "ithin the ambit o# the %t does not hold "ater6. The #orum ordered the builder to pay a penalty o# Rs 1 per s3 #t per month #rom -11 to the atual date o# delivery to Kumar. The builder also ordered the builder to pay Rs 1' #or le(al proeedin(s at the #orum.

-. 7ou an sue ompanies #or misleadin( advertisements' say e8perts 994%I: Consumer ri(hts e8perts reently ame to(ether to e8plain ho" advertisements;  #rom health drinks to inner"ear to #airness lotions and reams;#ool you and ho" you an sue them under the Consumer $rotetion %t.  
Cases Consumer protection Act 1986 "ithout usin( their produts one annot (et a (ood !ob or a suitable li#e partner. Consumers need to take them on'6 Kamath prodded.  He laimed that in surveys onduted by the or(ani>ation at least 0? o# "omen respondents had used suh reams and 10? even admitted that it had reated badly on their skin.  Kamath su((ested that there should be a re(ulatory a(eny to ontrol and restrit suh misleadin( advertisements

3. Monetary claim pleas can be heard by consumer fora 4ak(round: Consumer #ora an deal "ith omplaints pertainin( to de#etive (oods and de#iieny in servies. % simple money laim is not maintainable under the Consumer $rotetion %t and has to be #iled in a re(ular ivil ourt. 4ut i# the money laim an be linked to a transation relatin( to de#etive (oods or de#iieny in servie' a onsumer omplaint an be #iled. Case *tudy: )allan Kumar had bou(ht a pair o# 4ata shoes on +ovember -@' -,. *ine they "ere de#etive' he approahed the shop. 4y mutual onsent' the shoes "ere e8han(ed #or a pair o# slippers. There "as a prie di##erene o# Rs @' as the shoes "ere pried at Rs 1-A.2@' "hile the slippers ost Rs BA.2@. The di##erene o# Rs @ "as not handed over' but an akno"led(ement "as (iven that this amount "as re#undable. Kumar repeatedly approahed the shop #or a re#und' but it "as not paid. ltimately' he #iled a omplaint be#ore the distrit #orum a(ainst the shop o"ner' Ratan Kumar 9ukher!ee. He laimed a re#und o# Rs @ alon( "ith 1-? interest and ompensation o# Rs @'. The distrit #orum onsidered it to be a ase o# reovery o# money' "ithout any de#iieny in servie. It ruled that a omplaint #or a simple money laim "ould be beyond the purvie" o# the Consumer $rotetion %t' and the proper remedy "ould be to approah a ivil ourt. *ine the omplaint "as dismissed' )allan Kumar appealed to the 4ihar state ommission' "hih onurred "ith the #orum5s order. The appeal "as dismissed holdin( that the omplaint "as not maintainable' as no de#iieny in servie or ne(li(ene had been alle(ed. ndeterred' )allan Kumar approahed the national ommission throu(h a revision petition. The ommission observed that the issue to be determined "as "hether the laim #or the  balane amount o# Rs @ is a simple laim #or reovery o# money' or a part o# a onsumer dispute. It "as noted that the dispute arose out o# a transation relatin( to purhase o# shoes "hih "ere de#etive' and e8han(ed #or slippers "hih "ere o# a lo"er value. Hene' the ori(in o# the dispute pertainin( to the re#und o# Rs @ "as attributable to the purhase o# de#etive shoes' "hih is a onsumer dispute. In a !ud(ment delivered by *uresh Chandra on behal# o# the benh alon( "ith ustie  4 &upta' the national ommission observed that the onsumer an(le had been overlooked by the distrit #orum as "ell as the state ommission. The dispute about re#und o# Rs @ annot  be treated as an isolated or standalone transation but stems #rom the initial transation #or  purhase o# shoes. Hene the #ailure to re#und the amount "ould be a de#iieny in servie. %ordin(ly' the ommission held that the omplaint "as maintainable' and remanded the

Cases Consumer protection Act 1986 dispute in the onsumer #orum #or ad!udiation. Impat: This !ud(ment "ill ome to the aid several onsumers "hose are seekin( a re#und o# their money' espeially those "ho are laimin( a re#und #rom builders #or anellation o#  bookin(s o# #lats.

A. Consumers %t #ails to de#ine ommerial purpose The Consumer $rotetion %t e8ludes servies #or 6ommerial purpose6 #rom its purvie"'  but does not de#ine this term. This has lead to haos as the term is bein( interpreted di##erently by di##erent !ud(es and there is no onsisteny. Hene' outome o# the ase has no  !udiial ertainty and depends on the luk o# the party. *urprisin(ly' even the proposed amendments do not address this issue. Case *tudy 1: Delhi $ubli *hool had #iled a omplaint a(ainst ttar Haryana 4i!li itran  +i(am )td' sayin( that despite it re(ularly payin( its eletri bills' the latter had suddenly sent a demand memo on February 1-' -11' #or Rs 1@'10'A0 retrospetively assessed # rom %u(ust -/. The +i(am hallen(ed the !urisdition o# the onsumer #orum and !usti#ied the demand' ontendin( that the meter "as runnin( slo" and re(isterin( only one=third the atual onsumption. The #orum allo"ed the omplaint' but in appeal' the state ommission reversed the order' holdin( that the supply "as #or ommerial purpose. The shool approahed the national ommission in revision. 4y Otober -2 order' the national ommission held the complaint to be maintainable' observin( that the shool "as not usin( po"er to manu#ature any (oods. Thou(h the onnetion is non=domesti' it "ould not amount to ommerial purpose as the supply "as used #or eletri#iation o# the shool premises. Case *tudy -: $uran 9urti
Cases Consumer protection Act 1986  Conlusion: %mendment to the Consumer $rotetion %t should inorporate a de#inition #or 6ommerial purpose6 so that there is uni#ormity in interpretation. *ine the %t is meant to empo"er onsumers' it "ould be ideal to keep the redressal #orum open only to individual onsumers and e8lude business houses lo((in( the redressal mehanism "ith business=to=  business disputes. *oure: """.timeso#india.om