Skip to main content

Consumer Protection Act

 Consumer Protection Act


Consumers are considered an integral part of the world of business. Consumers are the ones who create

demand in the market and due to which in the circulation of money.

Consumers are considered as a person who purchases goods and services for personal use .as the market

is growing so is corruption, there was a time when consumers were exploited. They were either charged

more or the quality of the product and service was not up to the mark.

The world economic forum has declared that by 2030 with a GDP growth rate of 7.6%, India has a big

chance to become the 3 rd largest consumer market to protect a market India has many consumer laws and

one of which is the consumer protection act 1986, later on, this act was replaced by the consumer

protection act 2019. This act was passed in the assembly in October 1986 and came into force on

December 24, 1986.

This act was implemented to protect consumer rights, it is considered as a part of the law of torts, which

means filing a civil suit for damages against the shopkeeper or the service provider. This act is based on

the doctrine of caveat emptor, which means, the responsibility of the buyer to identify the defects in the

good.

This act does specify who is considered as the consumer in section 2(1)(d). this act also mentions the

various rights of the consumer such as the right to safety, right to information, right to choose, right to be

heard, right to redressal, and right to consumer education

Case; Manjeet Singh v. National Insurance Company LTD. &Anr, in this case, the appellant hired a

second-hand truck. This vehicle was insured by the respondent company. The appellant in his kindness

gave a passenger lift after that he was assaulted and fled with the vehicle. The appellant asked for

insurance. It was held by the supreme court that it wasn't the appellant's fault. It can't be considered a

breach of any policy. Therefore the court was directed to pay the compensation to the appellant.

Case; National Insurance Company LTD. V. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. & Anr

In this case, the insurance company has refused to compensate the respondent because of damage caused

due to heavy rain during the mentioned period. The insurance company admittedly denied relief to the

insured as the conditions of the policy mentioned that the company wouldn't be liable for the loss or

damages that occurred 12 months after the event of loss to be insured.


It was held by the national commission that the claim made by the insured is actionable. It was also

observed that the goods were insured at the time of the incident and he asked for the claim the next day it

was also viewed that the company should be liable for the compensation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree