The Mysore District Consumer Forum recently dismissed (13-7-11 in Case No. 1070/2010) a complaint filed by a consumer. It appears to be based on a wrong interpretation of the Consumer Protection Act.
The consumer had complained that her late husband had paid a deposit on an Ashraya house, but the house was not handed over. This constituted deficiency in service, she contended. But Mysore City Corporation, the opposite party, argued that the complainant was not a consumer since the Ashraya house was given at a concessional price. The District Forum agreed with this argument, concluded that the complainant was not a consumer and dismissed the case.
But this conclusion is a direct violation of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Act, a complainant is not a consumer only if the goods or services are COMPLETELY FREE. Just because the goods or services are given at a concessional price, it does not make the buyer a non-consumer in the eye of the law. Otherwise, every seller of goods and services will sell at a nominal discount and escape the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Then the Consumer Protection Act will become totally useless and the exploitation of the consumers will increase without let or hindrance.
A similar decision was given by the Mysore DCF some time ago in a case filed by MGP against the Postal department. MGP was mailing its newsletter under the special rates allowed for newspapers. The Postal department misapplied a provision applicable to book packets containing periodicals to the newsletter and cancelled the concessional postage. MGP complained to the Mysore District Consumer Forum claiming deficiency in service. But the Forum did not even admit the case saying that postal concession is a privilege extended by the postal department to the complainant and so one can not file a case of deficiency in service. This is again not tenable because the Consumer Protection Act does not exempt services given at a concessional rate (even if they are a "privilege") from its purview.
In the first half of the last decade, The Supreme Court gave several landmark decisions with reference to the Consumer Protection Act. These decisions took the view "The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation" (III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)). But over the last few years, the Supreme Court as well as the consumer courts seem to be going the opposite way, limiting the applicability of the Act more and more. Many of these decisions are contrary to the spirit of the law, but some, as the cases referred above, are contrary to the letter of the law itself. This development does not bode well for the consumers.
B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat
The consumer had complained that her late husband had paid a deposit on an Ashraya house, but the house was not handed over. This constituted deficiency in service, she contended. But Mysore City Corporation, the opposite party, argued that the complainant was not a consumer since the Ashraya house was given at a concessional price. The District Forum agreed with this argument, concluded that the complainant was not a consumer and dismissed the case.
But this conclusion is a direct violation of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Act, a complainant is not a consumer only if the goods or services are COMPLETELY FREE. Just because the goods or services are given at a concessional price, it does not make the buyer a non-consumer in the eye of the law. Otherwise, every seller of goods and services will sell at a nominal discount and escape the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Then the Consumer Protection Act will become totally useless and the exploitation of the consumers will increase without let or hindrance.
A similar decision was given by the Mysore DCF some time ago in a case filed by MGP against the Postal department. MGP was mailing its newsletter under the special rates allowed for newspapers. The Postal department misapplied a provision applicable to book packets containing periodicals to the newsletter and cancelled the concessional postage. MGP complained to the Mysore District Consumer Forum claiming deficiency in service. But the Forum did not even admit the case saying that postal concession is a privilege extended by the postal department to the complainant and so one can not file a case of deficiency in service. This is again not tenable because the Consumer Protection Act does not exempt services given at a concessional rate (even if they are a "privilege") from its purview.
In the first half of the last decade, The Supreme Court gave several landmark decisions with reference to the Consumer Protection Act. These decisions took the view "The provisions of the Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation" (III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)). But over the last few years, the Supreme Court as well as the consumer courts seem to be going the opposite way, limiting the applicability of the Act more and more. Many of these decisions are contrary to the spirit of the law, but some, as the cases referred above, are contrary to the letter of the law itself. This development does not bode well for the consumers.
B.V. Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat