The Evolution Of Consumer Protection Law In India - A Detailed Analysis
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Consumer Law
Published:
Updated:
THE EVOLUTION OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW IN
INDIA: A DETAILED ANALYSIS
Aditi Singh & Syed Zaid Alvi, Symbiosis Law School, Noida
ABSTRACT
This research article aims to critically examine and explain how consumer protection law operates in India. It provides an in-depth discussion of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, highlighting the role of judicial decisions in shaping consumer protection jurisprudence. The study underscores the transition from the traditional legal principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) to caveat venditor (let the seller beware), emphasizing the increased responsibility of sellers and manufacturers to ensure product quality and safety. The 1986 Act established a three-tier redressal system and defined consumer rights, laying the groundwork for consumer protection in India. However, its limitations in addressing challenges posed by modern markets, such as e-commerce and digital transactions, prompted the introduction of the more suitable 2019 Act.
The Consumer Protection Act of 2019 introduced significant changes, including broader definitions of "consumer" and "service," stricter product liability provisions, and measures to combat misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices. Additionally, the Act established the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to uphold consumer rights and streamline the redressal process. This article also examines how the 2019 Act addresses contemporary issues like online shopping, multi-level marketing, and global supply chains, as well as traditional concerns that were insufficiently covered by the 1986 Act. It discusses how the law has adapted to the evolving consumer landscape while identifying areas that require further enhancement.
The study concludes with recommendations for improving consumer protection mechanisms, aiming to make redressal systems fairer and more efficient in the digital era.
I. Introduction
“Every person is a consumer at any time in one way or another”1, this means that all the humans are at least once a consumer in their lifetime. The day a person is born, he starts consuming things like clothes, milk, oil, soap etc. and these consumptions goes on throughout that person’s lifetime and hence all the people on this earth are consumers and when any consumer visits the market to buy things they expect ‘value for money’ like the quantity of the good, the prices, etc. and while expecting these there can be times when the consumers are harassed or cheated by the sellers. 2 There have been several laws made by the Government of India to protect the consumers from these harassments and cheatings, like the ‘Sales and Goods Act’, the ‘Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, etc.
, which to an extent protects the consumers from these sellers in the market but there is a very lengthy process of filing a civil suit which is even expensive and which is not affordable for everybody, therefore there was a need for a law which along with protecting the rights of the consumers should have been easily accessible to the consumers and hence the Consumer Protection Act came into being in 1986. 3 Consumer protection is a set of laws that have been collated for the protection of the rights of the individuals as consumers, against the unfair selling or trade practices of goods, services and digital content. 4 The Act aims at protecting the interests of the consumers by setting up authorities to secure the timely and efficient resolution of the disputes between the consumers and address the related issues.
5 The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was enacted to give easy access to the redressal of grievances of consumers. This was the first time that the act defined the term of 'consumer' and conferred legal rights on them, but the act of 1986 did not confer upon all the consumers but some specific ones who used to fall under the literal meaning of the term, therefore, amendments took place in the act in the years 1991, 1993, 2002, and the latest amendment in 1 Quotes and Slogans on Consumer Rights, Vedantu. https://www. vedantu. com/question-answer/quotes-andslogans-on-consumer-rights-can-anybody-give-me-5b7e40c4e4b0252b801b5933
2 Bare Acts, Nat’l Consumer Disputes Redressal Comm’n. https://ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts/1_1_2.html
3 Bare Acts, Nat’l Consumer Disputes Redressal Comm’n. https://ncdrc.nic.in/bare_acts/1_1_2.html
4 Consumer Law, The Univ. of Law. https://www.law.ac.uk/employability/legal-practice-areas/consumer-law/
5 Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
the act is of 2019 where the ambit of the term 'consumer' has been expanded for the online consumers. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the legal maxim which it stood for was that "caveat emptor", which implied 'let the buyers beware'. Literally understood this meant, it was their job to enquire and to inspect the thing sold before finally deciding to but that the risk for any shortcoming in a sold product the onus wouldn't be put upon the vendor; however in 2019 after the amendments made, consumers had a statute known as a protection act formed around the maxims "caveat venditor" translating as 'let the sellers beware' which could literally be expressed to mean not just that although they have actually sold the merchandise but that regardless of the issue occurring in said product after making a sale will fall upon his shoulder.
This change in the fundamental legal maxim of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 will be discussed in detail in this article.
II. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
“Caveat emptor6,” a Latin maxim which served as the foundational principle of the Consumer Protection Law as a whole. This proverbial maxim demonstrates the legal principle of, “let the buyer beware. ” This approach towards consumer protection effectively encourages the consumer to adequately carry out their due diligence prior to transacting any good or service and relinquishes the seller from any form of liability upon the completion of the purchase, though that does not license the seller to effectuate or to elicit assent for the sale and purchase by means that would be fraudulent or would be contrary to provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 18727. The Times of India in their paper had once stated, “The Indian Consumer, like the French Peasantry under Louis IV, is a much-exploited lot taxed by the Government, fleeced by the manufacturer, conned by the retailer...
8” This contention accurately encapsulates mediocrity of consumer redressal forum in India prior to the commencement of the 1986 act. The immense anticipation and irregularity in consumer redressal culminated in the legislature drafting and commencing the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the 24th day of December 1986, which
6 "Doctrine of Caveat Emptor," iPleaders. https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-caveat-emptor/
7 Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 9, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India).
8 The Times of India, Jaipur ed., June 1, 1987.
sought to protect the rights of a consumer who may engage in the purchase of goods and services. The 1986 act sought to balance the approach of ‘caveat emptor’ and attempted at the conciliation between consumer rights and trade practices, since open-ended markets are bound to lead to exploitation of consumers—a sentiment best summed up by The Times of India, which brought to the forefront the Indian consumer's plight as being under siege from all quarters. The preamble of the 1986 act envisages, "to provide for the better protection of the interests of consumers9. " Before the 1986 act, the instruments of consumer redressal were governed by the Sale of Goods Act, 193010, and the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 196911. Yet, these legislations were trade regulation-oriented and not consumer relief-focused12.
The Act, on the other hand, enshrined consumer protection by defining specific definitions of a "consumer" (Section 2(d)13), "goods" (Section 2(i)14), and "services" (Section 2(o)15), so that consumer grievances, whether due to the sale of goods or services, squarely came within its jurisdiction. The judiciary was also instrumental in interpreting the provisions of the Act to enlarge consumer protection jurisprudence. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta16 (1994 AIR 787), the Supreme Court ruled that services offered by statutory bodies, such as housing boards and telecommunication agencies, were within the meaning of "service" under Section 2(o). The verdict made it clear that defects in service offered by government agencies were actionable under the Act, removing vagueness on the state's liability.
Underlying the Consumer Protection Act are the fundamental rights as enunciated under Section 617. These rights include the following: the right to safety from dangerous goods and
9 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, Preamble (India).
10 The Sale of Goods Act, 1930, No. 3, Acts of Parliament, 1930 (India).
11 The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, No. 54, Acts of Parliament, 1969 (India).
12 J.C. Saxena, The Consumer Protection Act 1986: A Viewpoint, 30 J. Indian L. Inst. 321 (1988).
13 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 2(d) (India).
14 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 2(i) (India).
15 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 2(o) (India).
16 Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243; AIR 1994 Supreme Court
787 (India).
17 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6 (India).
services (Section 6(1)(a)18), which enables consumers to stay away from products that may jeopardize their safety or health; the right to information regarding the quality, quantity, and price of goods and services (Section 6(1)(b)19), which enables consumers to make informed decisions on the basis of correct information; the right to select goods and services (Section 6(1)(c)20), which enables consumers to choose products that suit their individual needs; the right to be heard and to obtain redress (Section 6(1)(d)21), which provides consumers with a voice for airing grievances; the right to redress against unfair trade practices (Section 6(1)(e)22), which gives access to legal remedies; and the right to consumer education (Section 6(1)(f)23), thus facilitating greater knowledge and awareness about consumer rights.
These rights establish a context where consumers can function and interpose safeguards against possible malpractice in the marketplace. They afford consumers enough avenues to redress grievances and greater means of being well-informed in their choices, thereby rebalancing the tradition of "seller beware. " The Act introduces consumer protection councils at a central, state and district level (Sections 4-824) with each bearing a different authority and jurisdiction. This is effectively an advisory body which works for the protection of consumer welfare. The Union Minister is the head of the Central Consumer Protection Council and is deemed responsible for consumer affairs. It ensures that proper consideration of the interests of consumers is taken in determining government policy.
These are State Consumer Protection Councils (Section 725), which operate at the state level to deal with regional consumer problems and advise the government to provide consumer protection. District Consumer Protection Councils (Section 8A26) promote consumer awareness at a very low level, mainly to protect the consumers. Apart from this, the 1986 act also establishes a three-tiered consumer dispute redressal system with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 927 of the act, State
18 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6(1)(a) (India).
19 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6(1)(b) (India).
20 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6(1)(c) (India).
21 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6(1)(d) (India).
22 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6(1)(e) (India).
23 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 6(1)(f) (India).
24 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, §§ 4–8 (India).
25 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 7 (India).
26 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 8A (India).
27 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 9 (India).
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 1628 of the act and the apex body being the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 2029. Complaints of an amount less than ₹20 lakh comes under the district forum's jurisdiction, which may even be directed for compensation or return or replacement of the goods, if they do happen to be defective. Section 1530 provides for an appeal before the State Commission against the District Forum's decisions. Matters over ₹20 lakh but below ₹1 crore fall within the domain of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, whereas an appeal is provided for against the decisions of the District Forums, and power to impose penalties rests with this commission. The decisions of the State Commission can be appealed before the National Commission as provided under Section 1931 of the act.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under section 932 of the act is the topmost consumer dispute redressing body, that deals with claims beyond ₹1 crore, is an appellate body receiving appeals from State Commissions and its decision can be challenged in the Supreme Court under Section 23. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta (1994 AIR 787), the Supreme Court held that regulatory bodies providing services fall within the ambit of consumer law and are liable for deficiencies. In Indian Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha33 (1995 AIR 550), medical services were deemed to be covered under "services" as per Section 2(o) of the Act, except those provided free of charge. The case of General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan34 (2009
8 SCC 481) clarified the jurisdictional conflict between TRAI and the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986, limiting the Act’s applicability in telecom disputes. The top-most body, the NCDRC, was established under Section 9 of the Act. It entertains appeals against orders passed by the State Commissions and has jurisdiction to hear complaints where the value of goods and services is more than ₹1 crore. The functions of the NCDRC are not limited to simply deciding disputes; it also includes promoting consumer awareness, as highlighted in the landmark judgment of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)35, where the Supreme Court laid emphasis on the fact that consumer forums must not
28 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 16 (India).
29 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 20 (India).
30 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 15 (India).
31 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 19 (India).
32 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 9 (India).
33 Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651; AIR 1996 Supreme Court 550 (India).
34 General Manager, Telecom v. M. Krishnan, (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 481 (India).
35 Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, (1995) 3 Supreme Court Cases 583 (India).
only deal with compensatory mechanisms but also preventive measures in order to pre-empt grievances before they are caused. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Anneppa (2004)36, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the over-riding effect of the Act which is to, "to provide a simple, inexpensive and speedy redressal of the consumers' grievances. " This is a move towards strengthening the need for consumer justice, which must transcend technicalities and reach substantive justice which may be equitably compensatory for the consumer. The judgement given in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Khwab Sultana & Ors. (2009)37 explains what exactly constitutes as an ‘unfair trade practice’ under Section 2(1)(r)38 of the Act.
In its ruling, the Court decreed that misrepresentative advertisement and promises by service providers infringe consumer faith and thus necessitate accountability according to consumer legislation. Although, the traditional legal principle of "Caveat emptor" believes that the risk of ensuring the quality and suitability of a product or service rests with the consumer, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has, in fact, turned this principle into "Caveat venditor," i. e. , "let the seller beware. " The onus more and more rests with sellers and service providers to ensure that the products they sell are safe, of good quality, and free from defects.
This change is further codified in Section 1439 of the Consumer Protection Act, it is suggestive of the departure from the historical legal doctrine of "Caveat emptor," which posits that the responsibility for ensuring product quality lies with consumers. The Act shifts this burden to the sellers, encapsulated in the principle of "Caveat venditor" or "let the seller beware. " This shift is not merely theoretical; it is codified in Section 14, which delineates unfair trade practices, including false advertising and deficient service. The Supreme Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar (2001)40, reaffirmed this perspective by declaring that the doctrine of "Caveat emptor" is not absolute, thereby supporting consumers against exploitative practices that arise due to seller negligence.
36 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Anneppa, (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases 180 (India).
37 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Khwab Sultana & Others, (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 678 (India).
38 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 2(1)(r) (India).
39 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, No. 68, Acts of Parliament, 1986, § 14 (India).
40 National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Kumar, (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 713 (India).
Consumer satisfaction is said to be reliant on having an effective grievance redressal mechanism in place. The 1986 Act integrates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including arbitration and mediation, thereby providing speedy channels for resolution of disputes to consumers. Procedural frameworks offered in subsequent amendments, particularly the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 201941, enhance the framework by permitting online complaints and speeding up the redressal process. Introducing provisions for "e-consumer" and expanding the definition of the term "service" to all online products evidences the changes in consumer protection with changing times. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 is the pinnacle of consumer rights in India.
It reverses the archaic principle of "Caveat emptor" by instituting a dynamic regime of rights, responsibilities, and regulatory mechanism with the priority given to consumer welfare. Through the establishment of specialized forums and through the evolution of judicial interpretation, the Act has not only shielded consumers from exploitation but has also fostered an evolving culture of accountability in the marketplace. The guarantee of consumer protection lies not in the theoretical definition but in the operational exercise of rights. The synergistic effort of the legislative, regulatory, and judicial, is an entire commitment towards making the consumer an empowered force in the economy, worthy of rights and redressal.
Ultimately, although the shadow of caveat emptor lingers, it is the constitution of "Caveat venditor" that will prevail in safeguarding the interests of consumers as India evolves into a more equitable and just marketplace.
III. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 started a new era in the field of consumer rights in India, that finally aligned with the expectations of the new- age consumers. The Act of 2019 carries forward the intention behind the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which was to protect the rights of the consumers.
41 The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India).
DISCERNMENT OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
As the time passed and the world advanced in field of the market functions, like rise in the international trade, global supply chains and rapid development of e-commerce, the consumers started experiencing many deceptive advertisements for which a special check was required on the sale of the goods and services and the multi- level marketing and hence the new Consumer Protection Act of 2019 was brought into effect by the Government of India on 20th July 2020. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 consists of measures that made the rules of the 1986 act more strict and hence enhanced the modern consumer welfare.
The new act expanded the scope of the protection of consumer rights, against the rapid growth of the e-commerce industry and modern methods of offering goods and services, such as online sales, teleshopping, direct selling, and multi-level marketing, in addition to the traditional approaches.
HIGHLIGHTS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019
THE DEFINITION OF ‘CONSUMER’
Under the ‘Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ a consumer is any person who “buys any goods” and “hires any service” including both the online and the offline modes of transactions, which explains that a consumer is any person who is buying the goods or services in return for some definite consideration and uses those goods for the personal use of their own or for re-sale or commercial purposes.
‘RIGHTS’ OF THE CONSUMERS UNDER THE ACT
Under the ‘Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ the consumer has been six following rights – (i) The consumer has the right to be protected from the advertisements and marketing of goods and services which can prove to be destructive and risky to life and property. (ii) The consumer has the right of being aware of the quality, quantity, standard and price of goods, products and services and be protected against the ‘unfair trade practices of the sellers.
(iii) The consumers have the right to get access to the variety of goods, services and products, in the market which have monopolistic features, that is where the goods and services are displayed at a competitive price. (iv) The consumers have the right to seek redressal against ‘unfair trade practices’ at forums, formed to deal with cases of the same. (v) It is the right of the consumer to receive sufficient compensation and consideration from the forums they reach out to for help in situations where they have been wronged by the seller. (vi) The consumer has the right to receive education which are important for the consumers.
PRODUCT LIABILITY
The word ‘Product Liability’ can be defined as the responsibility which either the product seller or the product manufacturer has towards the consumer against any ‘harm’ caused due to any defectiveness or deficiency in the product. It is the first time, that 'product liability' has been included under the 'Consumer Protection Act, 2019' in order to give more stringent protection to the rights of the consumers. The act of 2019 under 'chapter VI and section 82' deals with the situation where the consumers can bring a claim for compensation for any 'harm' caused because of the 'defective' product sold by the product seller, serviced by any product service provider or manufactured by any product manufacturer. In the case of "Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Danish Sondhi and Anr.
", the case was filed by the consumer alleging that the airbags in the car did not deploy during a collision with a stray cattle even though the car was not very old and was under full warranty which resulted in many injuries to the cattle as well as the persons sitting inside it, and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held Maruti Suzuki liable for the defect in their product, which led to the 'harm' of the buyers of the product, and ordered them to compensate the consumer for the medical expenses as well as the mental distress she had to go through. In the definitions and cases mentioned above, it has been elaborated that a ‘harm’ is made due to ‘product liability’ on account of defect in product wherein any injury results to a customer. For explanation of a 'harm', under section 2 (22) of 'Consumer Protection Act, 2019,' different
criteria fall wherein 'harm' liable against the 'Product Liability'. One of which include: - (i) Any damage caused to any property other than the product in question. (ii) Any personal injury, illness or death which is a result of the defect in the product. (iii) Any mental trauma or distress, etc. which may be caused to the consumer due to any personal loss which was a result of the defect in the product, like in the Maruti Suzuki case, the company even had to compensate the consumer for the mental trauma they had suffered due to the accident caused as a result of the defect in the airbags of the car.
As mentioned, under ‘Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, ‘defect’, has been defined which includes, any default or imperfection or inferiority in the quality, quantity or the standard, which is required to be maintained under the contract whether expressed or implied and as it is claimed by the sellers or the manufacturers of the product or the services. Further, the roles for the ‘product liability’ has been divided between the product manufacturer, product seller and service provider by the ‘Consumer Protection Act, 2019’: (i) The liability of the product manufacturer- Under ‘Section 2(36) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ the product manufacturer has been defined, which includes all the parties connected with the process of the sale of the goods.
Under the Act of 2019, some specific criteria are mentioned which if fulfilled will constitute the person as the ‘product manufacturer’: (a) If the person has made the product in question or any part of it thereof. (b) If the person has assembled the parts of the product in question, though the parts were made by others. (c) If the person marks the product with their own company’s label even though the product is made by others. (d) If the person ‘designs’, ‘ produces, fabricates, constructs or ‘re-manufactures’ the product before the sale of it.
(e) If the person, along with the seller of the product, is also the manufacturer of the product. The above- mentioned points are the criteria where the person will be considered as the manufacturer of the product. Now, under ‘Section 84 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ the situations are defined where the manufacturer of the product will be made liable for compensation in an action made for the ‘product liability’, as the consumer had to suffer harm due to the defect in the product: (a) There is a manufacturing defect in the product, that is if the harm is caused due to the defect in the product which was there from the day the product was manufactured. (b) The design of the product is not appropriate and the reason for the product being defective.
(c) The ‘product liability’ will even be imposed on the manufacturer if the product fails to carry the instruction manual on the correct usage of the product, as a result of which the consumer had to suffer harm. (ii) The liability of the product service provider- Under ‘Section 2(38) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ the product service provider has been defined as a person who provides services for the product in question. This definition of the ‘service provider’ has been added so that all the maintenance and repair in relation to the product are also covered, hence if the product causes any ‘harm’ to the consumer after any maintenance or repair work then somebody is answerable for the same.
Now, under ‘Section 85 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ instances are explained where the ‘product service provider’ can be made liable in action for ‘product liability’ if any harm is caused to the consumer because of any defect in the product: (a) If the service provider provides any faulty, imperfect or inferior quality of service which ultimately harmed the consumer, then he will be made liable to compensate,
but it should be based on the requirements set forth by any prevailing law or the terms of a contract. (b) (b) Liability of service provider shall arise if the product causes harm for reasons of any negligent act, omission, commission or willful withholding of information. (c) The product service provider will be made liable to compensate if the consumer suffers any ‘harm’ due to the failure on the part of the provider in providing reasonable instructions or the warning that was needed to prevent the potential damage. (d) If the service provider fails to comply with the expressed warranty or contractual terms and conditions in providing the services then also, he will be made liable to compensate in any action for the ‘product liability’ of the product in question.
(iii) The liability of a Product Seller- Under ‘Section 2(37) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, a product seller is defined as an individual engaged in the commercial activities, such as importing, selling, distributing, leasing, installing, preparing, maintaining or otherwise making a product available for commercial purposes. The definition of the product seller also includes a product seller who also is a manufacturer and a service provider. Though the section defines the people liable under the definition of ‘product seller’ but there are individuals who are explicitly excluded from this definition s specified in the section: (a) The person will not be covered in the above- mentioned section if he is the seller of any immovable property unless he is engaging in a sale of constructed flats or buildings.
(b) A provider of professional services is not a product seller if the provision of skills or services is his primary role, and the use of products is only incidental. (c) A person is excluded from the definition of a product seller if they (a) are involved only in a financial capacity in the sale, (b) are neither a manufacturer, wholesaler, distributor, retailer, direct seller, nor an electronic service provider, or (c) lease a
product without a reasonable chance to inspect it, under an agreement where another party controls its selection, possession, maintenance, and operation. Now, under ‘Section 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ instances are explained where the ‘product seller’, not a product manufacturer ass well can be made liable in action for ‘product liability’ if any harm is caused to the consumer because of any defect in the product: (a) The product seller had considerable control over the design, testing, manufacturing, packaging, or labelling of a product that caused the harm. (b) The product seller changed or modified the product, and such alteration or modification became a significant cause of the harm. (c) The product seller gave an express warranty about the product other than the manufacturer’s warranty and the product did not meet this guarantee, which caused an injury.
UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
Under ‘Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ “unfair trade practice” is explained which means a type of practice used in trading for the purpose of promoting the sale of the goods or services, takes the way of unfair or deceptive method which after the act of
2019 includes nine criteria: -
(i) When the seller makes any false claim in oral or written form, through visible representation or even electronically, about the specific standard, quality or quantity, grade, etc. that the good possess which in reality they do not, then it comes under the “unfair trade practices”. In a case of Tamil Nadu, known as the “Sunfeast Marie Light Biscuit case” the manufacturers were packing one less biscuit in the pack, which when taken to the consumer forum by one of the consumers was taken as “unfair trade practice” as a consequence of which the ITC Ltd. Food Division was directed by the district
consumer forum to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the alleged consumer. 42 (ii) When the seller gives advertisements, either in newspaper or online or anywhere, to promote goods or services at a reduced or “bargain” price if there is no intention to actually sell them at the mentioned price or in the reasonable quantities for a reasonable time, for all the circumstances, considering the market and the business size. Here, a “bargain price” is either a price mentioned as a sale compared to a regular price, or a price that seems like, a good but against usual prices. (iii) Therefore, practices such as, (a) Providing gifts, prizes, or free goods with no intention of actually providing them, or creating an impression that something is free when, in fact, the cost is buried in the general price.
(b) Conducting contests, lotteries, or games of chance to advertise products or services unless they conform to prescribed regulations. (c) Failure to publish the results of gift or prize schemes amongst participants, unless the results are published in the same medium as the original advertisements within a reasonable time. (iv) Supplying or selling goods which no authority has approved of as meeting safety or quality standards, and which may injure health. (v) Withholding from sale or destruction of or refusing to supply goods or services with intent to enhance their price or create an artificial scarcity. (vi) Manufacturing or selling spurious goods or employing fraudulent practices in rendering services. https://www. deccanherald. com/india/tamil-nadu/one-biscuit-less-in-pack-consumer-forum-in-tamil-nadudirects-itc-to-pay-rs-1-lakh-as-compensation-2675070
In a case on the issue of ‘differential pricing for rideshare operator’, in January 2025, the Indian government's consumer protection agency issued notices to ridehailing companies Ola and Uber following complaints that users with Apple devices were being charged higher fares compared to those with Android devices. This practice, if proven, could be considered discriminatory and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.43 (vii) Failure to issue bills, cash memos, or receipts for sold goods or rendered services as provided. (viii) Refusing to accept defective goods, to discontinue faculty services, or to refund payments within stipulated time period (or 30 days if no time period is specified). (ix) Sharing a consumer’s confidential personal information with third parties without legal authorization.
MISLEADING ADVERTISMENTS AND PROACTIVE STEPS TO CURB THEM
Under ‘Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, “advertisement” has been explained as any form of audio or visual representation, promotion, endorsement, or declaration conveyed through light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, the internet or the websites. The term “advertisement” even includes notices, circulars, labels, wrappers, invoices and any related document.
Further, under ‘Section 2(28) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, “misleading advertisements” has been explained as an advertisement in relation to the product or service and is falsely describing the product or service in question or the advertisement is such which can mislead the consumers on the parameters of quality, quantity or nature of the substance of such good or service and lastly the advertisement knowingly conceals the information which is necessary to be known by the consumers before they avail the good or the service. The interpretation that can be drawn from the above sections is that a misleading advertisement is when it misleads people from reality and tries to influence their decision-making power of a https://www. reuters. com/business/autos-transportation/india-sends-notices-ride-hailing-apps-ola-uber-overdifferential-pricing-2025-01-23
product or any service in the market. In the ‘Patanjali Case’ of 2022 the brand was in controversy because of its advertisements which were considered as misleading, where the brand during the covid-19 pandemic, claimed that its medicine “Coronil” was sufficient to cure the covid disease and that it was also approved by the World Health Organization but later the WHO denied their this claim and hence Supreme Court took their this advertisement as misleading as a consequence of which the Apex Court banned the manufacturing license of this medicine along with 13 other medicines which the brand used to claim as the most efficient medicine to cure the respective diseases. 44 Lastly, there has been a very recent case of misleading advertisement, where a coaching institute had to pay a sum of 3 lakh rupees as a penalty for misleading advertisements.
“Sriram IAS coaching institute case” where the institute falsely advertised the top results of the UPSC examination as their own as a consequence of which the Central Consumer Protection Authority imposed a fine of Rs. 3 lakhs over them. 45
CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY (CCPA)
Under 'Section 10 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019', the act set up a central regulatory authority in the name of the 'Central Consumer Protection Authority' and made an objective in this direction, so that such an authority may function to ensure protection and effective enforcement of consumer rights. The Act of 2019 explains that CCPA is assigned with the duty of regulating matters relating to the violation of the consumer rights which shall include any cases against the unfair trade practices of the sellers, or any misleading advertisements made by the seller or any matter detrimental to the interests of the consumers. It also states that in the act, the CCPA should have offices on regional levels in various parts of India, and the head quarter is situated in the union territory of New Delhi.
Further, under 'Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019' it has been included that the Central Authority should have an Investigation Wing which will be headed by a Director https://www. livelaw. in/lawschool/articles/misleading-advertisement-patanjali-case-self-declarationcertificate-celebrities-influencers-consumer-protection-advertising-agencies-261264 45 https://economictimes. indiatimes. com/news/india/srirams-ias-coaching-institute-faces-rs-3-lakh-penalty-overmisleading-upsc-resultadvertisement/articleshow/112606215. cms? utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign= cppst
General. This investigation wing was formed with the aim of getting an in-depth inquiry and investigation done under the Act of 2019 as directed by the ‘Central Consumer Protection Authority’. The ‘Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ mandates some functions for the Central Consumer Protection Authority under ‘Section 18 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ which needs to be followed by the Authority mandatorily which includes researching on violations of the consumers’ rights, taking legal actions if necessary, and further, issuing a recall of harmful products, termination of hazardous services, refund of payments or ending unfair trade practices. Further, the act also directs the authority to order the businesses, advertisers and publishers to discontinue or amend false advertisements, among other requirements.
Lastly, the authority tries to raise awareness, conduct research on consumer rights and recommend international standards to improve consumer protection. The Central Consumer Protection Authority was a marking establishment of the Act of 2019 as relief can easily be sought through the creation of the Authority and it even gave an option to the consumers to take any collective actions if required.
CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUMS
Under ‘Section 34(2) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019’ the act makes filing complaints easier and more convenient for consumers by giving them the liberty to file them at their place of their residence or place of work for gain. Such a change prevents consumers from having to face hurdles in seeking redressal against businesses that are not present in their state. Further, the Act of 2019 has fixed a new monetary limit for all various consumer commissions- • District Commission-Monetary bar is raised up to ₹1 Crores from existing value of ₹20 Lakh, • State Commission- Takes into consideration and fixes now to the credit of ₹10 crores as the limit instead of prevailing one i.e., ₹1 Crores.
National Commission-Cases more than amounting ₹10 crores instead of erstwhile threshold at one crore. In addition to the above- mentioned redressals, pecuniary jurisdiction is now determined based on the actual price paid for goods or services, and not including the compensation claimed. This prevents consumers from inflating compensation demands to move their case to a higher commission. Under 'Section 38(6) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019' provisions have been added wherein complaints are filed online, and hearings may be conducted by video conferencing. This would cause a reduction in inconvenience that much more than elderly and those suffering from any kind of illness would face. Under ‘Chapter V, Section 74-81 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, to expedite redressal, the Act allows mediation as a substitute mechanism.
In case the parties agree to it in writing, consumer disputes can be referred to mediation. For this purpose, State Governments shall establish mediation cells at District and State levels, and the Central Government shall establish one at the National Commission level. The jail term for a jail term of 1 to 3 years or a fine of ₹2,000 to ₹10,000 was also given in case the consumer complaint not complied with the order of the commission under the 1986 Act. The new Act provides the same term of imprisonment but increases the fine from ₹25,000 to ₹1 lakh. Under ‘Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, in case a party is not satisfied with the decision of the State Commission, they can appeal to the National Commission within 30 days from the date of receiving the order. The National Commission can accept a delayed appeal if there is a valid reason for the delay.
However, at least 50% of the awarded amount must be deposited before the appeal is heard. Under ‘Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019’, an appeal to the Supreme Court within 30 days may also be filed if a party is not satisfied with a ruling by the National Commission. However, the Supreme Court may entertain the appeal even if made beyond 30 days but subject to justification. Again, the Supreme Court may settle the appeal after paying at least 50% of the amount awarded.
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
Under ‘Section 90 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’, the punishment for a person (either directly or through another) who has been involved in the manufacture, sale, storage, importation, or distribution of any commodity containing an adulterant [according to ‘Section
90 of the Act’, “adulterant” is explained as any material which includes extraneous matter
which is employed or used for making a product unsafe] would be as follows: If there is no harm to the consumer: It includes imprisonment of 6 months, or an imprisonment of six months and fine of ₹1 lakh. In case the injury suffered by the consumer is not grievous. Imprisonment up to 1 year, and the fine up to ₹3 lakh. In case of grievous hurt, it will include an imprisonment of 7 years along with a fine up to ₹5 lakh. If the adulteration leads to the death of the consumer, then the imprisonment for at least 7 years, which may extend up to life, and fine of at least ₹10 lakh. Under ‘Section 91 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, any person who, directly or indirectly manufactures, sells, stores, imports, or distributes spurious goods shall be punished with: If the consumer suffers an injury that is not grievous, then the imprisonment is up to 1 year and fine up to ₹3 lakh.
If the consumer suffers grievous hurt, then the imprisonment is up to 7 years and fine up to ₹5 lakh. If the sale of spurious goods results in the consumer’s death, then the imprisonment of at least
7 years, extendable to life, and a fine of at least ₹10 lakh.
The above mentioned are the offences and penalties that the consumers whose rights have been breached can avail under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
IV. Comparative Analysis
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are two legislative enactments that paved a way for the rights of consumers in India. While on one hand, the Act of 1986 marked the starting point for consumer protection by establishing a legal framework that addressed the grievances of the consumers, on the other hand, the Act of 2019 expanded
and modernized the framework and made it competent to solve the grievances of the consumers posed by the rapidly changing marketplace. This brings in another significant development through the comparative analysis between the two legislations showing what actually occurred in between the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to the Consumer Protection Act 2019. Expansive Scope and Definition The “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is defined as a person who ‘buys goods or hires services’ for their personal use. However, this definition of consumer was very limited and did not explicitly cover transactions which were for commercial purposes or on online purchases.
Later, after the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, this definition of consumer was expanded under the ‘Section 2(7) of the Act’ which became, any person who ‘buys goods or hires services’ for their personal use as well as for reselling or commercial purposes, with expenditure for self- employment falling within the category so long as the goods or services were being used for earning a livelihood. This expanding provided clear recognition to the increased factual scenario of e-commerce and necessity in regard to the protection to small businesses and self-employed people who rely upon commercial transactions. This concept of "product liability" is also introduced for the first time under Chapter VI (Sections 82-87) of the 2019 Act and was not there in the 1986 Act.
Product liability holds manufacturers, sellers, and service providers liable for any damage caused by defective products or deficient services. For instance, in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Danish Sondhi (2020), it was held that the manufacturer had been negligent as far as airbags were concerned, thereby upholding this section for protection of consumers. It is one step forward in giving up the time-honored principle of caveat emptor - let the buyer beware to a new one caveat venditor-let the seller beware with added responsibility to sellers and manufacturers. The Protection Of The Rights Of Consumers The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 enacted 6 basic consumer rights of right to safety, right to information, right to choice, right to redressal and right to consumer education.
Though these rights were self- sufficient but the modern time demanded some more rights to tackle the cunning tactics of the sellers and hence the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 expanded this
section of rights and gave three more rights to the consumers which is covered under ‘Section 2(9) of the Act’, like the act incorporated the right that challenged the “misleading advertisements” and the “unfair trade practices” of the manufacturers and the sellers and these rights were included because of the increasing need in the modern times against the false advertising tactics like happened in the “Patanjali Case” of 2022 where the brand had to suffer consequences of the false product advertisement. Further, the 2019 Act introduced the right to claim damages resulting from defective products or deficient services under the lure of the product liability provisions. This new expansion of rights to consumers protects them in light of an ever-changing marketplace environment.
The Dispute Resolution Mechanism The modernization of dispute resolution mechanisms got a boost after the Consumer Protection Act of 2019, which helped the forums speed up the redressal process and it became easy for the consumers to get reliefs. Under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, a three-tier redressal structure of District Forums, State Commissions, and the National Commission was instituted. However, the monetary jurisdictions by these bodies were restricted. The District Forums heard claims up to ₹20 lakh, while the National Commission heard claims above ₹1 crore, but after the 2019 Act, Sections 34, 47, and 58’, increased these limits to ₹1 crore for District Commissions, ₹10 crore for State Commissions, and above ₹10 crore for the National Commission. This amendment will mean that consumers can find redress for higher-value claims at the right level.
The 2019 Act also introduced provisions for online complaint filing and video conferencing for hearings under ‘Section 38(6) of the Act, which makes the process more accessible and convenient for the consumers. This is particularly beneficial for elderly or differently abled consumers who may face difficulties attending physical hearings. Further, the Act introduced mediation as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism under ‘Sections 74-81 of the Act, allowing parties to resolve disputes amicably without lengthy litigation. This provision is in line with global trends of preferring mediation and arbitration for speedy and costeffective resolution.
Powers Given to the Central Consumer Protection Authority The 2019 act mandates the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under Section 10. The CCPA is effectively a central or apex authority with an absolute right to investigate and recall harmful products and act against unfair trade practices as well as misleading advertisements. This body addresses a major oversight in the 1986 Act, as that act did not call for the establishment of any such central authority for the proactive enforcement of consumer rights. To exemplify the same, in the Sriram IAS Coaching Institute Case (2023), the CCPA imposed a ₹3 lakh fine for false advertising, thus establishing that it functions to correct wrong practices. This is demonstrative of the penalty enforcing element of the CCPA as enshrined under Section
21 of the act, on producers and service providers for false advertisement. It can theoretically
impose a penalty of up to ₹10 lakh as well as imprisonment if the person who committed the offense after having already been convicted for it. This was a significant change from the previous 1986 Act, wherein stringent penalties for misleading advertisements was not adequately addressed. Penalties Made More Rigorous The 2019 Act effectuates severe punishment against offences like adulteration and spurious sale. Section 90 provides that any manufacturer or seller of the adulterated products shall face imprisonment of a term of up to 7 years, and with fines up to ₹5 lakh. In some cases, even amounting to a life sentence along with fine of not less than ₹10 lakh shall be dealt if adulteration in the product results in someone’s death. Section 91 provides a harsh punishment for the sale of spurious goods which also prescribes imprisonment and fine.
Such provisions are much stricter than the ones from the 1986 Act, which failed to explicitly include adulteration or spurious goods. The 2019 act enhances the quantum of punishment in the scenario of disobedience or infringement of order put in effect by a consumer forum. Section 72 of the new Act specifies imprisonment of a term of up to 3 years and fine up to ₹1 lakh for non-compliance qua the order of the consumer forum, whereas the 1986 Act punished the same with a fine of ₹10,000. This brings greater seller accountability and ensures effective compliance under the new consumer protection law.
Increased Relevance to Contemporary Issues The 2019 Act, by virtue to being enacted 33 years later, addressed several challenges that were not foreseen back in 1986. For example, it explicitly includes online purchasing and selling under the ambit of "goods" and "services," thereby ensuring that online consumers are protected as well, since online markets have become so ubiquitous in this day and age. The Act also addresses differential pricing, such as in the Ola and Uber Case (2025), where Apple users were being charged higher fares than Android users. Such practices are now covered under the unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(47) of the act. Additionally, the 2019 Act added provisions protecting consumer data and privacy, given the rampant incidents of data breaches and misuse of personal information.
Section 2(47)(ix) specially prohibits the disclosure of consumer information without consent, a provision that did not exist in the 1986 Act.
V. E-commerce & Consumer Protection
This rapid growth of e-commerce has changed consumer behavior so much that consumers can shop for anything at their convenience and access most products and services. However, such a digital revolution raises concerns over consumer rights, and therefore, there is a need to have a strong legal framework to protect consumers in the e-commerce marketplace. The challenge has been met with the CPA 2019 and Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 202046, which have established broad guidelines protecting the interests of consumers, especially in the digital world. Under the 'Section 2(16) of the Consumer Protection Act, 201947', e-commerce has been defined as the online purchase and sale of goods, services, digital products or transferring the data or funds through the electronic network, which mainly constituted the transfer through the internet.
E-commerce did exist even before the consumer protection act, 2019 but was not defined anywhere specifically. The online retail in the last 20 years, showed a significant growth primarily because of the e-commerce giants like Amazon and eBay where according to the 46 The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), July 23, 2020 (India).
47 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019, § 2(16) (India).
2011 census, the impact of the e-commerce sales on the total retail was about 5% which in the
second quarter of 2020 raised to 16. 5% and with this rise in the e-commerce platform the need for the e-commerce laws also increased to protect the rights of the consumers on the online platform and hence in the 'Consumer Protection Act, 2019' the laws for e-commerce were specifically introduced to protect the consumers against the unethical selling strategies of the sellers. Further, 'Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 201948' empowered the Indian Government to take adequate measures like framing rules, regulations, etc. to prevent 'unfair trade practice' in e-commerce and direct selling of the goods and services. While the CPA 2019 is a standalone piece of legislation, the Consumer Protection (E- Commerce) Rules, 2020 augment it by adding deeper-drafted regulations specifically focused on online commerce.
This will make the e-commerce company adhere to the obligation of adequate information to its consumers, for example, information about the correct and clear description of the seller, the true description of products, and precise terms of return, refund, exchange, warranty, and delivery. The policy will also compel the company to appoint a grievance officer that redresses the grievances promptly; there should be a responsive redressal mechanism in place. Moreover, the law prohibits deceptive trade practices by charging excessive prices for commodities or services or making unfair discriminations among consumers of the same class. This establishes a fairer and more transparent platform for ecommerce. Although the legislature is aware of all this, the dynamic nature of e-commerce still throws some new challenges resulting in some other legal conflicts and judicial decisions.
In Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises (2019)49, the Delhi High Court had dealt with a case regarding the sale of products on e-commerce platforms without authorization. Here, the court further held that it cannot be protected under the category of an intermediary when it actually participates in the sale process; hence, liable for ensuring genuineness of products sold over its platform along with authorization.
48 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019, § 2(47) (India).
49 Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Amway India Enterprises, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9013 (India).
In Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj 201850, the Delhi High Court decided that ecommerce operators are liable as well in respect of cases related to counterfeit products. It was held by the court where an online marketplace is aggressively selling products by giving description, fixing prices, and providing guarantee, it is not entitled to raise the defense of being a mere intermediary and is liable for trademark infringement. This judgment establishes the liability of e-commerce businesses to the genuineness of the products sold on their websites. Further vigilance has also been shown through the regulatory authority in addressing concerns that are already emerging in this e-commerce domainIn January 2025, the government issued a notice on ride-hailing companies Ola and Uber51, which had alleged differential pricing against Android and Apple phone users.
Complaints were filed that the iPhone users were being charged higher for ride-hailing fares as compared to the riders using the Android telephones. The CCPA had taken cognizance of these complaints and initiated an inquiry into these, which demonstrated the proactive attitude of the government in curbing unfair trade practices in the digital economy. The Competition Commission of India also investigates anti-competitive practices within the e-commerce market. In that regard, Competition Commission of India accused top mobile phone brands - Samsung and Xiaomi52 - of infringing the law on fair competition by jointly acting with online merchants Amazon and Flipkart for single-platform sales.
It was discovered that such practices provide preferential treatment and deep discounts for select sellers, undermining competition and leading to harm for traditional retailers, as revealed in September 2024. Though, the market of e-commerce is relatively new, and hence the consumer protection with regard to e-commerce is at its nascent stage, still these regulatory steps and judicial decrees reflect the changing face of consumer protection in India's e-commerce sector. The CPA 2019 and the E-Commerce Rules, 2020 provide a firm foundation for consumer protection. Continuous monitoring and adaptive regulations would be required in the face of these dynamic challenges by the fast-evolving digital marketplace. Even as e-commerce is growing day by day, emphasis on transparency, accountability, and consumer rights would remain essential in
50 Christian Louboutin SAS v. Nakul Bajaj, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12215 (India).
51 Central Consumer Protection Authority, Press Release, CCPA Launches Investigation into Alleged Differential Pricing by Ola and Uber, January 2025 (India). 52 Competition Commission of India, Notice on Alleged Preferential Treatment and Anti-Competitive Practices in E-Commerce, September 2024 (India).
ensuring fair and trustworthy online shopping for Indian consumers so that we may not befall to unfair trade practices.
VI. Conclusion
The development of consumer protection law in India is based on the dynamics of the evolving marketplace and the growing demand to protect consumer rights within a very complex and diversified economy. It represents the change from a traditional approach adopted in the 1986 Consumer Protection Act to the 2019 Consumer Protection Act, thus embracing the complexity of the problems at hand with modern times in mind, particularly with the age of the internet. The 1986 Act was a pioneering legislation that gave a constructive mechanism for consumer grievance redressal. However, its shortcomings in dealing with the rapid progress of ecommerce, misleading advertisements, and product liability necessitated legislation which would bear more relevance to the contemporary market.
These slight nuisances were assuaged by the 2019 act, courtesy to its expansion of the definition of 'consumer' to include online buyers and better provisions relating to product liability, wider coverage of the unfair trade practices, and the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority to proactively enforce consumer rights. The new law brings the shift away from the doctrine of 'caveat emptor,' which translates to let the buyer beware, toward caveat venditor or let the seller beware. This brings a huge shift in the liability of sellers, manufacturers, and services providers toward the assurance of quality products and safety for consumers. Sections on misleading advertisements, celebrity endorsements, and e-commerce transactions outline the elasticity of the law vis-à-vis modern commercial practices.
Consumer protection jurisprudence has had significant growth with the role of the judiciary. There have been many landmark cases like Lucknow Development Authority v. M. K. Gupta and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Danish Sondhi, among others, which have motivated accountability on the part of service providers and manufacturers with regard to deficiency and defects. Even going as far so to including the enforcement actions include the imposition of penalties on misleading advertisements as well as unfair trade practices. Inspite of the innumerable changes, adversarial elements exist in the law, such as the rapid
growth in digital commerce has created issues related to data privacy, price discrimination, and jurisdictional problems in cross-border transactions. The existing legislation is comprehensive but needs to evolve continuously to truly become exhaustive. Some of the steps that may have to be taken for consumer protection include raising consumer awareness, promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms such as mediation, and strict penalties against perpetrators. Coordination in regulatory work with the CCPA and the Competition Commission of India, as well as the sector-specific regulators, needs to be initiated. Overlap in jurisdictions is to be eliminated through a harmonized approach. The consumer redressal mechanism should become more efficient.
Education programs for consumers need to be expanded to ensure that people develop an awareness about their rights and legal remedies available to them. Indeed, the development of consumer protection law in India is a landmark example of how the country has worked towards ensuring fair trade practices, inculcating pro-consumer practices, and generally harnessing consumer rights awareness to be able to address accountability and fairness in all levels of the marketplace and thereby ensure that more levelled out playing fields are created. While this 2019 Act is indeed a step forward, success shall be more gauged from rigorous implementation, proactive enforcement of the same, and periodic amendments to update for marked developments.
VII. Recommendations
1. In the modern times, the sellers in the market use many “unfair trade practices” against which laws are made under ‘Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ but there are many more tactics used by the online shopping sites which cannot be covered under the ambit of the nine criteria, like many a times on the online shopping apps, they provide coupons and try to lure the consumers but when the consumers avail those coupons some extra items automatically adds up in the cart which many a times go unnoticed by the consumers. This type of frauds by the online sites are still not covered under the ambit of the “unfair trade practices” under Consumer Protection Act, 2019, so amendments need to be done in the present legislation, where laws can be made covering these types of unfair tactics as well. 2.
In the modern times, the consumers in the market need laws for the protection of their rights and the present legislation of ‘Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ is consumer oriented as
well but where on one side consumer needs these rights, on the other side, many a times these laws are misused by the consumers. There have been cases where the consumers buys stuffs from small business owners, use them and when they are done with the items, under the impression of inferior quality try to get a refund of these items and when the sellers try to retaliate, they threaten them of filing cases under the ‘Consumer Protection Ac’ and under the threat of losing the reputation, the sellers refunds the amount to the consumers, this way many a times the rights of the sellers are hampered in a very unnoticed way, so legislations should be amended where laws are enacted to protect the rights of the sellers as well. 3.
Lastly, under the ‘Consumer Protection Act, 2019’ the penalties included are somewhere too harsh, like in ‘Section 90 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019’s punishment of life imprisonment is included. In lieu of the conjecture suggested above, it can be purported that, the punishment can be reduced since the cases falling under ‘Consumer Protection Act’ are civil cases and the punishments mentioned are comparatively very harsh to the liability of the sellers.