Case-1 on Consumer Protection Act

Introduction
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (COPRA) was an Act of the Parliament of India passed
in 1986 to protect the curiosity of consumers in India. It was superseded by the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019. It was made for the formation of consumer councils and other
authorities for the reimbursements of consumer's complaints and matters connected there
with it. The act was conceded in Assembly in October 1986 and came into force on
December 24, 1986. The effigy on the right was made before this COPRA act. As per the act,
a person is called a consumer who aims the amenities and buys any good for self-use. Price to
mention that if a person buys any good and benefits any service for resale or commercial
purpose, is not measured a consumer. This definition covers all types of transactions i.e.
online and offline.

Key features of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

1. Formation of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA):
The act has the facility of the formation of the CCPA which will protect, endorse and enforce
the rights of consumers. The CCPA will regulate cases related to partial skill practices,
deceptive advertisements, and violation of consumer rights. 

The CCPA will have the right to execute a penalty on the violators and transient orders to
recall goods or remove services, discontinuation of the partial trade practices and
compensations of the price paid by the consumers.

The Central Consumer Protection Authority will have an enquiry wing to enquire and
investigate such desecrations. The CCPA will be headed by the Director-General.

2. Rights of consumers: 
The act provides 6 rights to the consumers.
i. To have information about the quantity, quality, purity, potency, price, and standard of
goods or services.
ii. To be protected from hazardous goods and services.
iii. To be protected from unfair or restrictive trade practices.
iv. To have a variety of goods or services at modest prices.
3. Prohibition and penalty for a misleading advertisement: 
The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) will have the influence to levy fines on
the supporter or constructer up to 2-year imprisonment for deceptive or false advertisement
(Like Laxmi Dhana Varsha Yantra).

Worth to mention that repeated offense, may attract a fine of Rs 50 lakh and imprisonment of
up to 5 years.

4. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission: 

The act has the delivery of the formation of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions
(CDRCs) at the national, state and district levels.

The CDRCs will amuse complaints related to;

i. Overcharging or misleading charging.

ii. Unfair or preventive trade practices.
iii. Sale of lethal goods and services which may be lethal to life.
iv. Sale of faulty goods or services.
Jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The act has distinct the measures of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRCs).
The National CDRC will hear complaints worth more than Rs. 10 crores. The State CDRC
will hear complaints when the value is more than Rs 1 crore but less than Rs 10 crore.
Whereas the District CDRC will amuse grievances when the value of goods or service is up
to Rs 1 crore.

HDFC Bank Limited v Bal winder Singh [III (2009) CPJ 40 (NC)]

Introduction

The complaint was of the bank, or its loan recovery agent, employing musclemen to take
forcible repossession of the hypothecated vehicle and thus causing physical harassment and
mental trauma to the complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the
bank to pay compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs for repossessing the vehicle in this manner and
reselling it to a third party. The State Commission confirmed the order in appeal. Dealing
with the bank's revision petition, the National Commission expressed shock that the bank had
hired musclemen directly or through its recovery agents to recover the loan/repossess the
vehicle. The Commission also referred to the State Commission's order, which had observed
that the alleged letter produced by the bank purporting to the complainant voluntarily handing
over possession of the vehicle was unreliable and that no notice was given to the complainant
at the stages of repossession and sale of vehicle. In dismissing the petition, the Commission
relied upon its judgment in Citicorp Maruti Finance Limited v S. Vijayalakshmi [III (2007)
CPJ 161 (NC)] where it had strongly deprecated such practices. The Commission dismissed
the petition and awarded Rs. 25,000/- as exemplary costs in this case.

Rule under which case is registered and plaintiff and defendant

The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that Balwinder Singh, complainant filed the
complaint under the Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant
first availed a loan from ICICI Bank Limited, which was taken over by the Centurion Bank of
Punjab Ltd., (now HDFC Bank Ltd., after taking over the Centurion Bank to Punjab Ltd.), an
amount of Rs.2,15,000/- was sanctioned for taking over the loan facility. The original Sale
Deed bearing Waska No.1569 and 1570 were also received by the OPs along with other
documents in the year 2008 from the complainant. However, the OP did not pay the Top Up
loan of Rs.2,85,000/- to the complainant, which was earlier sanctioned by them. It was
further alleged that the complainant was not satisfied with the service of the OPs and hence,
he applied with State Bank of India, G.T.Road, Khanna Branch, Distt. Ludhiana for taking
over the credit facility from HDFC Bank Ltd. He obtained a letter from the OPs, which
showed a total outstanding amount of Rs.1,92,595.11P on 23.04.2009. It was further pleaded
that SBI bank took over the Housing Loan bearing account No.91848567 from the OPs and a
demand draft of Rs.1,94,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant in the month of
April, 2009. Though all the dues of the OPs were cleared by the new creditor i.e. SBI, but the
OPs failed to return the original sale deed Wasika Number 1570 dated 20.08.1996 to the
complainant. Since April, 2009, the complainant was running from pillar to post to get his
original sale deed back, but he failed to get the original sale deed from the OP. Even letter
dated 07.09.2009 sent by SBI to Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. for handing over the
original Sale Deed evoked no effect. The complainant has suffered mental agony, physical
harassment and he filed the complaint seeking direction to the OPs to handover the original
sale deed and other relevant documents, which were lying in their legal possession of the OPs
and to pay Rs.7.00 Lacs as per the averments in the complaint and Rs.3.00 Lacs as
compensation alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of clearance till realization to the
complainant.

Analysis of the case

According to the case In the instant case, the main dispute is that the original Sale Deed of
Wasika No.1570 dated 20.08.1996 was not returned to the complainant as per the version of
the complainant and photocopy of the Wasika No.1570 is placed on record vide Ex.C-5. The
OPs were proceeded ex-parte before the District Forum so the OPs could not contest the
allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. The appellants/OPs filed the appeal in
which it was stated that the original Sale Deed No.569 dated 20.08.1996 was given at the
time of taking loan and the same was returned to the complainant and he signed the same as a
token of receipt of the said documents Along with the other documents. We have perused the
property loan facility agreement, in which, the second schedule (list of title deed), in which, it
was mentioned at serial No.1 the original sale deed dated 20.08.1996. We have perused the
letter dated 02.06.2009 in which, sale deed Wasika No.1569 was released to the complainant.
It is clear that the complainant had deposited only one original Sale Deed Wasika No.1569
dated 20.08.1996. The complainant had not deposited the Sale Deed of Wasika 1570 at the
time of taking the loan. The complainant has not placed on record any document to show that
the title deed in respect of property of Wasika No.1570 was deposited in the bank. The
District Forum has directed the OPs to handover the original sale deed and other documents,
which are in the possession to the complainant or to send them to the concerned branch of the
complainant, where the loan amount of the complainant was transferred. But, the District
Forum has not mentioned what documents have to be returned to the complainant, whereas as
per the OPs, original Sale dated 1569 dated 20.08.1996 and other documents were handed
over to the complainant and the complainant gave the acknowledgement as a token of receipt
of the documents vide letter dated 02.06.2009 and no protest letter has been placed on record
by the complainant regarding Wasika No.1570 dated 20.08.1996 and the District Forum did
not appreciate the evidence on the record vide letter dated 02.06.2009. District Forum relied
upon the letter dated 07.09.2009, vide Ex.C-6 which was sent by State Bank of India to
HDFC Bank Limited. So, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained. No deficiency
in service on the part of the OPs is proved on the record.