Name: Ritu Raj

UID: SM0120043

E-COM SECTOR
Predatory pricing by e-commerce firms often result in the elimination of competition and be
detrimental to consumers in the long run, according to a parliamentary panel, which has
recommended that the government provide a more precise definition of what constitutes a
‘unfair' trade practise, as well as practical legal remedies to address the issue.
In its report on ‘The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020,' tabled in Parliament
on Wednesday, the committee, chaired by Member of Parliament Partap Singh Bajwa, has
also recommended fixing a cap on delivery charges levied by e-commerce firms, as well as
providing for penal provisions for violations of rules related to misinformation.
Predatory pricing as a short-term technique used by some market giants with strong finances
to endure short-term losses and cut the prices of their products below the average variable
costs may result in the erasure of competition from the market and may be harmful to
consumers in the long run.
However, it emphasised that, from a legal aspect, claims of predatory pricing were difficult to
demonstrate because the effects of such activity on market competition would be difficult to
show. “As a result, the Committee advises that there be a more precise definition of what
constitutes an Unfair Trade Practice, as well as a realistic legal recourse to combat such
bypassing actions by e-Commerce organisations, notably Multinational Companies and
Kirana Small Vendors.”
Furthermore, in light of an increase in cases of fake reviews and unfair favouritism in the
display of goods, the committee stated that it did not agree with the Ministry's clarification
regarding the legal provisions to deter merchants from using deceptive tactics to gain a
competitive advantage over others. “As a result, the committee advised that a corrective
mechanism be devised to deter deceptive practises such as algorithm manipulation, phoney
product evaluations and ratings, and so on, so that consumer interests are not hurt in any
way.”
Furthermore, Rule 4(1)(a) requires that the e-commerce entity be a registered company under
the Companies Act, 2013, a foreign company covered by the Companies Act, or a branch,
office, or an agency outside India owned or controlled by a person in India, as defined in
Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange and Management Act, 1999. As a result, the Rules forbid
any e-commerce organisation in India from operating as a single proprietorship, partnership,
or in any other company structure.
The Rules impose a liability on marketplace e-commerce entities to lay out details of the
seller and product-related information provided by the sellers to them, information relating to
guarantee, warrantee, return, refund, available payment methods, and so on, as well as an
explanation of the parameters that determine the rank of the product on their platforms, to
allow the consumer to make an informed decision. The seller is likewise required to provide
equivalent information to the e-commerce business (Rule 6(5)). 
For example, suppose I ordered a laptop but got bricks inside so this deficiency of services
under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

FOOD SECTOR
The Food and Drug Administration controls the food business by enforcing a variety of
requirements. Because the subject matter is within the state list in the VII Schedule,
enforcement varies by location. The recent Maggi issue showed the food industry's empty
institutional framework, in which certain states deemed Maggi hazardous while others did
not. Heavy chemical ripped fruits are a common practise in India.
Despite this, we have a law called the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. It contains a list
of "usual suspects," or forbidden chemicals. Any food adulteration by any brand results in the
product being withdrawn from the market immediately.
Another legal problem concerning the marketed quality of food goods has recently
developed. Many celebrities who had promoted Maggi were served a legal notice in the
Maggi case. There is little clarity as to what level of accountability they bear. However, given
their ability to influence the market and prejudice customers toward a certain product, the
onus is on them to ensure quality before promoting the product in the market.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Ma, Food Inspector B. R. Kochhar purchased
600 grammes of Kaju-Tukra as a sample for examination from Kacheroo Mal's grocery store.
The sample was delivered to the Public Analyst for inspection, and it was discovered that
21.9 percent of the sample contained insect-infested fragments of Kajus. Following that, a
complaint was made under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act, 1954. The High Court said egregiously that "an article of food that is
infected with living insects and is thus unwholesome for human eating ceases to be such and
becomes wholesome when these insects die out and the item becomes wholesome."
In another similar instance, the food inspector obtained a sample of hard boiled sugar candy
from the appellant's establishment. The results from the public analyzer revealed that the
sample did not meet the stipulated standard because mineral oil was discovered, which was
an unwholesome element, and that the sample had a very disagreeable smell and taste. The
appellant was found guilty by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The usual rule is "buyer beware." However, in a broader sense, a customer's individual
purchasing power is restricted, and the lack of consumer organisations demands a legal
framework for consumer protection. Finally, I would urge that India's legal system be so
robust in the future that even a tiny consumer feels empowered to address his or her issues
against unfair trading in the market.
AIRLINE SECTOR
Unfair and deceptive practises is the standard under which the department takes punitive
action against both airlines and travel advisors, as well as the guiding principle used by the
department to implement consumer-protection regulations such as tarmac delays, post-
purchase price increases, and airline overbooking.
This case involved SpiceJet being ordered by a consumer forum to pay a passenger one
hundred thousand Indian rupees for refusing to allow all members of his family to board the
plane despite having confirmed tickets and forcing them to travel on two separate flights
while returning to Delhi from Goa. The East District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
deemed it "cruel" for SpiceJet to break the family into two groups, especially while children
were present, and found it guilty of unfair commercial behaviour.
In the case of Indigo Airlines & Anr. Vs Aastha Pansari, the court determined that,
notwithstanding the fact that the facts presented by the airline relate to cargo that was booked
abroad and the rules of the Warsaw Convention have been made relevant, the ratio of limited
responsibility is extremely obvious. The Airlines Rules of Carriage restrict the responsibility
to 3,000/- unless the passenger makes a specific declaration. The Airlines cannot be held
accountable for the sums claimed as lost since the contents of each luggage are unknown to
the Airlines unless and until the declaration is made. Thus, the Airlines' Conditions of
Carriage form a legitimate and binding contract between the passenger and the Airlines.