CASE LAW

INDIAN RAILWAYS( BID- RIGGING)

1) Date of CCI Judgement – 18/1/17

Indian Railways
v/s
Pyramid Electronics(OP-1)
R Kanwar Electronics(OP-2)
Western Electric(OP-3)
• 2) On the basis of information given by CBI, suomoto enquiry
by CCI in respect of tenders of Indian Railways
• 3) CBI gave to CCI copy of email dated 17/3/13 sent by OP-1
• to OP-2, which was in turn sent by OP-2 to OP-3. Said email
contained table of rates to be quoted for future tenders of
Indian Railways, first tender was to be issued on 20/3/13
• 4) It was agreed between the parties that for each tender
particular party will quote lower bid and accordingly they will
share all future bills
• 5) CCI ordered enquiry under sec 26 (1) through DG
• 6) DG report to CCI dated 27/3/15
• 7) Rates indicated in the above email and the rates filled –up
by OP1 to OP3 in railway tender were the same.Each party
won separate tenders i.e OP1 got first tender, OP2 got
second tender(i.e OP1 to OP3 decided which party will get
which tender by quoting lower rate)
• 8) OP1 during DG enquiry admitted collusive bidding in
tender process
• 9) DG tallied the email details, call records and statement
given by each party and proved collusive bidding/bid rigging
• 10) Since bid rigging/ cartel fell under section 3(3) onus to
rebut (i.e burden of proof) was on all OPS but they could not
rebut
• 11) OP 1 invoked provisions of section 46 ( lesser
penalty/whistle blowing)
• 12) As per section 46 read with regulation 5, OP 1 fully
cooperated with CCI before completion of enquiry and gave
adequate information to CCI to deliver judgement and hence
lesser penalty of only 25% was imposed on OP1 & OP2 & OP3
suffered full penalty
• 13) Penalty of Rs. 46,77,475=00 was imposed under OP1(only
25% & full penalty of Rs. 66,70,040 was imposed upon OP2 &
full penalty of Rs. 6,27,44,883 was imposed upon OP3
• Note: In case of cartel, penalty up to three times the profit
made can be imposed
• 14) CCI also passed cease and desist order for future
period( CCI restrained them from repeating such behaviour
in fututre
 TO AMAZON SELLER SERVICES
PRIVATE LIMITED SEC 26(1)
INVESIGATION – DECIDED BY
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ON 11/6/21

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
AND FLIPKART INTERNET PRIVATE LIMITED
V/S
CCI & DELHI VYPAAR MAHASANGH
 HIGHLIGHTS
• 1) CCI vide order dated 13/1/20 ordered investigation under
sec 26(1) into alleged anti-competitive agreements by
amazon/flipkart on the basis of its prima facie opinion
• 2) Amazon/Flipkart opposed the said order stating that the
said order was passed without issuance of notice to both
• 3) It may be noted that market share of Amazon is 36% and
Flipkart is 53% relating to online market
• 4) Amazon and Flipkart prayed for quash order before
Karnataka High Court
• 5) It may also be noted that on both the online markets
products listed for sale are owned and sold by third parties
seller
• 6) It was alleged that some of the third party sellers are directly
or indirectly owned by amazon/flipkart and amazon/flipkart
provides services like warehousing packing etc to these related
parties (third party sellers)
• 7) It was alleged by amazon/flipkart that no appreciable
adverse effect (AAE) was studied before the CCI order for
investigation under sec 26(1)
• 8) Enforcement Directorate was looking into the matter for
alleged violation of FDI guidelines
• 9) It was alleged by Delhi Vypaar Mahasangh that
amazon/flipkart have entered into vertical agreements (sec3)
(4) with the preferred sellers which has led to the foreclosure
of non-preferred sellers from the online market
• Place/Platform
• 10) It was held by the Karnataka High court that CCI has
conducted enough study regarding online market/platforms
or e-commerce market. This has helped CCI to form prima
facie opinion
• 11) It was held that exclusive agreements made by
amazon/flipkart along with deep discounting practice etc kills
the competition in the market
• 12) CCI also observed that European Union has also launched
investigation against amazon
• 13) The Karnataka High Court framed the following three
issues
• A) What is the nature of order of investigation passed by CCI
under sec 26 (1)
• B) Whether prior notice is mandatory before passing the
aforesaid order
• C) Whether aforesaid order requires interference of the High
Court
• As regards A & B, the High Court held that practices like
deep discounting (subsidized by Amazon/Flipkart),
preferential listing and exclusive tie-ups raise concerns
regarding AAE. In case of deep discounting Amazon/Flipkart
share part of the burden of related/preferred third party
sellers but non-preferred sellers are not compensated at all
• As regards preferential listing, preferred sellers are listed in
the beginning and names of non-preferred sellers appears on
last pages and this creates search by us. The above also
creates exclusive tie-ups
• 14) Vice-President of Flipkart has admitted before Income Tax
authorities that part of the deep discount is shared by Flipkart
which amounts to predatory pricing
• 15) High Court held that order of DG investigation passed by
CCI under sec 26(1) is not final order and it is purely
administrative order and such investigation may or may not
establish anti-competitive agreements. It is some kind of
departmental investigation
• 16) The High Court observed that whenever parliament
intended prior notice, it is specifically mentioned in the
Competition Act but for prima facie opinion of CCI no prior
notice is specified. In other words sec 19 does not specify prior
notice to the parties before forming prima facie opinion
• 17) CCI is not required to record any reasons for forming prima
facie opinion
• 18) High Court referred to judgement of Supreme Court where
Supreme Court held that no prior notice is required before
forming prima facie opinion
• 19) Finally Karnataka High court rejected the Writ petitions
filed by Amazon/Flipkart and held that no interference is
required at the stage of DG investigation under sec 26(1)
CCI (CASE NO 69 OF 2017)
ORDER DATED 24/9/2021
RESPONDENTS
1) UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED
(Makers of Kingfisher Beer)
2) & 3) AB- Inbev – Makers of Haywards 5000
and Corona
4) Carlsberg India Private Limited ( Makers of
Carlsberg Beer and Tuborg Beer)
• 1) Suo motu(self –activated enquiry by CCI)
• 2) Respondent No 2 & 3 made application for leniency ( whistle
blower) under Sec 46 of the Act and were granted 100% waiver of
penalty because they revealed all secrets to CCI
• 3) The allegations against the above cartel of 4 respondents under
Sec 3(3)(a) i.e to determine price, under sec3(3)(b) i.e to control the
market, under sec 3(3)(c) i.e to share the market, were proved. In
other words cartelisation was proved
• 4) Penalty of Rs. 751.83 crores was imposed upon respondent no 1
i.e UBL and penalty of Rs. 120.56 crore was imposed upon
respondent no 4 i.e Carlsberg India Private Limited. It may please be
noted that no penalty was imposed at all upon respondent no 2 & 3
i.e AB-Inbev since they disclosed all the details about the cartel under
Sec 46
• 5) The allegation of cartel was related to 10 states and 1 union
territory. Major states were Maharashtra, Karnataka, Orissa,
Rajasthan, West Bengal and Delhi. Union Territory involved was
Daman & Diu
• 6) DG report was submitted to commission on 28/6/2019
• 7) Period of cartel 2009 to 2018 (period prior to 2009 was not
considered since sec 3 & 4 came into force on 20/5/2009
• 8) It may please be noted that entire Liquor/Beer Industry
requires prior approval of respective State Government for
setting or revising the prices. And therefore the parties to the
cartel gave manipulated data to the state government and
these manipulations were proved with the help of emails
exchanged between the parties to the cartel
• 9) The above cartel as per the evidence available with CCI fixed
identical prices and controlled and shared market in the above
states in India
• 10) Cartel restricted supplies and shared stock and sales data
through the platform of All India Breweries Association(AIBA). It
may please be noted that AIBA helped all the above parties for
manipulation and exchange of data
• 11) Above parties to the cartel formed cartel in purchase of 2nd
Hand beer bottles
• 12) Platform of AIBA was abused by all the parties for
manipulation of data, exchange of data for the purpose of
cartelisation
• 13) The data was shared by the parties by way of emails,
conference call and personal meetings at the platform of AIBA
• 14) Ample evidence was available regarding cartelisation before
CCI
• 15) Above respondents gave compromise and manipulated data
o various state governments for the purpose of price fixation
and tax
• 16) Prices of above beers moved in more or less same direction
and date of price revision was close to one another
• 17) The respondents used to discuss price and other details
before sharing the same with State Governments and ample
evidence was available regarding this
• 18) Respondents shared production details, revenue details and
stock details with other parties to the cartel
• 19) Respondents used to manipulate and defend price increase
before state governments by giving same or similar data
• 20) Price revision by the respondent was almost the same
• 21) In view of the above UBL was asked to pay penalty of Rs.
751.83 crores and Carlsberg India Private Limited was asked to
pay penalty of Rs. 120.56 crores as per the CCI order dated
24/9/2021
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

TATA MOTORS
V/S
APVAZ( BUYER OF INDICA CAR / COMPLAINANT)
 HIGHLIGHTS
• 1) Vistar Goa Private Limited ( Dealer) sold Indica car to buyer
mis-representing that Indica car is a brand new car but actually it
was old second hand 2009 model which had travelled for 622 Kms.
Manufacturer Tata Motors was unaware about this mis-
representation and they had entered into dealership agreement
with the above dealer on “principal to principal basis” and hence
there was no relationship of principal and agent under which
principal is liable for certain acts of agents. Thus it was proved that
Tata Motors was not aware about what transpired between dealer
and buyer
• 2) Complaint was filed by buyer before District forum Goa against
dealer and the manufacturer Tata Motors. The buyer contended
that there was a mis-representation and used second hand car of
2009 May was sold to him. The car was
• Also defective and therefore both dealer and Tata Motors are
liable to compensate the buyer. The Goa district forum ruled in
favour of the buyer asking both the parties either to replace
the old car with the new car or refund the booking amount
with 10% simple interest p.a
• 3) Feeling aggreaved Tata Motors and dealer filed the appeal
before Goa State Commission. The Goa state commission
confirmed the above order of Goa district forum.
• 4) Both Tata Motors and dealer filed revision petition before
National commission New Delhi. The National commission
confirmed the above order passed by the Goa State
Commission
• 5) Both Tata Motors and dealer filed the present special leave
petition under article 136 of the constitution before Supreme
Court
• 6) Supreme Court perused the dealership agreement executed
between Tata Motors and the dealer and held that relationship
between Tata Motors and dealer was on “principal to principal
basis” and there was no relationship of principal and agent.
Since Tata Motors was not aware about what transpired
between dealer and buyer at the time of purchase of second
hand vehicle, Tata Motors cannot be held liable for unfair trade
practices of the dealer or fraud played upon buyer by the
dealer i.e 2009 Make was sold as brand new Indica car
• 7) Supreme Court finally held that dealership agreement
between Tata Motors and dealer was on “principal to principal
basis” and Tata Motors was not aware about the fraud played
upon the buyer by the dealer, Tata Motors cannot be held
liable and dealer was solely liable for unfair trade practices/
fraud committed by the dealer. The Supreme Court ordered the
Goa District Forum to execute the original order passed by
them i.e ( either supply new model of Indica car or refund the
booking amount with 10% simple interest p.a to buyer
 CASE LAW

CARTEL OF 4 INSURANCE COMPANIES

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD(OP-1)
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY(OP-2)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY (OP-3)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY(OP-4)
• 1) Kerala Government invited tender for social
comprehensive health insurance scheme on 8/12/2009
• 2) One day prior to the above tender (i.e on 7/12/2009, in
Inter-Company coordination committee meeting ( ICCC) the
above 4 OP’S agreed to share profits for tenders for the
year 10-11,11-12 & 12-13 and asked OP4 to quote the
lowest tender. Subsequently rates for 11-12 &12-13 were
hiked and OP4 was asked to quote comparatively lower bid
and share profit with remaining three OP’S
• 3) Investigation under sec 26 (1) was ordered on 12/2/14
and DG gave report to CCI on 3/12/15
• 4) 4 OP’S argued that they are 100% owned by government
but it was found that they took decision independently and
hence government had no role in their management and
they cannot be treated as single economic entity
• 5) They deliberately hiked rates for subsequent two years
and every time OP 4 quoted comparative lower rate to back
the tender. For each tender OP4 shared profits with OP 1 to
OP3
• 6) On 7/12/2009 meeting was held to discuss business
sharing and submission of tender which was proved with
the help of emails
• 7) 4 OP’S argued that rates were hiked for the year 11-12 &
12-13 since they incurred losses for the year 10-11. But this
was wrong because Reliance General Insurance which got the
tender for the year 13-14 at rates lower than the above
rates ,made profit
• 8) Following penalties were imposed by CCI vide order dated
10/7/15
• OP-1 – 162 CRORES
• OP-2- 251 CRORES
• OP-3- 100 CRORES
• OP-4- 156 CRORES
 COMPETITION - SUMMARY

1) MRTP ACT 1969 – RTP UTP & MTP

2) 1991 – LPG
3) COMPETITION ACT 2002
4) GAP BETWEEN 2002 & 20/5/2009
• 1) Targets of CCI – A) ACA – Section 3
• B) AD – Section 4
• C) Combination ( M & A) Section 5

• 2) ACAS – 3(3) Horizontal agreements shall be presumed to

have AAE ( per-se doctrine) burden upon enterprise
• a) Determines prices
• b) Restricts production/supply
• c) Shares markets
• d) Bid rigging / collusive bidding
•
• 3) Vertical ACA Section 3 (4) burden upon DG to prove (rule of
reason)
• a) Tie-up
• b) Exclusive supply
• c) Exclusive Distribution
• d) Refusal to deal
• e) Re-Sale price maintainence i.e maximum price is ok but
maximum discount is not ok
• Section 3(5) exemption for IPR restriction ( TM Act 1999,GI ACT
1999, Patent Act 1970, ID Act 2000 & LDIC Act 2000 plus export
of goods and joint venture which are economically efficient
• 4) Abuse of Dominance ( section 4)
• Dominance is a position of strength which enables
enterprise to operate independently of competitive forces
in India
• a) Imposes unfair conditions
• b) Pre-datory pricing ( i.e selling below cost)
• c) Limits production/supply
• d) Limits technical/scientific development
• e) Denial of market access
• 5) Short enquiry procedure for ACA & AD
• Section 19(1)(a) complaint to CCI by consumer, consumer
association or trade association( called as informant)
• Section 19(2) Reference by CG/SG/Statutory Authority
• Section 19(3) factors to be considered by CCI for ACA
• a to f i.e creation of barrier to new entrants, driving
competitors out etc.
• Section 19 (4) factors to be considered by CCI for AD
• a to m i.e market size, economic power etc
• Section 19(5) factors to determine relevant geographical
market i.e local conditions, transport cost, languages etc
• Section 19(6) factors to determine relevant product market
i.e consumer preference, end use of product, price of
goods/services & whether product or service is substitutable
or interchangeable

• Section 21 Reference to CCI for its opinion by other statutory

authorities ( CCI to give opinion with in 60 days)
• Section 21 A Reference by CCI to other statutory
authorities(other statutory authorities to give opinion to CCI
with in 60 days
• Section 26 (Long enquiry procedure for ACA & AD)
• 26(1) After receipt of complaint from informant under section
19(1)(a) and statutory authority under section 19(2), if CCI is
prima facie of the opinion that AAE exists, CCI shall direct DG
to conduct investigation
• 26 (2) If CCI thinks there is no prima facie case, it may close the
enquiry without reference to CG and send copy of its order to
informant
• 26 (3) DG shall submit its report to CCI persuant to 26(1)
• 26 (4) CCI shall forward DG report to parties
• 26 (5) If DG reports no contravention, CCI may invite objection
from the parties for such clean chit by DG
• 26 (6) If CCI agrees with clean chit of DG, CCI shall close the
case and send the copy of order to parties
• 26 (7) & 26 (8) If after considering objections under section 26
(5), if CCI thinks that further investigation is required, it may
direct DG to carry out further investigation

• Section 27 CCI orders regarding ACA & AD

• a) Discontinue ACA/AD
• b) Cease & decist order
• c) Modify the agreement
• d) Penalty up to 10% of average turnover during preceding 3
years. However, in case of cartel penalty is up to 3 times profit
made for each year of continuance of cartel or up to 10% of
turnover for each year of continuance of cartel- higher
• Section 28 ( only in case of AD)
• CCI may divide/ split dominant undertaking and may pass
orders for transfer of assets/ liabilities etc regarding such split/
division

• COMBINATIONS ( i.e Merger Amalgamation & demerger)

• Section 5 (a) Acquisition of shares/ voting rights/assets by
acquirer
• Section 5 (b) Acquisition of control ( horizontal)
• Section 5 (c) 100 % merger/ amalgamation/ demerger
• Financial Limits for 5 (a) , 5(b) & 5(c)
• Note – Limits for all are same and hence limits for only 5(a)
are given below, which are also applicable for 5 (b) & 5(c)

• Acquirer acquires or agrees to acquire shares, voting rights,

assets which jointly exceed the following limits
IN INDIA
ASSETS 2000 CRORES ( NO GROUP)
TURNOVER 6000 CRORES ( NO GROUP)
ASSETS 8000 CRORES( GROUP)
TURNOVER 24000 CRORES ( GROUP)
INDIA + ABROAD
ASSETS 1BILLION US$ INCLUDING 1000
CRORE INDIAN ASSETS ( NO GROUP)
TURNOVER 3 BILLION US $ INCLUDING
3000 CRORES INDIAN TURNOVER ( NO
GROUP)
ASSEETS 4 BILLION US $ INCLUDING 1000
CRORES INDIAN ASSETS ( GROUP)
TURNOVER 12 BILLION US $ INCLUDING
3000 CRORES INDIAN TURNOVER
(GROUP)
• Section 6 -Regulation of Combination

• Section 6 (1) Combination having AAE is void

• Section 6 (2) Compulsory notice to CCI in prescribed format if
limits under section 5 are exceeded, with in 60 days of board
meeting or date of agreement if no board meeting
• Section 6 (2A) No effect to combination persuant to section 6
(2) notice till expiry of 210 days from notice or CCI order under
section 31, whichever is earlier
• Section 6(3) CCI shall follow procedure under section 29,30
&31
• Short enquiry for combination section 20 & 30
• Section 29 – Long enquiry for combination
• Section 29(1) SCN to parties asking them to reply with in 30
days of receipt of notice as to why enquiry in to combination
should not be ordered
• Section 29(1A) After receipt of reply to SCN, CCI shall direct
DG to submit report
• Section 29 (2) Within seven days of the receipt of above reply
or DG report, whichever is later, CCI shall ask parties to
publish in news papers details of combination in prescribed
format within 10 days of such direction to publish
• Section 29(3) General Public can send their comments to
CCI with in 15 days of publication in newspaper
• Section 29 (4) CCI may call for additional information within
15 days from expiry of above 15 days
• Section 29 (5) Parties to combination shall furnish above
additional information to CCI
• Section 29 (6) After receipt of all information, CCI shall pass
orders under section 31
• Section 31- CCI orders for combination
• 31(1) CCI may approve combination after section 29 enquiry
• 31(2) CCI may reject combination after section 29 enquiry
• 31(3) To avoid AAE, CCI may modify the combination
• 31 (4) If parties accept modification suggested by CCI, parties
shall carry out modification within stipulated time
• 31(5) If parties after acceptance of modification, fail to carry
out CCI modification, CCI may treat that combination has
AAE
• 31(6) If parties do not accept CCI modification, parties may
suggest amendment to CCI modification within 30 days from
CCI modification
• 31 (7) CCI may approve amendment to modification
suggested by parties
• 31 (8) If CCI rejects amendment to modification, CCI may
give 30 days time to parties to accept ORIGINAL modification
suggested by CCI
• 31 (9) If parties fail to accept above original modification, it
shall be presumed that combination has AAE
• 31 (10) CCI may direct that combination shall not take effect
• 31 (11) & (12) If CCI fails to pass order within 210 days from
notice under 6 (2), it amounts to deemed approval
• Section 31 (13) & (14) If CCI declares combination as void,
other authorities under other laws shall also treat the
combination as void

• Section 33- CCI power to issue interim orders

• Section 35 to 37 – CA, CS, ICWA, Lawyer can appear before
CCI
• Section 41- DG shall conduct investigation only if directed by
CCI
• Section 42(2) If CCI orders are breached under section 27,28
& 31, penalty of 1 lakh per day sunject to 10 crores
• 42 (3) If above order under 42 (2) is breached, jail up to 3
years or fine up to 25 crores or both by chief metropolitian
magistrate of Delhi
• 42(A) Damages/Compensation can be claimed from NCLAT if
person/ enterprise suffers damages due to breach of CCI
orders
• 43 -Breach of general CCI/DG orders fine up to 1lakh per day
subject to 1 crore
• 43(A)- Failure to give mandatory 6(2 notice, penalty up to 1%
of turnover or assets whichever is higher
• 46 – WHISTLE BLOWER (only for cartel)
• If parties to cartels give important information to CCI
voluntarily, lesser penalty may be imposed by CCI
• Example : Instead of 100% penalty CCI may impose 25 %
penalty if complete voluntary information is given about the
cartel
• Section 49 – Competition Advocacy
• CCI should publish maximum information about this law for
the benefit of general public
• Section 53(A&B) Appeal to NCLAT within 60 days + extension
against the orders of CCI and NCLAT shall dispose of such
appeals within 6 months
• Section 53 (T) Appeal to supreme court against the order of
NCLAT within 60 days + extension
• Section 60 – Competition Act 2002 shall override other laws
• Section 66 – MTRP Act 1969 is here by repealed
 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
JUDGEMENT DATED 7/4/2017

National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant

v/s
Hindustan Safety Glass Limited - Respondent
 Facts of the Case

• 1) Due to heavy rains and floods which occurred on 6/8/1992,

office property and factory premises of respondents were
damaged and hence respondents claimed Rs.52 lakhs as
damages and the said complaint was lodged with the appellants
on 7/8/1992.
• 2) Appellants appointed first surveyor which assessed the loss as
Rs.24 lakhs. Appellants again appointed second surveyor since
they were not satisfied with the assessment of the first surveyor.
Second surveyor assessed the loss as Rs. 22 Lakhs. Both the
surveyors took period of more than 3 years to complete the
survey.
• 3) Second surveyor gave report on 10/2/1995
• 4) Complaint was lodged with National Commission by
respondent on 13/8/1996
• 5) Claim was rejected by appellant on 22/5/2001 ( i.e during
pendancy of the complaint before national commission) on the
following two grounds
• 1) Complaint was lodged 12 months after the date of damage and
there was no pending suit or arbitration
• 2) Complaint was time-barred under sec 24 A of the act (i.e after
2 years from 6/8/1992
• 6) There was clause in the policy which stated that if claim is
lodged after 12 months from the date of loss/damage and if there
is no pending suit or arbitration, claim will not be entertained. SC
struck down this clause stating that it encourages persons to go to
courts/artbitrations which take longer time and discourages
people from approaching consumer court.
• 7) National Commission rejected above two grounds and
granted Rs. 21 Lakhs + 9% interest to the respondent
• 8) Supreme Court held that there is no question of time-bar due
to the following reasons
• a) Second surveyor gave report on 10/2/1995 and complaint
was lodged before national commission on 13/8/1996 which
was well before expiry of 2 years on 9/2/1997 as per section sec
24A
• b) Appellant himself took own sweet time of 3 years to conduct
two surveys
• 9) Hence Supreme Court confirmed the judgement of National
Commission which had granted claim of Rs. 21 Lakhs + 9%
interest to respondents
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019
( PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT
AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED VERY SHORTLY)
Highlights of New CPA 2019
Old CPA 1986 – 30 sections, new CPA 2019 – 107
SECTIONS
• Highlights of the new act
• 1) Now complaint can be filed electronically
• 2) Jurisdiction of DC (earlier DF) up to 1 crore
• Jurisdiction of SC above 1 crore – up to 10 crores
• Jurisdiction of NC above 10 crores
• 3) Online contracts including ola, uber etc covered
• 4) Jurisdiction- now complaint can be filed where consumer
resides/ place of business
• 5) Unfair contracts ( one sided contracts/ excessive security
deposit etc – direct complaint to SC & NC)
• 6) Mediation – For the first time mediation (settlement)
• Provisions are introduced. The mediation panels attached to
DC/SC/NC can settle the matter and if settlement fails the
matter will go back to DC/SC/NC for trial
• 7) PRODUCT LIABILITY COMPLAINT – Product liability means
liability arising from injury/ harm caused to the consumer
including death of consumer and the complaint for claiming
damages can be filed before DC/SC/NC since the definition
of complaint includes product liability complaint. Earlier
under CPA 1986, consumer courts used to deliver
judgements on the basis of common law. Now there is a
specific provision for product liability
• 8) Power of district collector – Under the new act collector
can investigate and report to Central Consumer Protection
Authority (CCPA) about UTP, misleading ad, violation of
• Consumer rights under section 6
• 9) Establishment of new authority called as CENTRAL
CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY (CCPA)
• CCPA can pass the following orders
• 1) Recalling dangerous/hazardous goods
• 2) Refund of Price of hazardous goods
• 3) Discontinuance of UTP
• 4) In case of false and misleading ads CCPA can impose
penalty up to 10 lakhs. If these orders of CCPA are breached,
CCPA can file criminal complaint in criminal courts under sec
88, 89 & 92 of the new act
• 10) Controversial Provision
• Under 1986 act appointment of retired district court judge
was compulsory for DF, retired high court judge was
compulsory for SC, retired supreme court judge was
compulsory for NC. However under the new law no such
compulsory provision exists and hence lawyers may challenge
this provision before supreme court. It may be noted that
enforcement of Competition Act 2002 was delayed for 7 years
due to the above ( Encroachment upon judicial powers by
executive)
• 11) Whether housing construction complaints should be tried
under RERA or CPA – matter was recently decided by national
commission and NC held that either consumer court or RERA
can decide.
 ADJUDICATION UNDER CPA 2019

JURISDICTION DCDRC SCDRC NCDRC SUPREME

COURT
OJ SEC 28 SEC 48 SEC 58 NIL
UP TO 1 CRORE ABOVE 1 ABOVE 10
CRORE UP TO CRORES
10 CRORES
AJ NIL SEC 48 WITH IN SEC 58 WITH IN SEC 67 ( WITH
45 DAYS OF DC 30 DAYS OF SC IN 30 DAYS OF
ORDER ORDER OR NC ORDER
WITH IN 30
DAYS OF CCPA
ORDER UNDER
SEC
23(RELATING
TO SEC 20 &21
RJ NIL SEC 48(b) SEC 58(b) NIL
REVISION ON 3 REVISION ON 3
GROUNDS GROUNDS
 PROSECUTION

• Sec 71 – Execution of order of DC/SC/NC as if decree of civil

court( old procedure of COR to collector is deleted

• Sec 72 (1) If order of DC/SC/NC is breached, minimum jail of

1 month & maximum 3 years or minimum fine of Rs 25000
and maximum Rs 100000 or BOTH
• Sec 72 (2) For the purpose of above criminal punishment,
DC/SC/NC are deemed FCJM
• Sec 73 – Appeal against above order under Sec 72 (1) to
senior authority i.e if DC order, appeal to SC
• If SC order appeal to NC
• If NC order appeal to Supreme Court
• CPA 2019 ( Total sections 107)
• Sec 1 – name of the act
• Sec 2 – Important definitions
• 2(4) – Central consumer protection authority(CCPA)
• It is established under sec 10 for the purpose of enforcement
of consumer rights and to protect consumer from UTP &
misleading advertisements
• 2(5) – Complainant – same as CPA 1986
• 2(6) – Complaint – same as CPA 1986 ( However now the
complaint includes complaint for product liability)
• 2(7) – Consumer – same as CPA 1986
• Sec 2 (9) – Consumer rights
• I – Right to be protected against
• hazardous/dangerous goods
• II – Right to be informed about quality,quantity
• etc
• III – Right of access to variety of goods/services
• IV – Right to be heard
• V – Right to seek redressal against UTP,RTP &
• exploitation
• VI – Right to consumer awareness
• Sec 2(14) – Director General to assist CCPA for investigation
• 2(15) – District consumer disputes redressal commission
(DCDRC)
• 2(29) – National consumer disputes redressal
commission(NCDRC)
• 2(34) – Product Liability – harm or injury caused to the
consumer due to defective goods or deficient services
• 2(41) – RTP – same as CPA 1986
• 2(43) – Spurious goods
• 2(44) – State consumer disputes redressal
commission(SCDRC)
• 2(47) – UTP – same as CPA 1986
• Sec 3 to 5 – Central consumer protection council – to be
headed by Central minister for consumer affairs. Only
advisory role
• Sec 6 & 7 – State consumer protection council – to be
headed by state minister for consumer affairs. Only advisory
role
• Sec 8 & 9 – District consumer protection council – to be
headed by district collector. Only advisory role
• Sec 10 to 14 – CCPA to be headed by chief commissioner
• Regional commissioners
• Sec 15 – Investigation wing to be headed by director general,
additional director general, deputy director general etc.
• Sec 16 – Power of district collector
• Upon complaint or reference by CCPA or its regional
commissioners, collector shall investigate in to UTP,
misleading advertisements and violation of 6 consumer
rights and submit report to CCPA or its regional
commissioners
• Sec 17 – Class action suit by group of consumers
• Group of consumers can file complaint regarding violation
of 6 consumer rights to collector or CCPA or its regional
commissioners
• Sec 18 – Powers of CCPA
• 1) To protect 6 rights of consumers
• 2) To prevent misleading ads/UTP
• 3) To file complaints with DC/SC/NC
• 4) To pass orders under following sections 20 & 21
• Sec 19 & 20 – Power of CCPA to investigate through either
DG or collector and to pass the following orders
• a) Recalling hazardous/dangerous goods
• b) Refund of price of hazardous/dangerous goods
• c) Discontinuance of UTP
• d) Misleading ads
• Sec 21 – Power of CCPA to impose penalty up to Rs. 10 lakhs
in case of false or misleading ads
• Note: Appeal against the aforesaid orders under sec 20 & 21
passed by CCPA can be made to national commission under
sec 23 of the act
• Sec 22 – Search & Seizure powers of DG & collector
• DG & collector have powers to carry out search & seizure
relating to violation of 6 consumer rights or UTP or
misleading ads
• Sec 23- Appeal to NC against orders passed by CCPA under
above sec 20 & 21 within 30 days from the receipt of order
passed by CCPA
• Sec 28 to 39 – DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION (DCDRC)
• Note – Under CPA 1986 it was compulsory that judges of
DCDRC should be retired district judge. However under CPA
2019 there is no such provision and hence this may be
challenged before supreme court stating that excessive
powers are given to executives( BABUS)
• I – The provisions regarding admission of case, procedure etc
are same as CPA 1986 except that monetary jurisdiction is
enhanced from 20 lakhs to Rs 1 crore
• Sec 40 – New power of review of its own decision in case of
error is granted to DCDRC
• Sec 41 – Appeal to state consumer dispute redressal
commission(SCDRC) within 45 days from the date of order
passed by DCDRC + extension
• Sec 42 – SCDRC – The procedure and order are same as
DCDRC
• Sec 48(a) - monetary jurisdiction of SCDRC is above 1 crore
and up to 10 crores
• b) Complaint against unfair contracts can be made to SCDRC
• c) Appeal against order of DCDRC
• d) Revision on 3 grounds against order of DCDRC
• Sec 51 – Appeal to NCDRC against the order passed by SCDRC
within 30 days from the date of the order of SCDRC +
extension
• Sec 52 – SCDRC or NCDRC shall dispose of the appeal within
90 days from the date of admission
• Sec 53 – NCDRC same as CPA 1986
• Sec 58 – Jurisdiction of NCDRC
• a(I) – Principle amount + compensation exceeding Rs. 10
crores ( original jurisdiction)
• II – Complaint against unfair contract exceeding Rs. 10
crores
• III – Appeal against order of SCDRC
• IV – Appeal against order of CCPA under sec 20 & 21( these
appeals against CCPA orders can be made directly to NCDRC
• b) Revision on 3 grounds against the order of SCDRC
• Sec 66 – Experts to help SCDRC & NCDRC if necessary
• Sec 67 – Appeal to supreme court within 30 days of date of
order + extension against the order of NCDRC
• Sec 68 – All complaints under this act should be lodged
within 2 years from cause of action + extension
• Sec 71 – Execution of orders of DCDRC, SCDRC & NCDRC -
As if it is a decree of civil court
• Note – Under CPA 1986 orders were required to be sent to
collector for recovery. This provision has been deleted
• Sec 72 (1) – Penalty for non compliance of orders passed by
• DCDRC, SCDRC & NCDRC
• Minimum Jail of 1 month & maximum up to 3 years
• OR
• Minimum fine of Rs. 25000 & maximum up to 1 lakh
• OR BOTH
• Sec 72(2)- For the above purpose DCDRC, SCDRC & NCDRC
are deemed FCJM
• Sec 73 – Appeal against above orders under sec 72
• Within 30 days – If DCDRC to SCDRC , If SCDRC to NCDRC &
If NCDRC to Supreme Court
• Sec 74 to 81 – Mediation
• 74 (1) – State government shall establish consumer
mediation cell for each DCDRC and also for SCDRC
• 74(2) – Central government shall appoint mediation cell for
NCDRC
• Sec 75 & 76 – DCDRC, SCDRC & NCDRC shall prepare list of
mediators which will be valid for 5 years
• Sec 77 & 78 – Mediators shall disclose conflict of interest if
any ( i.e interested in any matter)
• Sec 79 & 80 – Procedure for mediation
• I) with the help of mediator parties shall sign consent terms
• II – Consent terms ( terms of settlement will be filed with
respective DCDRC,SCDRC & NCDRC)
• III – If no settlement, failure report shall be filed with
DCDRC, SCDRC & NCDRC
• Sec 81 – I- DCDRC, SCDRC & NCDRC , in case of settlement,
shall record the settlement and pass the award/ order
• II – DCDRC, SCDRC % NCDRC in case of failure report, shall
record the failure report and go ahead with the case

• PRODUCT LIABILITY (sec 82 to 87)

• Product liability means harm or injury caused by defective
goods or deficient services. Now definition of complaint
includes complaint for product liability
• Under CPA 1986, consumer courts used to give relief
regarding product liability on the basis of common law/ law
of tort in the absence of specific provision. However under
this new act 2019, specific provisions have been
incorporated for product liability.
• Sec 82 & 83 – Product liability applies to harm or injury
caused by defective goods or deficient services and
complaint can be made to claim damages to DCDRC,SCDRC
& NCDRC
• Sec 84 – Product liability of manufacturer. Complaint can
be made for the following
• 1) Manufacturing defect
• 2) Defective design
• 3) Does not conform to express warranty
• Sec 85 – Product liability of service provider
• 1) Deficiency
• 2) Fault
• 3) No adequate instructions
• Sec 86 – Liability of product seller
• If seller alters design or shape etc, seller is liable
• Sec 87 – Exemption to product seller in certain cases
• For example : Product was altered/ modified by consumer
• Offences & penalties
• Sec 88 – Breach of directions of CCPA Under sec 20 & 21 –
Jail up to 6 months or fine up to 20 lakhs or both
• Sec 89 – False/ misleading ads – jail up to 2 years and fine
up to 10 lakhs
• Sec 90 – Penalty for manufacturing/ selling product
containing unsafe material/ adulterant
• a) Does not result in injury- jail up to 6 months and fine up
to 1 lakh
• b) Injury but not serious injury- Jail up to 1 year and fine up
to 3 lakhs
• c) Serious injury- jail up to 7 years and fine up to 5 lakhs
• Note – The above punishment will be in addition to the
damages which may be awarded to the consumer
• Sec 91 – Jail for manufacturing/ selling spurious goods
• Same as sec 90
• Sec 96 – Compounding of offences relating to only 88 & 89
and not for other offences
• Consumer Protection Act 1986 is hereby repealed
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CCI
V/S
CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF
ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS OF
WEST BENGAL FILM & TELEVISION
ORDER DATED 7/3/2017
 HIGHLIGHTS
• 1) The co-ordination committee alleged that the telecasting of
serial Mahabharat in Bangla after dubbing it in Bangla language
would affect the producers and would also adversely affect the
artist and technicians working in West Bengal.
• 2) They threatened two TV channels from broadcasting dubbed
serial Mahabharat since it will affect their livelihood
• 3) CCI ordered investigation by DG under sec 26(1). It was
alleged that the above threats were anti-competitve
• 4) The Supreme Court analysed the entire provisions of
Competition Act 2002 and held that the action of the co-
ordination committee had resulted in forclosure of the
competition by hindering entry of dubbed films into the market
• 5) It was contended by the co-ordination committee that it
was not enterprise and at the most it can be labelled as trade
union and therefore it was outside the purview of
Competition Act 2002
• 6) The Supreme Court observed that the actions of the co-
ordination committee in blocking broadcasting of dubbed
Mahabharat serial was against the interest of competition
and such acts cause harm to consumers by depriving them
from watching the dubbed serial on TV channel and it
amounted to creating barriers to the entry of dubbed serials
in the market
 CASE LAW

COMPETITION ACT
JAIPRAKASH ASSOCIATES LIMITED(JAL)
CASE NUMBER 99 OF 2014
CCI JUDGEMENT DATED 9/08/2019
• 1) Penalty was imposed by CCI of Rs. 13.82 crores upon Jaiprakash
Associates Limited for abuse of dominance under section 4 ( 5% of
average turnover for preceding three years i.e 9-10,10-11 & 11-12

• 2) CCI held that villa is spacious with all facilities like swimming
pool, garden etc and it is different from ordinary flat

• 3) Informant Mrs. Naveen Kataria had booked a villa at Noida

admeasuring 5700 sqft + Basement admeasuring 500 sqft for Rs.
4.05 crores and had paid Rs. 3.84 crores out of total consideration
of Rs. 4.05 crores on the basis of brochure and leaflets etc.
• 4) Subsequently on 2/3/2011, provisional allotment letter(PAL)
• was issued to her and the clauses of the said (PAL) were
one-sided and abusive which were in favour of JAL

• 5) Clause number 2.4 of the agreement stated that JAL can

alter construction / layout plan of the integrated township
without the consent of allottee

• 6) As per clause 5.6 allottee was required to pay 18% interest

for delayed payment, whereas JAL was required to pay 12%
interest for delay in giving possession
• 7) As per clause 6.9 JAL could create charge/mortgage upon
the prorerty without the consent of allottee to raise bank
loan
• 8) As per clause 7.1 and 7.2, if construction is delayed due
to government approval, shortage of cement, steel, strike
etc, no compensation can be claimed by allottee and it
should be treated as “ force majeure”
• 9) Clause 10.9 regarding arbitration stated that sole
arbitrator shall be appointed by JAL and the allottee shall
not challenge the award given by such sole arbitrator

• 10) Above Informant lodged complaint under section 19 ( 1)

(a) regarding abuse of dominance by JAL under section 4
•
• 11) CCI under section 26(1) directed DG to investigate and
report and DG submitted report to CCI on 1/8/2016
• 12) Summary of DG report
• a) Relevant Product Market – DG stated that villas are
different from stand alone residential apartments and hence
villas are not inter changable/ substitutable with stand alone
residential apartments
• b) Relevant Geographical Market – DG stated that consumer
who has opted for villa in Noida/Greater Noida will not go
for Delhi or Faridabad or Ghaziabad and hence relevant
geographical market would be Noida & Greater Noida
• c) JAL had 1500 acres area in Noida whereas other
competitors together held less than 500 acres area
• d) JAL sold maximum villas whereas Competitors sold less
than half of what JAL sold
• e) Hence DG concluded that JAL is dominant player in Noida
& Greater Noida and has voilated section 4(2) (a) (i) of the
Competition Act and most of the clauses of the agreement
were unfair, abusive and one-sided
• 13) Legal Arguments
• a) JAL lawyer argued that this case should go under RERA and not
under Competition Act. CCI held that Competition Act is additional
remedy and hence it can be tried either under RERA or under
Competition Act( section 62 of Competition Act)
• b) JAL Lawyer stated that Informant has settled the matter and has
applied for withdrawal of complaint.CCI held that scheme of the
Act, rules regulations do not provide for the withdrawal of the
complaint made under section 19(1) (a) and hence CCI is
empowered to ignore settlement between the parties and CCI is
not bound by the settlement for the purpose of punishing the
market manipulation and CCI IS market regulator and is not for
individual complainant
• c) JAL lawyer argued that previous order by CCI passed
against JAL would operate as a bar for present case(i.e
doctrine of resjudicata)- CCI held that previous order was for
stand alone residential apartments, this order is for villa and
hence there is no resjudicata. Doctrine of Resjudicata means
there should not be multiple proceedings for the same
matter i.e no double jeopardy as stated in the constitution
• d) Services provided by JAL fell under section 2(u) i.e services
of any description including construction
• E) CCI held that JAL is a dominant undertaking and it abused
dominance by incorporating one-sided, abusive and unfair
clauses
• f) Penalty of Rs. 13.82 crores was imposed for abuse of
dominance(5% of average turnover for preceding three
years- 9-10, 10-11 & 11-12)
 CASE LAW

Belaire Owners Association

V/S
DLF
 Highlights
• 1) CCI passed order holding that DLF abused the dominant position in
the market and imposed penalty of 7% of average turnover for
preceding three years i.e 2009,2010 and 2011 which worked out to
Rs.630.43 crores

• 2) CCI also passed cease and desist order restraining DLF for all future
transactions

• 3) CCI held that certain clauses in the agreement between DLF and
High – End Apartment owners were unfair and one sided.

• 4) CCI Suggested to centre and all state governments to frame new

law for regulating housing sector and hence RERA was enacted
• 5) Issues Framed by CCI
• a) Do provisions of Competition Act apply to
DLF i.e whether they are prospective or
retrospective
• b) What is relevant market
• c) Is DLF dominant in relevant product market
( High-End Apartment) and relevant
geographical market i.e(Gurgaon)
• d) Is there any abuse of dominance
• 6) Whether housing activities fall under the category
of goods or services – housing activities fall under the
category of services as held by Supreme Court
• 7) Whether agreements of DLF made prior to
20/5/2009 are covered since section 4 was enforced
with effect from 20/5/2009
• Yes because even if agreements are made prior to
20/5/2009 , their implementation was made by DLF
by cancellation of agreements subsequent to
20/5/2009 ( DLF acted upon the previous agreements
subsequent to 20/5/2009
• 8) Relevant Geographical Market – CCI held that relevant
Geographical Market was Gurgaon because person will not
shift to Ghaziabad, Faridabad or Delhi etc due to high prices
in Gurgaon and hence Gurgaon is the relevant Geographical
market ( DLF held 55% market share in Gurgaon where as
the market share of Unitech was very low not even 1/3rd
• 9) Relevant product market- High-End luxury residential
Apartments are not inter-changeable/ substitutable with
middle class or lower class housing and hence High-End
luxury residential Apartments are separate category market
( Cost of Each Apartment was 2 to 2.5 crores
• 10) What is Dominant Position – It enables the enterprise to
operate independentaly of the competitive forces operating in
the relevant market i.e High-End luxury residential Apartments at
Gurgaon. CCI held that considering market share of DLF of 55% at
Gurgaon and the following factors, DLF held dominant position
• a) Gross fix assets of DLF were 69% in relevant market i.e
Gurgaon
• b) Capital employed by DLF at Gurgaon was 45%
• c) 49% of total land bank at Gurgaon was held by DLF
• d) Turnover of DLF was 10000 crores which is 300% of turnover of
unitech
• 11) DLF abused the dominant position by incorporating
the following unfair clauses in the agreement with
apartment owners
• a) Unilateral change in the agreement without consent of
allottees
• b) Unilateral change in layout plan without consent of
allottees
• c) Unilateral change in amenities without consent of
allottees – for example earlier 100 allottees shared one
swimming pool, now without consent they have to share
swimming pool with 300 allottees
• d) Exhorbitant preferential location charges
• e) Linking of one project with another project
without consent of allottees
• f) No exit option except when DLF fails to
deliver possession
• g) Additions alterations in the building without
consent of allottees
• h) Harsher penalties for allottees and
insignificant penalties for DLF
• i) If allottees make changes in the agreement, forfeiture of entire amount
• j) 95% of payment to DLF before making agreement i.e allottee gets
locked in before signing the agreement and cannot go to other developer
• m) Additions of floors without consent of allottees – for example in one
case initial floors were 19 but subsequently 9 floors were added
• n) Even after full payment by allottee to DLF was empowered to
mortgage the property for bank loan
• o) No specific area
• p) No date of Delivery
• q) No information about the progress of the project
• r) Money was diverted to other projects
• 12) Since DLF abused the dominant position in
relevant market i.e high end luxury residential
apartment at Gurgaon, CCI imposed penalty of
7% of average turnover for preceding three
years which worked out to Rs. 630.43 crores and
also passed cease and desist order i.e restraining
DLF from indulging in similar behaviour in future
and also asks DLF to modify the existing
agreements as per the CCI Judgement
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – Judgement dated
14/11/2019 ( under Consumer Protection Act)

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust –

Appellante
v/s
M/S Unique Shanti Developers and ors
-Respondents
 HIGHLIGHTS
• 1) Respondents constructed two buildings at Thane in which
appellants booked 29 flats as hostel for nurses employed at
Lilavati Hospital at Bandra
• 2) Since above structure became dilapidated after 2 years from
possession due to poor construction, appellants vacated these
29 flats and claimed compensation from respondents by filing
complaint before National Commission New Delhi
• 3) National Commission dismissed the complaint stating that
trust is not a consumer under sec 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act 1986 as hiring of flats to nurses amounts to
commercial purpose ( nurses worked for the hospital which is
commercial enterprise) and therefore sec 2(1)(d) excludes
transaction for commercial purpose
• 4) Lawyers for trust argued that dominant purpose for buying
flats for nurses was social responsibility of business and it was
not directly linked to the commercial activities of the hospital.
In fact now a days globally the social responsibility of the
business has been recognised i.e buying houses for staff,
providing transportation, canteen facilities etc and therefore it
is not linked directly to the commercial activities of Lilavati
Hospital. It may be linked indirectly
• 5) It was argued by the respondent that commercial purpose
excludes only earning for livelihood by way of self employment
and the above activities do not fall under above exception
• 6) Supreme Court held that there should be direct/close nexus
between the purpose of activity and the profit making
• 7) SC held that what is important is the purpose for which
transaction is made and not identity or form of organisation i.e
whether consumer is company or trust etc. Dominant purpose
should be directly/closely linked to the commercial activity and
commercial entity like company trust etc may be a consumer
depending upon the facts of the case. In other words if activity is
indirectly linked to commercial purpose, commercial entity may be
held as consumer
• 8) If service providers are allowed to take defense that hirer of the
services is engaged in commercial activity and therefore not a
consumer such defense will not provide any remedy and it will
defeat the very purpose of the act. Therefore dominant purpose of
activity should be directly linked to the commercial activity. In this
case the purpose of the activity
• ( Hiring of the flats ) was part of labour welfare and was not
directly related to profit making
• 9) Supreme Court laid down the following tests
• a) Whether transaction is directly linked to commercial
purpose/activity
• b) Purchase of goods or services should be directly linked to
profit generating activity ( for example – Purchase of Land and
Building for factory is directly linked to the commercial purpose
but taking insurance policy from insurance company for the
building is not directly linked to the profit making. In fact as per
principle of Indemnity, in case of damage insurer will pay only
actual loss and insurer will never allow insured to make profit
• c) Identity of buyer/availer of services is immaterial i.e whether
company or trust etc and dominant purpose should be linked to
the profit
• 10) Supreme Court held that there was no direct link between
the purpose of flats purchased for nurses ( it was for welfare of
employees) and it creates loyalty to the organisation
• 11) Supreme Court held that in view of the above trust is a
consumer under sec 2(1)(d) of the act. It may please be noted
that though the judgement was given under 1986 act but same
definition has been carried forward under 2019 act and hence
the above judgement holds good under the new act
• 12) There were several cases pending before Supreme Court
wherein the insurance companies argued that taking out
• Insurance policy for business assets is linked to commercial
purpose and hence policy holders are not consumers under the
sec2(1)(d). HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT IN
CASE OF LILAVATI NOW THE CASES FILED BY INSURANCE COMPANY
WILL BE SET ASIDE AND POLICY HOLDERS WILL BE TREATED AS
CONSUMERS REASON BEING THE POLICIES ARE TAKEN TO
MINIMISE THE RISK TO THE ASSET AND THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY
LINKED TO THE PROFIT MAKING DUE TO PRINCIPLE OF INDEMNITY.
IN FACT NATIONAL COMMISSION IN RECENT JUDGEMENT HAS
OBSERVED THAT LILAVATI JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT WILL
NULIFY THE CASES FILED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES BECAUSE
POLICY HOLDERS ARE TREATED AS CONSUMER AND POLICIES ARE
TAKEN NOT TO MAKE ANY PROFIT BUT TO MINIMISE THE LOSS AND
THEREFORE TAKING OUT OF SUCH POLICIES IS INDIRECTLY
• RELATED TO THE PROFIT MAKING ACTIVITY
• 13) In another judgement delivered by national commission
(Freight System India v/s Omkar Realtors and Developers)
National Commission held that when company buys land and
building for business and complains to consumer courts
regarding defects, it must be held that such purchase is directly
related to profit making activities and company is not a
consumer as per above test laid down by Supreme Court but if
such company buys insurance policy for building to minimise
the risk to such building, the dominant purpose is to minimise
the risk and is not linked to the profit making activity
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DATED 8/12/2017

MANJEET SINGH – APPELLANT

V/S
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED -
RESPONDENTS
 Facts of the Case

• 1) Second hand truck owned by the appellant was insured with

the respondent for Rs 728000=00
• 2) On 12/12/2004 truck driven by appellant’s driver was stopped
by two persons for lift and being cold winter night and on
humanitarian grounds, driver gave lift to two persons
• 3) However, these 2 persons suddenly attacked the driver, tied
his hands and legs and ran away with the truck
• 4) Respondent rejected the claim stating that offering such lift
was in breach of insurance policy conditions
• 5) District forum, State Commission and National Commission
rejected the claim stating that contract was breached and hence
rejection by the respondent was proper
• 6) Supreme Court held that breach was not fundamental and
• Lift was given on humanitarian grounds on cold winter night
and hence such breach needs to be condoned
• 7) Hence Supreme Court granted 75% of the claim + 9%
interest
 PREDATORY PRICING

MCX STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITED

v/s
NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA AND ORS
 HIGHLIGHTS
• 1) MCX – SX was new entrant in the currency derivative market
(CD Market) which mainly deals with hedging of foreign
currencies. Exporters and Importers make use of currency
derivatives to cover exchange rate fluctuations
• 2) For abusing its dominant position (sec 4) in capital market by
way of predatory pricing, a fine of Rs. 55.5 crores was imposed
by CCI upon National Stock Exchange (NSE)
• 3) Financial Markets are divided into 1) Money Market 2)
Capital Market. Capital market is further sub-divided into 1)
Primary Market 2) Secondary Market. Further derivatives are
divided into 1) Option 2) Future
• 4) MCX-SX had applied to SEBI to operate in equity and
equity derivatives (futures and options)
• 5) NSE was already in a dominant position in equity and
equity derivatives market
• 6) This dominant position in equity and equity derivatives
market was used by NSE to drive out MCX-SX from the CD
market by adopting predatory pricing
• 7) The information regarding abuse of dominance by NSE was
given by MCX-SX to CCI under section 19(1)(a) of Competition
Act 2002
• 8) Both NSE and MCX-SX provided currency derivatives
services
• 9) Due to complete waiver of transaction fees for currency
derivative market, MCX-SX was also forced to waive transaction
fees and in the process suffered heavy losses
• 10) It may be noted that NSE charges admission fees for
membership in equity (F & O) and Debt Market. But same NSE
charge zero admission fees for brokers for CD Market to drive
out MCX-SX from CD market. NSE also charge very low cash
deposit and other fees in CD market to hurt MCX-SX
• 11) Due to above both NSE & MCX-SX suffered losses but NSE
could absorb losses due to its strong reserves and surplus in
equity segment
• 12) It was argued by MCX-SX that waiver of fees by NSE,
• Would eliminate business of MCX-SX and kill MCX-SX and
other competitors. In other words NSE used its dominant
position in equity and equity derivatives segment to kill the
competition in CD market by adopting the above predatory
pricing
• 13) CCI therefore directed Director General (DG) to
investigate further under sec 26(1) of Competition Act 2002
since prima facie case was established
• 14) Due to above MCX-SX suffered loss of around 100 crores
• 15) CCI refused to grant interim relief to MCX-SX under sec
33 since DG investigation was almost complete and order
was about to be passed
• 16) CCI determined the relevant product market and the relevant
geographical market for the purpose of determining dominant
position. Relevant product market was determined as stock
exchange business. Incidentally it may be noted that relevant
product market and relevant geographical market are required to
be determined only for the purpose of sec 4 (abuse of dominance)
and not for the purpose of anti-competitive agreements ( sec 3). In
other words anti-competitive agreements are actionable
irrespective of relevant product market and relevant geographical
market
• 17) NSE is dominant player on equity and equity derivative
segment and its market share in equity segment is 71.43% and
88.91% in futures and option ( i.e derivatives). This dominant
position was used by NSE to kill MCX-SX and other
• Competitors in CD market
• 18) Initial Share of MCX-SX in CD market was 52% and NSE
share was 48% but because of predatory pricing by NSE, the
market share of MCX-SX started shrinking
• 19) CCI considered financial resources of NSE ( Capital 45
crores, reserves and surplus 1864 crores and deposits from
members 917 crores) and comparatively CCI found that MCX-
SX could not match the above
• 20) Transaction waiver fees, waiver of admission fees, waiver
of deposit, waiver of data feeding fees etc by NSE in CD
segment was considered as abuse of dominance by way of
predatory pricing.
• 21) Huge amount was spent by NSE on promotion of CD
market
• 22) NSE increased fees in equity and equity derivatives
segment to offset losses incurred by it in CD segment
• 23) Since MCX-SX operated only in CD segment it could not
adjust the loss in other activities
• 24) In short NSE tried to drive out MCX-SX and other
competitors due to its strong position in equity and equity
derivatives segment
• 25) CCI concluded that NSE used its dominance in no-CD
segment to protect its position in CD segment by waiver of
fees and therefore NSE abused its dominant position
• 26) CCI therefore imposed penalty of Rs 55.5 crores upon
NSE for abuse of Dominance by way of predatory pricing
which was equal to 5% of the turnover of NSE for
preceeding 3 years
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

VS
VP SHANTHA AND ORS
• Supreme Court Judgement Dated 13/11/95
• Legal Points discussed
• Sec2(1)(o) – definition of service
• Service means service of any description and includes
banking, insurance, transport etc but excludes the following
• I – Free of cost services
• II – Contract of personal service ( contract between
employer and employee – employee is required to obey
orders of employer but doctor is not required to obey
orders of patient

•
• Supreme court held as follows :
• a) Service means service of any description, which is wide
enough to cover services rendered by medical paracticioners
• b) Medical Practicioner must exercise reasonable degree of
skill and care
• c) Contention that DF,SC & NC are not competent to judge
the degree of skill and care is wrong because there are
appeal provisions to higher authorities
• d) Categories of services rendered by medical practicioners
• I – Where services are rendered free of cost to all( not
covered by the law i.e excluded services)
• II – Where services are required to be paid by all ( covered
under the act)
• III – Where majority pays but few people are rendered
services free of cost out of the money received from
majority ( covered under the act)
• SC held that even if services are covered by medical council
of India, medical practitioners will be covered under CPA
1986 because section 3 of the act says that law is in
addition to and not in derogation of other laws and hence
patient can choose either CPA 1986 or medical council of
India
 CASE 2
• NATIONAL COMMISSION
• AMRISH KUMAR SHUKLA AND 21 OTHERS
• VS
• FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
• JUDGEMENT DATED 7/10/2016
• I – Interest awarded by the court is always paid by way of
compensation and hence while determining monetary
jurisdiction, interest will be added to claim amount
• II – Group of consumers can file CLASS ACTION SUIT under
section 12 (1)(c) and court can issue public notice and club
similar complaints to avoid multiplicity of
• Proceedings ( i.e such complaint/s will be treated as
complaints on behalf of all and not some of them)
• What is value of complaint
• Value of complaint means value paid at the time of
purchase of goods or services and not the market value at
the time of filing complaint
 CASE 3

• CAN COMMERCIAL ORGANISTION FILE INSURANCE CLAIM

FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICES IN CONSUMER COURTS
AGAINST INSURANCE COMPANIES
• Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission
• Consumer Welfare Association
• v/s
• Oriental Insurance Company Limited
• Judgement delivered on 27/7/2017
• Under section 2(1)(d)
• Consumer means buyer of the goods or availer of the
services except goods/services bought or availed for
commercial purpose
• History of the case
• 1) Gujarat State consumer dispute redressal commission
gave judgement in group of cases in the year 2003 that
commercial organisations which take insurance policy to
protect their assets are not consumers since insurance
policies are taken for commercial purpose and hence
excluded as per the above definition under sec 2(1)(d)
• 2) Appeal against the above order of Gujarat State
commission was filed before national commission and
national commission vide its order dated 3/12/2004
( Harsolia Motors v/s National Insurance Company Limited
held as follows:
• a) Fire, Marine or general insurance is a contract of
indemnity ( i.e only actual loss is paid and not more than
actual loss – for example If policy is for 100 crores and loss is
1 rupee only 1 rupee will be paid and not 100 crores)Hence
insurance policies are taken for protection of interest of the
commercial organisation in its assets and not for making
profit due to the above principle of indemnity( i.e only actual
loss will be paid)
• b) As per above section 2 (1)(d) servies should be used in
any activity directly intended to generate profit and profit
is the main aim of commercial purpose. However, in case
of insurance policy the main aim is to get actual loss and
not profit as per the principle of indemnity ( i.e actual loss
and not more than actual loss)
• c) In view of the above, the national commission then
headed by president M.B.Shah concluded that commercial
organisation take insurance policies for indemnification of
actual loss and it is not intended to generate any profit.
Accordingly national commission set aside the order of
Gujarat State commission and held that insurance claims
are covered under the Consumer Protection Act
• 3) The above order of national commission was challenged before
supreme court by national insurance company limited by filing
appeal ( SLP number 7186 – 7187/2004 and vide its order dated
15/4/2005, the supreme court stayed the above order of national
commission
• Note : FROM 15/4/2005 TILL TODAY THE MATTER IS PENDING
BEFORE SUPREME COURT AND FINAL JUDGEMENT IS NOT YET
DELIVERED. THE QUESTION ARISES THAT DURING THE PENDANCY
OF THE ABOVE, WHAT IS THE LEGAL POSITION. THE ANSWER IS
SUPREME COURT HAS KEPT THE ISSUE OPEN AND DURING THE
PENDANCY, EACH CONSUMER COURT IN THE COUNTRY CAN HAVE
ITS OWN INTERPRETATION. PRACTICALLY INSTEAD OF DECIDING
THE MATTER, THE CONSUMER COURTS ARE ASKING PARTIES
• TO APPROACH CIVIL COURT
• 4) In the above case, Maharashtra State Commission has
held that stay order of supreme court is binding upon all
courts but since the issue has been kept open by the
supreme court, each consumer court is required to apply its
own mind to decide the issue.
• 5) In the above case Maharashtra State commission applied
its mind and held that machinery was insured certainly for
commercial purpose and hence complainant is not a
consumer.
• 6) Practical solution during the above pendancy
• If case is dismissed by the consumer court it is advisable
• To file a civil suit asking for condonation of delay which
occurred due to pendancy before consumer courts.
 CASE 4

• WHETHER REAL ESTATE( REGULATION AND

DEVELOPMENT)ACT 2016 ( RERA) OVERRIDES CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT 1986/2019
• AJAY NAGPAL & 49 ORS
• V/S
• TODAY HOMES INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
• Judgement delivered by national commission on 15/4/2019
• Facts of the case and legal points raised
• 1) NC held that consumer court is cheap and speedy remedy
compared with civil courts
• 2) Agreement to sell was made on 16/10/2010 and
possession was to be delivered
• Within 36 months + extension i.e on or before 15/1/15 but
was never delivered
• 3) All terms and conditions of above agreement to sell were
one-sided, unfair and abusive
• 4) All the flat buyers asked for refund of money with interest
• 5)There was arbitration clause in the agreement to sell
• 6) RERA became operational in the state of Haryana with
effect from 15/1/17
• 7) The argument made by developer was that these cases are
covered by RERA and hence CPA 1986 has no jurisdiction
because RERA is a special law which overrides CPA 1986
• 8) Further the contract is subject to arbitration and
conciliation act 1986 and hence arbitrator should be
appointed
• 9) The NC examined provisions of both RERA & CPA 1986
• 10) Section 3 of CPA 1986 says that the act is in addition to
and not in derogation of other laws(i.e alternative remedy)
• Sec 88 of RERA also repeats the above language of sec 3
• 11) NC held that sec 79 of RERA bars jurisdiction of civil
court but consumer courts are not civil courts although the
proceedings before consumer courts are civil proceedings
• 12) Jurisdiction of consumer courts is wider than RERA
• 13) CPA has a long history and large number of case laws
whereas RERA is recent law
• 14) NC observed that supreme court has already held three
to four times that arbitration and conciliation act 1996
cannot override CPA 1986 because arbitration is lengthy
process where as CPA 1986 is cheap and speedy process
• 15) SC has held that motor vehicle act 1988 and railway
claims tribunal act 1987 are special laws and they override
CPA 1986 but RERA & arbitration and conciliation act cannot
override CPA 1986
• 16) Considering the above NC held that both RERA and
arbitration and conciliation act 1996 cannot override
• CPA 1986 and consumer can either file a complaint before
consumer courts or RERA or arbitrator
 CASE 5

• Difference between subrogation and assignment of legal right

in case of insurance claim
• Oberai Forwarding Agency
• v/s
• New India Assurance Company Limited and MS Industries
• Decided by Supreme Court of India on 1stFeb 2000
• Facts and legal points
• 1) MS industries hired two trucks of M/S Bhasin Goods
Carriers to transport goods from uttar pradesh to assam. M/S
Industries had taken insurance policy for loss in transit from
New India Assurance Company Limited
• 2) Goods were lost in transit and hence MS industries
• Claimed the amount of loss from New India Assurance
Company Limited and New India Assurance Company Limited
paid Rs. 64137 towards the loss incurred by MS Industries
Limited
• 3) Thereafter New India Assurance Company Limited filed
consumer complaint before district forum. Subsequently, MS
Industries was added as a joint complainant.
• 4) The above complaint was lodged by New India Assurance
Company Limited to recover damages/compensation from
Oberai forwarding agency which hired the trucks of M/S Bhasin
goods carriers of Bareilly.
• 5) The above complaint was lodged on the basis of letter of
• Assignment and subrogation issued by M/S MS Industries in
favour of New India Assurance Company Limited. The letter
was as follows :
• I – We hereby assign transfer, and abandon to you all our
rights against railway, road transport carriers or other
persons whatsoever caused or arising by reason of the said
damage or loss and grant you full powers to recover the
claim for the said damage
• II – We hereby subrogate to you the same rights as we have
in consequence of or arising from the said loss or damage
• Supreme court held that both the clauses i.e I & II is nothing
but assignment even though in the second clause word
• Subrogation is used
• Assignment means complete transfer of rights and hence after
assignment rights of MS Industries became zero
• WHAT IS SUBROGATION
• Example : Mr.X takes out accident policy for Rs 10 lakhs from
oriental insurance company limited. Mr. X dies in road accident.
His legal heirs claim Rs 10 lakhs from oriental and oriental pays
Rs 10 lakhs to legal heirs. After making payment to legal heirs,
oriental steps in to the shoes of Mr X/ legal heirs on the basis
of subrogation clause in the policy or in the absence of
subrogation clause, on the basis of letter of subrogation
• Thereafter, if accident is caused due to negligence of truck
driver or transport company, oriental can file suite/ claim
against truck driver or transport company to recover the
amount of Rs 10 lakhs, which oriental has paid to legal heirs.
This is called subrogation of right to recover loss from the
person who caused the accident. All insurance policies do
contain clause relating to subrogation
• 6) In the above case, DF SC & NC passed order directing oberai
forwarding agency to pay the actual loss of Rs 64137 to new
India assurance on the basis of subrogation clause i.e MS
Industries had executed letter of subrogation in favour of new
India after receipt of money from new India
• 7) Between assignment and subrogation, assignment gives
higher rights but subrogation gives right to recover only
actual amount paid to the insured
• For example : In our case if insurer is able to recover more
than Rs 64137 from the truck driver or transport company,
extra amount can be retained by the insurer. However in
case of subrogation, insurer can retain only Rs 64137 and
extra amount will have to be returned to the insured.
• 8) Is new India entitled to recover Rs 64137 from the
appellant i.e oberai forwarding agency, Supreme court held
as follows :
• a) SC held that as per the letter issued by MS Industries in
favour of new India, all rights of MS Industries are
transferred to new India and hence it is a case of assignment
and therefore now nothing remains with MS Industries
• b) As per sec 2(1)(d) consumer means buyer of goods or
person using the goods with the consent of buyer. In case of
services, availer of the services or beneficiary with the
consent of availer. In this case, availer of the services was MS
Industries and not new India and due to assignment in
favour of new India , presently MS Industries is not availer.
New India is also not the consumer because it is neither
availer nor beneficiary of services
• c) Even if complaint was filed in the joint name of MS
Industries and new India, it is of no use because new India
is neither availer nor beneficiary. MS Industries who
actually availed the services, have transferred all their rights
to new India by way of assignment and hence rights of MS
Industries are now zero. In other words at this stage both
are not the consumers
• 8) Supreme court suggested that although case is not
covered under CPA 1986, both can file joint civil suite since
civil court is not bound by the definition of consumer given
in sec 2(1)(d)
 CASE - 6

• Supreme Court of India – Judgement dated 16/1/2012

• National Seeds Corporation Limited
• v/s
• M Madhusudhan Reddy and 17 others
• Facts of the case
• 1) National seeds corporation supplied the seeds to the above
respondents but according to respondents the seeds sold to
them were defective
• 2) DF SC & NC directed National seed corporation to pay
damages to the respondents who are farmers
• 3) The advocate for the National seeds corporation made the
following arguments :
• a) Seeds were bought by the respondents for commercial use
• b) There is a special act called as seeds act 1966 and hence
complaint should have been filed under seeds act 1966 and not
under CPA 1986
• 4) Advocate for the respondents argued as follows :
• a) In entire seeds act of 1966,there is no provision for
compensation
• b) The commercial purpose excludes earning for livelihood by way
of self employment and the farming activities of all the
respondents were by way of self employment
• c) The consumer court appointed the commissioner to investigate
in to the losses claimed by the respondents and the
commissioner worked out the losses for individual parties
• And hence the lower consumer courts have correctly granted
the compensation which was worked out by the
commissioner
• 5) The Supreme court accepted the arguments made on
behalf of the respondents and held as follows :
• a) Respondents are consumers because they did farming by
way of self employment which is excluded from commercial
purpose
• b) Seeds Act 1966 did not contain any provision for
compensation and hence compensation can be awarded by
consumer courts
• c) Under sec 3 consumer courts are additional remedy and
• Hence consumer courts do have jurisdiction and therefore
appeal filed by National seeds corporation limited which is
a government of India undertaking, was rejected
 CASE 7

• Kerala High Court – Judgement dated 29/7/2011

• Punjab National Bank
• v/s
• N P Vijayan and his wife
• Facts of the case
• 1) Mr Vijayan filed consumer complaint against the bank after
getting notice from bank under SARFAESI Act 2002 on the ground
that there was deficiency in services rendered by the bank
• ( securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and
enforcement of security interest act 2002)
• 2) Consumer court granted stay on the notice issued by the bank
under SARFAESI Act 2002
• 3) Aggrived bank filed writ petition before kerala high court
• 4) Kerala high court set aside the order passed by the consumer
court and asked the consumer court to delete the complaint from
their records on the following grounds
• a) Kerala high court discussed the background of the SARFAESI Act
2002. The act was made due to huge amount of NPA’S of banking
sector. There is a law called as RDDB Act 1993 ( recovery of debt
due to bank and financial institution Act 1993. However, since the
recovery of debt due to bank was very slow under this act,
parliament of india made special law called as SARFAESI Act 2002
and this law overrides all other laws in the country. Under this law
when loan becomes NPA ( i.e not paid within 90 days from due
date) bank can issue notice to the borrower asking him to
• Repay the loan within 60 days from the date of receipt of the
notice. If borrower fails to pay the amount within 60 days, the
bank can attach and sell with out the intervention of the court
the securities given by the borrower. Against the above action
of the bank borrower can file appeal to DRT (Debt Recovery
Tribunal) established under 1993 act. Against the DRT order,
borrower can file further appeal to DRAT ( Debt Recovery
Appellate Tribunal). The kerala high court noted that due to
SARFAESI, recovery of loan has improved considerably.
• b) Kerala High court held that SARFAESI is a special law and
consumer protection act is a general law. Further consumer
protection act was enacted in the year 1986, whereas
SARFAESI was enacted in the year 2002. Hence on both the
• Grounds, SARFAESI Act 2002 will override consumer
protection act 1986
• c) Kerala high court noted that in several judgements,
Supreme court has held that due to above reasons SARFAESI
Act 2002 will override Consumer protection act 1986
• d) Kerala high court held that as per sec 34 of SARFAESI, civil
courts as well as other courts or authorities are barred from
interfering under this act. Similarly sec 35 of the law says that
SARFAESI overrides other law
• e) Kerala high court held that if Mr Vijayan and his wife have
any grievances under SARFAESI they are free to go to DRT
under sec 17 and DRAT under sec 18 of SARFAESI and hence
adequate remedy is available to them under SARFAESI
• f) Kerala high court noted that in several judgements
Supreme court has held that SARFAESI overrides even SICA
Act 1985 ( Sick Industrial Companies Act 1985) and
companies act. Consumer Protection act being general law
will surrender to the SARFAESI
• 5) In view of the above, the kerala high court set aside the
stay granted by the consumer court and asked the
consumer court to delete the consumer complaint from
their record
 CASE 7
• National Commission – Judgement dated 21/1/14
• Product Liability Case – Judgement was given on the basis of common law (
i.e law of equity ) and on the basis of law of tort
• Rashmi Handa and ORS
• V/S
• OTIS Elevator Company (I) Limited and RAW ( Research and Analysis Wing)
• Facts and legal points
• 1) Mr Vipin Handa was husband of Rashmi Handa and Mr Vipin Handa
worked with RAW
• 2) On 20/3/2003, there was a problem with a lift installed by the OTIS.
While Mr Vipin Handa was being rescued by the lift operator on the 11th
floor, there was a sudden movement of lift downwards crushing Mr Vipin
Handa’s neck
• 3) There was a annual maintainence contract
• 4) The advocate for OTIS argued that consumer courts are not
competent to handle complicated matter like this. The national
commission noted that district forum is headed by retired district
judge, state commission is headed by retired high court judge and
national commission is headed by retired supreme court judge
and therefore with the help of expert guidance/ technical report,
these courts can decide any complicated matter
• 5) National commission held that the accident took place due to
sudden downward motion of the lift when Mr Vipin Handa
( deceased) was being rescued. His body was half-way in and half-
way out and there was no reason that the lift could move down
suddenly
• 6) Advocate for OTIS argued that the accident happened
due to sudden voltage fluctuation. However the national
commission held that why the stabilizer was not installled
by the OTIS
• 7) The national commission also noted that no proper
training was given by the OTIS to the lift operator
• 8) Considering the future life of Mr Vipin Handa (deceased)
and various other factors , national commission awarded
compensation of Rs 3,01,48,195 and directed OTIS to pay
the aforesaid compensation to Smt Rashmi Handa wife of
the deceased
 CASE 8

• National Commission – order dated 5/8/2004

• Accident of 7 years old girl who fell into the gap in the
escalator at Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi
terminal 2 who arrived from Dubai and was crushed
• Jethani & ORS
• V/S
• Airport Authority of India(AAI) & OTIS Elevators Limited
• Facts of the case
• 1) Jyotsna Jethani 7 years young girl met with accident while
getting out of escalator maintained by AAI
• 2) Jyotsna & family came for wedding at Delhi
• 3) Jyotsna was crushed on 12/12/99 in the gap of escalator at
Delhi airport and she was chewed up by the escalator
• 4) Family watched horrifying death of their daughter jyotsna
• 5) Advocate for OTIS argued that OTIS was not liable because
during the relevant period maintainence contract with the
OTIS was not renewed by AAI & court accepted this
contention and OTIS was released from the liability
• 6) Jain committee was appointed to investigate into the
accident
• 7) Jain committee observed that there was no proper
maintainence of escalator and no proper safety features and
maintainence contract with OTIS was not renewed by
• AAI during the relevant period
• 8) Jain committee also observed that had escalator been
switched off, tragedy could have been averted
• 9) Jain committee also held that quality of engineering
personnel and supervisory staff was below standard and no
proper documentation of maintainence was prepared
• 10) Jain committee held that due to negligence in
maintainence, a whole was created in escalator and escalator
was not upgraded
• 11) It was argued by AAI advocate that criminal complaint
relating to the same matter was pending before criminal
court and hence consumer court had no jurisdiction
• However consumer court held that criminal proceedings and
civil proceedings are different, standard of evidence is also
different. In criminal proceedings persons will be sent to jail
but compensation can be awarded only under consumer court
proceedings
• 12) Consumer courts are not bound by Indian Evidence Act and
civil procedure code and hence remedy under consumer court
will be faster and quick relief can be granted to the victim
• 13) As per provisions AAI Act 1994, AAI was liable to
compensate the victim
• 14) Jyotsna was beneficiary of the services hired by her parents
and hence jyotsna was consumer under sec 2(1)(d)
• Of the consumer protection act
• 15) Since contract with OTIS was not renewed by AAI during
relevant period, OTIS was not liable
• 16) Compensation of RS 30 lakhs was awarded to the
parents due to tragic death of jyotsna
 CASE 9

• Punjab State Commission – Judgement dated 24/3/15

• Class India Private Limited
• V/S
• Gurdeep Singh and other farmers
• Facts of the case
• 1) Gurdeep singh and other farmers purchased “combine
harvestor machine” from class India private limited
• 2) Farmers alleged that there was manufacturing defect in the
above machines and hence farmers suffered losses
• 3) Gurdeep singh and other farmers approached district
forum and district forum awarded compensation to farmers
• 4) During investigation, state commission noted that there
was abuse and mis-use of machines by the farmers
• 5) It was proved that machines were used for long period
by the farmers
• 6) Since farmers failed to prove manufacturing defects,
their claim for compensation was rejected by the state
commission
 CASE 10

• Supreme court of India – Judgement dated 29/3/2006

• Maruti Udyog Limited
• v/s
• Sushil Kumar
• Facts of the case
• 1) Maruti car was purchased by Sushil Kumar on 27/11/96
• 2) Immediately after purchase car was giving problems and
clutch was not functioning properly and hence Sushil Kumar
was repeatedly required to take the car to garage which was
far away from his residence
• 3) Sushil Kumar asked for replacement of the car
• 4) Relevant clause in the contract was as follows
• “ If defect is found during warranty period, Maruti’s only
obligation is to repair/replace the relevant spare part”
• 5) The defect in the clutch was found during warranty
period
• 6) Letter was written by Sushil Kumar to MD of Maruti on
21/4/97 but there was no reply
• 7) Considering the aforesaid clause SC refused the demand
for replacement of car but directed Maruti to replace clutch
within 3 months from the date of order plus compensation
of Rs 50000 for mental torture
 CASE 11

National commission – order dated 15/4/2008

Bhopal Steel
vs
Govind lal Sahu & Lafarge India Limited ( cement manufacturer)
Facts of the case
1) There was allegation that sub-standard cement was supplied
by Lafarge to the petitioners
2) It was found that cement gets deteriorated by 40 % after 1
year
3) National Lab Kolkota reported that the cement was sub-
standard
• 4) It was found that cement was supplied after 1 year from
the date of manufacture and hence it got deteriorated by
40%
• 5) In view of the above, Lafarge India was asked to pay
compensation of Rs 1 lakh with 9% interest per annum from
the date of complaint till the date of actual payment
 CASE 12

• State commission Delhi – order dated 24/5/19

• Arvee Techno Private Limited( through Mr. Ankur Jain)
• v/s
• Skoda Auto India Private Limited
• Facts of the case
• 1) It was alleged that Mr. Ankur Jain is not the proper
complainant. However court held that since Mr. Ankur Jain
was authorised by the proper board resolution of the
company to file complaint on behalf of the company, he was
the proper complainant
• 2) Skoda car was bought by the complainant for Rs 20,74,358
• 3) Trouble started within 1 month of purchase and
thereafter car gave regular trouble
• 4) It was alleged that car was repaired several times
• 5) However complainant failed to prove that car suffered
from manufacturing defect
• 6) After investigation it was found that the car was used
extensively for long period and hence there was no
manufacturing defect
• 7) In view of the above the claim of the complainant was
rejected
 CASE 13

• Haryana State commission – Judgement dated 19/9/2017

• Reliance Digital Retail Limited ( Dealer )
• v/s
• Deepak Agarwal
• Facts of the case
• 1) Mr Agarwal bought hard disk from reliance digital
• 2) The hard disk started giving problems and when connected
in USB part of the computer, it was not readable
• 3) When Mr Agarwal approached reliance digital with this
problem, he was informed that since some unauthorised
person had opened the hard disk, there is a breach of
warranty and hence there will not be any replacement
• 4) Court held that there was no reason for Mr Deepak to
open hard disk within 2 to 3 months of purchase and hence
the above allegation that some unauthorised person had
opened the hard disk was baseless
• 5) In view of the above, the court asked reliance digital to
refund the purchase price of Rs 4494 + Rs 5000 as
compensation to Mr Agarwal
 CASE 14

• House of Lords ( Supreme Court Of England)

• Ryland
• v/s
• Fletcher
• Facts of the case
• 1) This case is historical case regarding law of strict product
liability
• 2) Ryland was the original defendant and Fletcher was the
original plenty
• 3) Ryland built reservoir on his land for the purpose of his
textile mill
• 4) Fletcher who owned mine on the neighbouring land
• 5) After completion of reservoir, water burst and flooded into
land/mines owned by fletcher causing huge damage to
fletcher’s mines
• 6) Single judge of Liverpool court ruled in favour of fletcher
• 7) However in appeal three judges set aside single judge order
• 8) Again appeal was made to six judges, who restored the
order of single judge on the following grounds
• “ He who brings something on his land which is likely to cause
trouble, if it escapes, is liable subject to following two
exceptions
• 1) Act of God
• 2) Due to default of the other party
• 9) Six judges held that Ryland is liable since case does not fall
under above two exceptions
• 10) On appeal house of lords ( Supreme Court of England)
rejected the appeal filed by Ryland and confirmed the
judgement passed by six judges/ single judge of Liverpool
• Note : So far consumer courts under 1986 act used to give
judgements on the basis of above judgement + law of equity
but now under new Consumer Protection Act 2019 there is a
specific provision for product liability ( i.e sec 82 to 87)
 JURISPRUDENCE

JURIS MEANS LEGAL & PRUDENCE

MEANS KNOWLEDGE
• 1) What is Law – Law means non- optional rules regulating
human behaviour for welfare of a given society made by the
following:
• a) Natural Law Theory( theory of God) this theory ruled the
world for more than 2500 years but no scientific base
• b) Theory of Command – According to John Austin sovereign
issues commands to his subject with a warning that if
command is not followed, people will be punished
• c) Professor Hart’s theory of inner voice/ soul known as
theory of Union of primary and secondary law. Primary laws
impose duties and obligations. Secondary laws are of three
types:
• 1) Rule of Recognition
• 2) Rule of Adjudication
• 3) Rule of change or amendment
• The primary laws are recognized by constitution, adjudicated
by courts and made/amended by parliament
• d) Theory of American realism i.e law in books are good but
law in practice may be bad
• Legal Concepts
• A) Legal presumption- irrebutable- child below 7 years will
not commit offence intentionally. Rebutable- person missing
for more than 7 years is presumed as dead in the eyes of law
• B) Legal Fiction – Company is artificial person. Fiction of
deemed notice
• Legal Principles
• 1) PNJ
• 2)Resjudicata
• 3)Promissory Estoppel
• 4) He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
• 5) Delay defeats equity and hence law of limitation
• Rules of Interpretation
• 1 ) Golden Rule- if result is absurd, go into statement of
objects and reasons
• 2) Mischief Rule – what was the situation before and
suppress the mischief
• 3) Special Law will over ride general law
• 4) Judicial Precedence ( Case Laws)
• 5) Obiter – Dicta ( Casual observation of the court. Obiter
dicta of supreme court is binding)
• Judicial system in India
• Civil proceedings – at the lower level we have district court,
thereafter high court and supreme court
• Criminal proceeding – At the lower level we have FCJM,
thereafter session court and high court and supreme court
• Judicial Review of executive and parliamentary actions(JR)

• Writ petition to supreme court ( article 32 )

• Special leave petition(SLP) to supreme court (article 136)
• Writ petition to high court ( article 226 & 227)
• Types of Writ
• 1) Writ of Mandamus- do your duty
• 2) Writ of certiorari- Quash wrong proceedings
• 3) Writ of Prohibition – prevent wrong order from being
passed
• 4) Habeas Corpus- You have body to answer(missing persons)
5) Quo Warranto- show me your I card
PIL – Pil is nothing but writ. Locus standi is wider

Legal Rights of ownership/owner

1) Right of Possession
2) Right of enjoyment
3) Right of Sale/disposal

Mortgage- All other rights are with mortgagee except right of

redemption by making payment, which is with mortgagor
• Pledge – Possession with pledgee with right to sell in case of
default
• Hypothication – Possession with the borrower (example loan
for taxi)
• Lien – Right to Detain Property in case of default
• Bailment ( movable goods only) possession with the bailee
but other rights with the bailor
• BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION
• Fundamental rights ( part III)
• Directive principles ( part IV)
• Basic structure means proper balance between part III & part
IV
• According to supreme court of India parliament can use power
to amend the constitution granted under article 368 provided it
does not disturb the above basic structure
• Basic Structure theory can be divided in following three
phases:
• 1) Pre Kesavanand Bharati Case – In 1955 in the case of Sajan
Singh v/s State of Rajasthan, supreme court held that there is
nothing like basic structure & under article 368 parliament can
amend any part of the constitution
• 2) Post Kesavanad Bharati case – In this case supreme court
held that power to amend constitution under article 368
cannot be used by parliament to disturb the basic structure
and any such amendment would be struck down
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE -
PLAINTIFF V/S UNIVERSITY OF DELHI-
DEFENDANT
DELHI HIGHCOURT JUDGEMEN DATED 16/9/16
SUBJECT – WHETHER PHOTOCOPYING OF SUBSTANTIAL
MATERIAL FROM OXFORD/CAMBRIDGE BOOKS OR PPT
ETC AMOUNTS TO BREACH OF COPYRIGHT
• Brief facts of the case
• 1) Suit was filed by Oxford University in Delhi High court alleging
that University of Delhi/their agent photocopied substantial
material from Oxford/Cambridge books and distributed the
same to the students
• 2) Material was seized during the pendancy of the suit
• 3) Defendant did not exploit the book commercially but sold the
photocopied material at nominal rates to students
• 4) Defendant ( Delhi University) stated that reproduction of
copyrighted work by teacher or pupil in the course of instruction
is exempt under Sec 52(1)(i) of Copyright Act 1957. In other
words educational use for non-commercial purpose is exempt
• 5) Defendant argued that education is a constitutional right of
students
• 6) Plaintiff argued that teacher or pupil can photocopy
copyrighted material in the course of instruction and the same is
exempt under Sec 52(1)(i) of copyright act 1957 but the same
has to be done either by teacher or pupil and not by University.
• 7) Delhi High court held that “ in the course of instruction” has
got wider meaning and it starts from the admission to the course
upto the examination and therefore Delhi University is a part of
entire course and therefore photocopying by Delhi University or
its agent in the course of instruction for educational purpose is
also exempt. The Delhi High court further clarified that in the
course of instruction means other than lectures also
• 8) Finally the Delhi High court has held as follows
• i) Reproduction of any copyrighted material as per Sec 52(1)(i)
of copyright act 1957 by a teacher or pupil in the course of
instruction does not amount to infringement of copyright
• ii) Photocopy of substantial material from the books of Plaintiff
(i.e Oxford or Cambridge University) by Delhi University is also
covered by the term “in the course of instructions” and
therefore the same is also exempt under sec 52(1)(i) of
copyright act 1957
• 9) Appeal was filed before division bench of Delhi High court
against aforesaid judgement of single judge of Delhi High court
and the division bench has upheld the aforesaid exemption
given to teachers, students and Delhi University but has
• Remanded the matter back to single judge on some other
grounds
 CCI ORDER TO DG TO INVESTIGATE INTO
ABUSE OF DOMINANCE BY GOOGLE UNDER
SEC 4 ( Order dated 9/11/2020 read with sec
26(1)
 Highlights
• 1) Respondents are Alphabet Inc, Google LLC, Google Ireland,
Google India Private Limited and Google India Digital Services
Private Limited
• 2) The above group provides the following product and services
• a) Android Operating System for smart phones
• b) Google search engine
• c) You tube
• d) Gmail
• e) App- store called as Google Play
• f) Payment system called as google pay
• 3) Activities of the google are online product and services and
online advertising
• 4) Total turnover of Google Group is 116 Billion US$
• 5) Google LLC is subsidiary of Alphabet Inc
• 6) Google India Digital Services Private Limited operates Google
Pay
• 7) Android operating system and google play store favours
google pay which amounts to abuse of dominance under sec 4
• 8) Market share of android operating system is 98%
• 9) Android Operating System manipulates search results in
favour of google pay and google pay is pre-installed on android
operating system
• 10) Google Pay is prominently displayed on google play store
and encourages the customer to use google pay
• 11) 30% excessive commission is charged for all online products
sold on google play
• 12) Developers of all apps are compulsorily required to use
google play payment system which always favours google pay
• 13) CCI has passed order under sec26(1) asking DG to
investigate and report and DG has given voluminous report to
CCI recently
• 14) Thereafter the arguments by lawyers of both the parties will
be made and judgement will be given. People are awaiting
google judgement eagerly.
Supreme Court of India judgement dated
4/10/2017

OMPRAKASH- APPELLANT
V/S
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED -
RESPONDENTS
 FACTS OF THE CASE

• 1) Truck of the appellant was insured with the respondent

• 2) Truck was stolen from Bhivani, Rajasthan on 23/3/2010
• 3) For 8 days appellant was helping police in search of the truck
which was confirmed by the police
• 4) Appellant returned to his village on 30/3/2010 and informed
the respondent on 31/3/2010 about the loss of truck
• 5) Respondent argued before the lower consumer courts that
appellant should have informed the respondent about the loss on
23/3/2010 i.e the date of theft of truck as per policy condition
and not after 8 days delay on 31/3/2010
• 6) District Forum, State Commission and National commission
rejected the complaint stating that loss was not intimated
immediately to the insurer and 8 days delay cannot be condoned
• 7) Supreme Court held that such rejection on technical
ground will deprive the appellant of benefits of the policy
• 8) Supreme Court held that this breach was not fundamental
and there was proper explanation that appellant was
searching for the truck with the police for 8 days and the
same was confirmed by the police
• 9) Supreme Court finally held that genuine claim should not
be rejected on technical ground of 8 days delay and granted
the claim of the appellant
COMPETITION ACT 2002 ( CASE LAWS)

CASE LAW
Supreme Court of India
Excel Crop Care Limited & 2 Ors
v\s CCI
 Highlights
• 1) This Important Case decided that for the purpose of calculation of
penalty under section 27(b) relevant turnover (i.e only turnover of
product / services involved) should only be considered and total turnover
of the enterprise is irrelevant.

• 2) FCI ( Food Corporation of India) filed complaint with CCI ( Competition

Commission of India) on 4/2/2011, stating that cartel of three companies
has been formed relating to tender floated by FCI

• 3) CCI confirmed that cartel has been formed and imposed penalty of 9% of
average turnover for preceding three years as per section 27 (b) as follows:

•
 Table
ECCL Penalty of Rs 63.9 crores
UPL 252.44 CRORES
SOCL 1.57 CRORES
• 3) Vide order dated 29/10/2013, Competition
appellate tribunal ( currently NCLAT)
confirmed the CCI order but imposed penalty
on turnover of relevant product/ service
instead of on total turnover of the enterprise
as follows:
 Table
ECCL Penalty of Rs. 2.92 crores
UPL Penalty of Rs. 6.94 crores
SOCL Penalty of Rs. 15.70 lakhs
• 4) Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 8/5/2017
confirmed the order passed by tribunal and held as follows:
• a) Turnover under section 27(b) means turnover of relevant
product/ service and not total turnover and hence penalty
should be calculated as a percentage of turnover of relevant
product and not total turnover.
• b) Cartel operated for eight years prior to the enforcement
of the law on 20/5/2009 and hence this period of eight years
cannot be considered(i.e Law has no retrospective effect)
• c) Supreme Court clarified that in a multi product company,
turnover of unrelated products/ services should not be
considered for the purpose of imposing penalty.
CASE LAW

CEMENT CARTEL
• 1) Huge penalty was imposed upon 11 cement companies vide
CCI order dated 20/6/12 and the present case bearing number
52/2006 of Shree Cement Ltd. Was decided vide CCI order
dated 30/7/12
• 2) Facts of the earlier 11 cases and the present case of Shree
Cement are the same
• 3) Above 12 cement companies formed cartel and reduced
production of cement in order to increase the prices
• 4) DG enquiry was ordered in respect of Shree cement by CCI
under sec26(1)
• 5) DG found that 70% market was held by above 12 cement
companies and the price which was Rs 150 per bag rose to
Rs.300 per bag during 2010-2011
• 6) Although cartelisation started prior to 20/5/2009 ( when
Act was enacted), the practice continued even after
20/5/2009 and hence CCI had jurisdiction
• 7) CCI held that there is no abuse of dominance under sec4
since no single company is in a position to operate
independently of Competetive forces in the relevant market
but there is a horizontal cartelisation under sec 3(3). CCI also
held that there is a collusive behaviour to reduce supply and
increase price
• 8 ) Shree cement was asked to pay of Rs. 397.51 crores
• 9) The above cartel was operated through cement
manufacturers association by holding frequent meetings of
the cement manufacturers
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 1986 ACT

 HIGHLIGHTS

• 1) Better protection of the consumer ( Competition Act covers

only RTP but CPA protects from RTP & UTP)
• 2) Establishment of three-tier machinery ( DF,SC & NC)
• 3) Speedy trial ( 3 months or 5 months in case of lab testing)
• 4) Once admitted, cannot be transferred to other courts
• 5) Caveat Vendor ( seller beware) opposite of Caveat Emptor
i.e buyer beware
• 6) Pre-deposit before filing appeal
• 7) Complaint to be filed within two years from cause of action
plus extension(24A)
• 8) Total sections 31
 TABLE ( ADJUDICATION)
DF SC NC SUPREME
COURT
OJ 11(1) 17(1)(a)(I) 21(a)(I)
upto 20 Above 20 upto Above 1 crore
lakhs 1 crore
as per 2019 As per 2019 Act As per 2019 Act ____________
Act upto 1 Above 1 cr – Above 10 cr
crore 10cr

AJ _____ Sec 17(1)(a)(II) Sec21(a)(II) Sec 23

Against order Appeal against Appeal against
of DF within 30 order of SC order of NC
days with pre- with in 30 days within 30 days
deposit with pre- with pre-
deposit deposit

RJ _______ Sec17(1) (b) Sec21(b)

Call for and Call for and
examine order examine order ____________
of DF on 3 of SC on 3
grounds grounds
 PROSECUTION

• Sec 27 (1) If order of DF/SC/NC is breached, minimum jail of

1 month & maximum 3 years or minimum fine of Rs 2000
and maximum Rs 10000 or BOTH
• Sec 27 (2) For the purpose of above criminal punishment,
DF/SC/NC are deemed FCJM
• Sec 27A – Appeal against above order to senior authority i.e
if DF order, appeal to SC
• If SC order appeal to NC
• If NC order appeal to Supreme Court
• Supreme Court judgement passed on 14/12/99
• Central Provident fund Commissioner
• V/S
• Shiv Kumar Joshi
• Facts of the case
• 1) Mr. Joshi retired on 26/8/92 & demanded PF amount of
Rs. 65000 from CPFC
• 2) Since amount was not paid, Mr. Joshi filed complaint
before DF Faridabad
• 3) DF Faridabad ordered CPFC to pay Rs 65000 + 18%
interest to Mr. Joshi
• 4) State Commission & National Commission confirmed the
order of DF Faridabad
• 5) CPFC challenged the order of national commission under
section 23 before SC
• 6) SC framed the following issues
• a) Is Mr. Joshi a consumer under sec 2 (1)(d)
• b) Are services of CPFC covered under sec 2(1)(o)
• c) If answer to a & b above is yes, what is the adequate
compensation for Mr. Joshi
• 7) SC examined Sec2 (1)(d) and held that Joshi’s employer
was availer of the services rendered by CPFC and Mr. Joshi
was beneficiary of those services and hence consumer
• 8) In order to examine whether services rendered by CPFC
are covered under sec2(1)(o), SC studied the following table
under Employees PF Act 1952
 EMPLOYEES PF ACT 1952 ( TABLE)

EPFS EPS EDLIS

EMPLOYER 12% of BASIC + DA 8.33% IS 0.5% OF BASIC + DA
- 8.33 TRANSFERRED MAXIMUM
_______ COMPULSORILY TO PAYMENT IN CASE
3.67 EPS ACCOUNT BY OF DEATH OF
FORCE OF LAW EMPLOYEE DURING
TENURE OF SERVICE
IS RS. 6 LAKHS
EMPLOYEE 12% OF BASIC +DA NIL NIL
GOVT NIL 1.16% NIL
TOTAL 15.67 9.49 _______
• Note : CPFC maintains the above account of all employees
upto retirement and for this service CPFC recovers service
charges of 0.5% of the amount transferred to him by the
each employer in the country and it was found that this
amount was so huge that CPFC every year transferred
surplus amount from this account to its reserve and huge
reserve was created out of this service charges
• Therefore SC held that services rendered by CPFC are not
free of cost or sovereign function and hence covered under
sec 2(1) (o)
• SC also held that Rs. 65000 + 18% interest awarded by DF
Faridabad was adequate compensation and hence Joshi was
paid Rs. 65000 + 18% inetrest from 1992 till 1999
 SUMMARY OF CPA 1986

• Sec 2 – Important Definitions

• 2(1)(b) Complainant
• I – Consumer
• II – Voluntary Association under CO’S Act
• III – CG/SG
• IV – Group of Consumers having common complaint
• V – Legal heir in case of death of consumer
• 2(1)(c) Complaint
• Means alligations in writing regarding
• I – UTP/RTP
• II – Defects in goods
• III – Deficiency in services
• IV – Charging excessive price
• V) – Offer for sale of hazardous goods
• 2(1)(d) Consumer means
• I – Buyer of goods for consideration and includes any user of
goods with the consent of buyer but purchase for
commercial purpose/resale is excluded
• II- Availor of services for consideration and includes
beneficiary with consent of availor but excludes availment for
commercial purpose
• Note – Notwithstanding the above purchase of
goods/services for the purpose of earning of livelihood
• By way of self employment is not a commercial purpose
• 2(1)(nnn) RTP- Means any trade practice which manipulates
price, conditions of delivery/supply, which imposes
unjustified cost or restrictions on consumer
• 2(1)(o) – Services – Means any services including financial
services except free of cost service and contract of personal
services
• 2(1)(r) UTP means
• I- False representation about standard/quality of goods
• II- _________________ that goods are new goods even
though second hand
• III - _________________ about sponsorship/approval
• IV - ___________ regarding quality of services
• V - ___________ regarding affiliation i.e ISI etc
• VI - ___________ regarding usefulness of goods/services
• VII – False guarantee/warranty
• VIII – False guarantee without intention to perform
• IX – False representation of price
• X – False representation of competitors quality
• Sec 3 – Law is in addition to other laws and not in
derogation of other laws. Further special laws like labour
laws, criminal laws etc will override CPA 1986
• Sec 4 – Central consumer protection council( maximum 150
members)
• Sec 5 – Procedure for meetings of CCPC
• Sec 6 – Objects of CCPC
• To protect following consumer rights
• a) Right to protect against hazardous goods
• b) Right to be informed about quality etc
• c) Right to have access at competitive prices
• d) Right to be heard
• e) Right to seek redressal against RTP/UTP/Exploitation
• f) Right to consumer education
•
• Sec 7 – State consumer protection council ( SCPC)
• Sec 8 – Objects of SCPC – same as sec 6
• Sec 8 A – District consumer protection council (DCPC)
• Sec 8 B – Objects of DCPC- same as sec 6
• Sec 9 – Establishment of DF & SC by state government
• Establishment of NC by central government
• Sec 10 – Composition of DF(1 President + 2 members)
• Age Minimum – 35
• Period upto 5 years or 65 whichever is earlier
• Minimum 1 women member
• Sec 11 – Jurisdiction of DF
• Sec 11(1) – Pecuniary – up to 20 lakhs including
compensation
• Sec 11 (2) – Territorial – where OP resides or where cause of
action arose
• Sec 12(1) – Complaint by consumer/association etc
• Sec 12(2) – Fees – maximum 5000
• Sec 12 (3) – Complaint has to be admitted or rejected with
in 21 days of receipt of complaint by DF
• Sec 12 (4) – After admission no transfer to any other court
• Procedure after admission of complaint
• Sec 13 (1) – If goods require lab testing
• a) Copy of complaint to OP by DF within 21 days of
admission under sec 12(3) asking OP to reply within 30+15 =
45 days
• b) OP may deny or fail to reply
• c) DF to obtain sample of goods from complainant and send
the same to appropriate lab, asking for lab report within 45
days from reference by DF to lab
• d) DF to obtain deposit from consumer for lab fees and if
complainant wins the case, the deposit will be reimbursed to
the complainant
• e) DF to send lab report to OP with cc to complainant
• f) Arguments before DF by both the parties
• g) DF to pass final orders under sec 14
• Sec 13 (2) – Procedure ,If no lab report is required or in case
of services
• a) DF to refer copy of complaint to OP within 21 days of
admission of complaint under sec 12(3) asking OP to reply
within 45 days
• b) If OP fails to reply – ex –parte order under sec 14
• c) If complainant fails to appear, DF to dismiss the complaint
• Sec 13 (3A) – DF to pass order
• I – Within 3 months of receipt of copy of complaint by OP, if
no lab report
• II – Within 5 months of receipt of copy of complaint by OP, if
lab report is required
• Sec 13 (4) – DF is a deemed civil court
• Sec 14 – DF orders
• a) to remove defects
• b) to replace goods
• c) refund of price
• d) Compensation including punitive damages
• e) remove deficiency
• f) to discontinue UTP/RTP
• g) not to offer hazardous goods for sale
• Sec 15 – Appeal to state commission within 30 days of date
of DF order + extension with pre-deposit of 50% of the
amount of degree or 25000 whichever is less
• Sec 16 – Composition of state commission(1+2)
• a) retired or sitting high court judge + 2 members( minimum
1 woman member)
• b) Up to 5 years or 67 whichever is earlier
• Sec17 – Jurisdiction of state commission
• 17(1)(a)(I) Original – above 20 lakhs and up to 1 crore
•
• 17(1)(a)(II) Appeal against order of DF to SC within 30 days of
DF order + extension with pre-deposit
• 17(b) Revisional jurisdiction of SC – jurisdiction not
excercised by DF or wrongly exercised or material mistake
• Sec 18 – Procedure before SC – same as sec 12 , 13 & 14
• Sec 19 – Appeal to National Commission – within 30 days of
SC order + extension with pre-deposit
• Sec 19A – Disposal of appeal by SC/NC – within 90 days of
admission
• Sec 20 – Composition of NC (1+4)
• President should be sitting or retired supreme court judge
• Up to 5 years or 70 whichever is earlier
• Sec 21 – Jurisdiction of NC
• 21(a) (I) – Above 1 crore
• (II) – Appeal against order of state commission within
30 days of date of order of SC + extension with pre-deposit
• Sec 21 (b) – Revision on 3 grounds
• Sec 22 – Procedure before NC – same as sec 12.13 & 14
• Sec 23 – Appeal to Supreme court within 30 days of order
of NC + extension with pre-deposit
• Sec 24A – Limitation period – complaint should be lodged
within 2 years from cause of action + extension
 ADJUDICATION

• Sec 25 – Enforcement of orders of DF/SC & NC

• 25(1) – If interim orders are not complied with, attachment
of property for maximum 3 months
• 25(2) – If no compliance within aforesaid 3 months, sale of
property
• 25(3) – If final orders of DF/SC & NC are not complied with,
issue of certificate of recovery to collector. Baring certain
utensils, wife and children, everything else can be sold
• Sec 26 – Frivolous complaint, complainant to pay fine up to
10000
 PROSECUTION

• Sec 27(1) – Minimum 1 month jail or maximum 3 years

• or
• Minimum fine of Rs. 2000 – maximum 10000
• or
• Both
• Sec 27(2) – For the purpose of Sec 27(1), DF/SC/NC are
deemed FCJM
• Sec 27 A – Appeal in above criminal cases
• If order is passed by DF – appeal to SC
• If order is passed by SC -appeal to NC
• If order is passed by NC- appeal to SC
• Sec 28 A – Service of notice – Refusal to accept notice
amounts to deemed service
• Sec 30 (1) – Power of CG to make rules
• Sec 30 (2) – Power of SG to make rules
• Sec 30 A – Power of NC to make regulations