Consumer

Protection Act
 I am Anjali Kumari
I will present Cases of Consumer Protection Act in this presentation.
Roll no – 53
MBA (2ND SEM)
2020-2022

2
 1

Definition

3
 “
The Consumer Protection Act safeguards and
encourages consumers to speak against
insufficiency and flaws in goods and services. It
also provides easy and fast compensation to
consumer grievances. 

4
Introduction
▹ It was passed in the Assembly in October 1986
and came into force on December 24, 1986.
▹ As the Act could not fully protect consumers
after seven years in force , the Act was
thoroughly revised in 1993 which became
effective from 18th June 1993.

5
 Who is consumer?

Any individual who purchases goods or services for

his/her personal use and not for manufacturing or resale.

6
 “
Cases under CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

7
CASE 1
• An advertisement by a private hospital :-artificial tooth be fixed at Rs50.
• Amit Soni 24 years old went to hospital and paid Rs50 to the doctor for fixing
the tooth and Rs1500 as ‘donation’ for the hospital as demanded by the doctor.
• Doctor fixed the tooth “using Quickfix and Fevicol” but the tooth came off
within two hours of fixing.
• He went to the doctor again with the tooth and got it refixed. But it came off
again.
• So he wanted the refund this time but the doctor refused it.
• In order to get back his money, he filed a complaint to a consumer court.
• He demanded a refund of Rs1500 plus Rs 4 lakh as compensation for his
mental agony and harassment plus interest at the rate of 24%.

8
 THE
▹ When court called the doctor he did not turn up in consumer court.
SOLUTION
▹ The Bench pointed out that “the contention of the complaint that he was forced
to pay Rs. 1500 which is contrary to the rates indicated in the advertisements
and the artificial tooth came off after two hours is not refuted by the
respondents”.
▹ The court, therefore, ruled that “the respondent by making the complaint pay
Rs. 1500 in the form of donation and by fixing an artificial tooth that came off
in two hours are not only guilty of unfair trade practices and deficiency in
services, but also negligence”.
▹ The court directed the hospital to refund Rs. 1500 and pay Rs. 5000 as
compensation for Soni’s mental agony and harassment as against Rs. 4 lakhs
claimed.

9
 CASE 2  In this case, the appellant had purchased a second - hand truck under a
Manjeet Singh Hire Purchase agreement. The vehicle was insured by the respondent
Vs National insurance company.
Insurance  One day when he was driving the truck, a passenger asked him to stop
Company Ltd. the truck and give him a lift. When he stopped the truck, the passenger
brutally assaulted the driver and fled with the vehicle.
 An FIR was lodged and the respondent finance company was intimated
about the theft. However, the insurance company rejected the claim on
the ground of breach of terms of the policy.
 The complainant approached District Consumer Disputes Forum, State
Commission and National Commission to compensate him for the loss.
All of them had rejected the case. So, finally he approached the
Supreme Court.

10
 The
Solution  The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not
at all in fault. It can be considered as a breach of
the policy, but not a fundamental breach to bring
the insurance policy to an end and terminate the
insurance policy.
 The two - judge bench of Supreme Court directed
the respondent insurance company to pay 75% of
the insured amount along with 9% interest p.a.
from the date of filing the claim. The court also
directed the insurance company to pay sum of Rs
1, 00, 000 as compensation.

11
THANK YOU