Consumer Protection Act 2019 — Consumer, Defect, Deficiency & Redressal — Law of Torts Notes

The Consumer Protection Act — Salient Features, Aims and Objects

A man buys a shirt and it gives him a skin disease. Under the ordinary law he must hire a lawyer, pay court fees, file a civil suit, and wait years — for a claim worth a few hundred rupees. Nobody would bother, and manufacturers knew it. The Consumer Protection Act exists because a right you cannot afford to enforce is not really a right.

A cheap, quick forum, and a charter of rights

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 consolidates and strengthens the machinery first created by the 1986 Act. Its object, in the words of its own preamble, is the protection of the interests of consumers and the establishment of authorities for timely and effective administration and settlement of consumer disputes.

A. The salient features.

1. A statutory charter of consumer rights — six rights, declared in s.2(9) (Topic 4).

2. A three-tier quasi-judicial machinery — District, State and National Commissions, with defined pecuniary jurisdiction and an appeal from each to the next.

3. Simple, inexpensive and speedy procedure. A complaint may be filed by the consumer himself on plain paper; no court fee of consequence; the Commissions are not bound by the Civil Procedure Code but follow the principles of natural justice; complaints are to be decided ordinarily within three months.

4. The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) — an entirely new regulator created by the 2019 Act, with power to investigate, order recall of goods, and act against misleading advertisements, including against celebrity endorsers.

5. Product liability — a new chapter making the manufacturer, service provider and seller answerable for harm caused by a defective product.

6. Mediation — a new chapter allowing a Commission to refer a dispute to a mediation cell for settlement.

7. E-commerce and direct selling brought expressly within the Act.

8. Consumer Protection Councils at Central, State and District level, as advisory bodies.

9. Wider filing rights. A complaint may be filed electronically, and at the place where the complainant resides or works — a significant relaxation of the old rule.

10. The remedy is additional, not in substitution for any other remedy. The consumer keeps his ordinary civil and tortious rights.

B. Aims and objects.

To give the consumer inexpensive and speedy redress; to shift the balance against manufacturers and traders who could previously rely on the cost of litigation; to declare and enforce consumer rights; and, since 2019, to regulate unfair practices proactively through the CCPA rather than waiting for individual complaints.

C. What the 2019 Act changed.

Preamble, Consumer Protection Act, 2019: “An Act to provide for protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and effective administration and settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

In Simple Terms: Parliament’s stated aim is not merely to declare rights but to build the machinery that makes them usable — quickly, and without the cost of an ordinary lawsuit.

flowchart TD
    A["CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019"]
    A --> R["Six consumer RIGHTS (s.2(9))"]
    A --> T["Three-tier COMMISSIONS — District, State, National"]
    A --> C["CCPA — regulator; misleading advertisements; recall"]
    A --> P["PRODUCT LIABILITY — Chapter VI"]
    A --> M["MEDIATION — Chapter V"]
    A --> E["E-commerce and direct selling covered"]
    A --> N["Councils at Central, State and District level (advisory)"]
    A --> X["Remedy is ADDITIONAL to other remedies"]

Case Laws

• [C-27] Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha (1995) — medical services fall within “service” under the Act.
• [C-28] Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta (1994) — housing and statutory authorities are within the Act; compensation may include punitive damages.
• Spring Meadows Hospital v Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) — parents of a child patient are themselves “consumers” and may claim for their own mental agony.

Who is a Consumer? Key Definitions

A man buys twenty sewing machines. Is he a consumer? It depends entirely on why. If he bought them to stock a shop, he is not. If he bought them to earn his own living by stitching, he is. The single most litigated words in the whole Act are “for any commercial purpose”.

The definitions that decide every complaint

A. Consumer — s.2(7).

A consumer is a person who:

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any deferred payment system — and includes any user of such goods with the buyer’s approval; or

2. Hires or avails of any service for such consideration — and includes any beneficiary of the service availed with the approval of the person who hired it.

The exclusion: a person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose is not a consumer.

The carve-out to the exclusion: “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. So a taxi driver who buys his own car, or a tailor who buys a sewing machine, remains a consumer.

The 2019 Act adds that buying or availing goods or services online or through electronic means is included.

B. The other definitions the examiners ask about.

1. Complainant — s.2(5). A consumer; a registered voluntary consumer association; the Central or State Government; the CCPA; one or more consumers with the same interest; or, in the case of death, his legal heir or representative.

2. Complaint — s.2(6). An allegation in writing of an unfair or restrictive trade practice, a defect in goods, a deficiency in service, an excessive price, hazardous goods or services, or a product liability claim.

3. Goods — s.2(21) — as defined in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, including food.

4. Service — s.2(42) — service of any description made available to potential users, including banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, telecom, boarding or lodging, housing construction, entertainment and amusement — but not a service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

5. Unfair contract — s.2(46) — a contract between a manufacturer or trader or service provider on one hand and a consumer on the other, having such terms as cause significant change in the rights of the consumer: an excessive security deposit, a disproportionate penalty for breach, unilateral termination without cause, assignment of the contract to the consumer’s detriment, or any unreasonable charge or obligation. Only the State and National Commissions may entertain a complaint about an unfair contract.

6. Unfair trade practice — s.2(47) — a practice adopting deceptive methods to promote sale, use or supply: false representation about quality or standard, misleading warranties, bargain-price deception, non-issue of a bill, and (new in 2019) disclosure of personal information given in confidence.

7. Restrictive trade practice — s.2(41) — a practice that tends to bring about manipulation of price or conditions of delivery, such as tie-in sales or requiring the purchase of goods as a condition of a service.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — unfair and restrictive trade practices

An unfair trade practice deceives — false claims, misleading advertisements, sham warranties. A restrictive trade practice manipulates the market — tie-in arrangements, delaying supply to raise price. Examiners set both as short notes, and the two definitions are not interchangeable.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the sewing machine and the commercial purpose

Facts. A buys twenty sewing machines to stock a shop he intends to open. B buys one sewing machine to stitch clothes at home and earn a living. Both machines are defective. Are A and B consumers?

Rule. A person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose is not a consumer — but the Explanation to s.2(7) excludes from “commercial purpose” goods bought and used exclusively for earning a livelihood by self-employment (Laxmi Engineering Works).

Apply. A bought for resale: he falls squarely within the exclusion and is not a consumer, whatever the defect. B bought a single machine to work it himself and support his family: he is within the Explanation and remains a consumer.

Decoy. The number of machines. Quantity is only evidence of purpose — a person may buy several items for self-employment, and a single item may be bought for trade.

Conclusion. A is not a consumer; B is, and may complain to the District Commission.

Section 2(7), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: “‘consumer’ means any person who — (i) buys any goods for a consideration… but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration… Explanation. — the expression ‘commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment.”

In Simple Terms: you are a consumer if you paid (or promised to pay) for the goods or service, and if you were not buying to trade with them. A person buying tools to run a one-man business is still protected; a person buying stock to resell is not.

flowchart TD
    B["A person buys goods or hires a service"]
    B --> Q1{"Was there CONSIDERATION?"}
    Q1 -->|"No — wholly free"| N1["Not a consumer (service free of charge excluded)"]
    Q1 -->|"Yes"| Q2{"For RESALE or a COMMERCIAL PURPOSE?"}
    Q2 -->|"No"| Y["CONSUMER — s.2(7)"]
    Q2 -->|"Yes"| Q3{"Exclusively to earn a livelihood by SELF-EMPLOYMENT?"}
    Q3 -->|"Yes"| Y
    Q3 -->|"No"| N2["NOT a consumer"]
    Y --> U["Includes any USER or BENEFICIARY with the buyer's approval"]

Case Laws

• Laxmi Engineering Works v P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995) — the leading case on “commercial purpose” and the self-employment carve-out.
• [C-28] Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta (1994) — a person allotted a flat by a development authority is a consumer.
• Spring Meadows Hospital v Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) — a beneficiary of a service is a consumer even though the parents paid.

Defect in Goods, Deficiency in Service and Medical Services

A man buys a shirt, wears it, and develops a skin disease because the manufacturer used excessive sulphur. Under the old law he would have had to prove negligence against a manufacturer he had never met. Under this Act he has only to prove one thing: the goods were defective.

Two definitions that decide most complaints

A. Defect — s.2(10).

A defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law, or under any contract, express or implied, or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product.

The five words — quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard — are worth learning verbatim; they are the whole test.

B. Deficiency — s.2(11).

Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law, or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

The 2019 Act adds two express inclusions: any act of negligence or omission which causes loss or injury to the consumer, and deliberate withholding of relevant information by the service provider.

C. Medical services as “service”.

This is the highest-yield part of the topic, because it links Unit 3’s medical negligence to this Act.

1. Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha (1995) settled that medical services are a “service” within the Act, and that a patient who pays is a consumer. Doctors argued that medicine was a profession, not a service, and lost.

2. The free-treatment qualification. Service rendered free of charge to everyone is outside the Act. But where a hospital charges some patients and treats others free, the service is not “free” within the meaning of the Act, and even the non-paying patient is a consumer. This is the answer to the recurring Government-hospital problem.

3. The standard of care remains the Bolam standard as applied in Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab (2005) — a doctor is not negligent merely because a better course existed or because the outcome was poor; an error of judgment is not negligence.

4. Res ipsa loquitur does much of the work: a swab left in the abdomen, or an operation on the wrong limb, needs no further proof (Achutrao Khodwa v State of Maharashtra, 1996).

D. Defective goods and the manufacturer.

The consumer route runs parallel to the tort route from Donoghue v Stevenson. In a problem about a defective product, give both: the Act (defect in goods, complaint to the District Commission) and negligence (manufacturer’s duty to the ultimate consumer). Since 2019 there is a third route — product liability (Topic 9).

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the shirt with excessive sulphur

Facts. Rohan buys and wears a shirt which causes him a skin disease because of excessive sulphur used in manufacture. He wants to proceed against the manufacturer.

Rule. A “defect” is any fault or shortcoming in the quality, purity or standard required to be maintained (s.2(10)). Separately, a manufacturer owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer (Donoghue v Stevenson; Grant v Australian Knitting Mills).

Apply. Excessive sulphur is plainly a shortcoming in purity and standard. Rohan bought for his own use and is a consumer. He may file before the District Commission, whose pecuniary jurisdiction his claim will fall within, within two years.

Decoy. That he bought from a retailer, not the manufacturer — which would matter in contract but not here, since the Act permits a complaint against the manufacturer and tort ignores privity.

Conclusion. The complaint succeeds; reliefs include replacement, refund and compensation.

Section 2(11), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: “‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes — (i) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and (ii) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.”

In Simple Terms: deficiency covers doing the job badly, doing it carelessly, or hiding from you something you needed to know. The 2019 Act wrote negligence and concealment into the definition expressly.

flowchart TD
    C["Consumer complaint"]
    C --> G["DEFECT in GOODS — s.2(10): quality · quantity · potency · purity · standard"]
    C --> S["DEFICIENCY in SERVICE — s.2(11): quality, nature and manner of performance; includes negligence"]
    S --> M["MEDICAL SERVICES are a service — I.M.A. v V.P. Shantha"]
    M --> F["Free-of-charge exclusion applies only where the service is free to ALL"]
    M --> B["Standard = Bolam / Jacob Mathew — an error of judgment is not negligence"]
    G --> T["Parallel tort route — Donoghue v Stevenson; and since 2019, PRODUCT LIABILITY"]

Case Laws

• [C-27] Indian Medical Association v V.P. Shantha (1995) — medical services are within the Act.
• Jacob Mathew v State of Punjab (2005) — the standard of care for professionals in India.
• Achutrao Khodwa v State of Maharashtra (1996) — a mop left in the abdomen; res ipsa loquitur.
• Poonam Verma v Ashwin Patel (1996) — a homeopath practising allopathy was negligent per se.
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) — excess sulphites in underwear; manufacturer liable to the ultimate consumer.

Consumer Rights and the Consumer Protection Councils

Six rights, declared in a single sub-section. They are the reason the Act exists, they are easy marks, and they are the neatest possible opening to any Unit 5 answer.

Six rights and three tiers of councils

A. The six consumer rights — s.2(9).

1. The right to safety — to be protected against the marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property.
2. The right to be informed — about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, so as to protect against unfair trade practices.
3. The right to choose — access to a variety of goods and services at competitive prices.
4. The right to be heard — assurance that consumers’ interests will receive due consideration at appropriate fora.
5. The right to seek redressal — against unfair or restrictive trade practices and unscrupulous exploitation.
6. The right to consumer education.

B. The Consumer Protection Councils.

These are advisory bodies, not adjudicating ones — a distinction worth stating, because students often confuse them with the Commissions.

1. Central Consumer Protection Council (s.3) — established by the Central Government, headed by the Minister in charge of consumer affairs; advises on the promotion and protection of consumer rights.

2. State Consumer Protection Council (s.6) — headed by the State Minister in charge; meets at least twice a year.

3. District Consumer Protection Council (s.8) — headed by the District Collector; meets at least twice a year.

Their object in each case is to render advice on the promotion and protection of the consumer rights declared in s.2(9).

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — Councils and Commissions

Councils advise. Commissions adjudicate. A consumer with a grievance goes to the District Commission, never to the District Council. A question on “Consumer Protection Councils” is asking about the advisory bodies and their composition, not about the redressal machinery.

Section 2(9), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: “‘consumer rights’ includes — (i) the right to be protected against the marketing of goods, products or services which are hazardous to life and property; (ii) the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services…; (iii) the right to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of goods, products or services at competitive prices; (iv) the right to be heard…; (v) the right to seek redressal against unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and (vi) the right to consumer awareness.”

In Simple Terms: safety, information, choice, a hearing, redress and education. Six words, and each one is a mark.

flowchart TD
    R["SIX CONSUMER RIGHTS — s.2(9)"]
    R --> R1["Safety"]
    R --> R2["To be informed"]
    R --> R3["To choose"]
    R --> R4["To be heard"]
    R --> R5["To seek redressal"]
    R --> R6["Consumer education"]
    C["COUNCILS — ADVISORY only"]
    C --> C1["Central (s.3) — Union Minister"]
    C --> C2["State (s.6) — State Minister"]
    C --> C3["District (s.8) — District Collector"]

Case Laws

• [C-28] Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta (1994) — the Act to be construed to advance consumer rights, not restrict them.

The District Commission

The consumer’s first court

The District Commission (called the District Forum under the 1986 Act) is established by the State Government in each district under s.28.

A. Composition — s.28 and s.29.

A President and at least two other members, one of whom must be a woman. Qualifications, method of appointment, salary and tenure are prescribed by the Central Government by rules.

B. Jurisdiction.

1. Pecuniary — s.34. Complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed ₹50 lakh. (Note the change of test: under the 1986 Act the limit was ₹20 lakh and was calculated on the value of goods plus compensation claimed; the 2019 Act looks only at the consideration paid.)

2. Territorial — s.34(2). A complaint may be filed where the opposite party resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arose — and, since 2019, where the complainant resides or personally works for gain. This last is a major practical relaxation.

C. Powers — s.38.

The Commission has the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure for summoning and enforcing attendance, examining witnesses on oath, requiring the discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit and requisitioning reports of analysis. It may proceed ex parte if the opposite party fails to appear, and its proceedings are judicial proceedings for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code.

D. Appeal — s.41.

An appeal lies to the State Commission within 45 days, and the appellant must deposit 50% of the amount awarded before the appeal is entertained.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — choosing the right Commission

Facts. A surgeon in Bengaluru performs an eye operation negligently and the patient partially loses his sight. The patient paid ₹40,000 for the operation and wishes to claim ₹15,00,000 as compensation. He now lives in Mysuru. Where does he file?

Rule. Pecuniary jurisdiction under the 2019 Act is fixed by the consideration paid, not by the compensation claimed (s.34). Territorially, a complaint may be filed where the opposite party resides or carries on business, where the cause of action arose, or where the complainant resides or works.

Apply. The consideration paid was ₹40,000, well within the District Commission’s ₹50 lakh limit — so the size of the claim, which is the decoy, does not push him to the State Commission. Under the 1986 Act it might have, because the old test added the compensation claimed. He may file at Mysuru, where he resides.

Decoy. The ₹15 lakh claimed.

Conclusion. District Commission at Mysuru, within two years of the operation.

Section 34(1), Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (bare text): “Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees.”

⚠️ But the operative limit is lower. The figures in ss.34, 47 and 58 were revised downwards by the Consumer Protection (Jurisdiction of the District, State and National Commission) Rules, 2021, which fix the District Commission’s limit at ₹50 lakh. Quote the section as it stands, then give the Rules figure as the working limit — that is what a Commission actually applies.

In Simple Terms: the District Commission is your starting point for everyday claims. What matters for jurisdiction is what you actually paid, not what you are asking for.

flowchart TD
    D["DISTRICT COMMISSION (s.28) — District Forum under the 1986 Act"]
    D --> C["Composition — President + at least 2 members, one a WOMAN"]
    D --> P["Pecuniary (s.34) — consideration paid up to Rs.50 lakh"]
    D --> T["Territorial — opposite party · cause of action · OR the COMPLAINANT'S residence (new in 2019)"]
    D --> W["Powers of a CIVIL COURT (s.38); may proceed ex parte"]
    D --> A["Appeal to the STATE COMMISSION within 45 days; deposit 50% of the award"]

Case Laws

• [C-28] Lucknow Development Authority v M.K. Gupta (1994) — the Commissions’ powers to award compensation, including for harassment.

The State Commission

Original, appellate and revisional

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is established by the State Government under s.42.

A. Composition — s.42.

A President and not less than four members or such higher number as may be prescribed, at least one of whom must be a woman. Under the 2019 Act and the rules made under it, the President is a person who is or has been a Judge of a High Court, appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Committee — not, as under the repealed 1986 Act, merely “in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court”.

B. Jurisdiction — s.47.

1. Original. Complaints where the consideration paid exceeds ₹50 lakh but does not exceed ₹2 crore.
2. Appellate. Appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State.
3. Revisional. The State Commission may call for the records of any District Commission where it appears that the District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it, failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested, or acted illegally or with material irregularity.
4. Transfer. It may transfer any complaint pending before a District Commission to another District Commission in the State.

C. Powers.

The same powers of a civil court as the District Commission, together with its appellate and revisional powers.

D. Appeal — s.51.

An appeal lies to the National Commission within 30 days, with a deposit of 50% of the amount ordered.

Section 47(1), Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (bare text): “…the State Commission shall have jurisdiction — (a) to entertain — (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crores; and (ii) complaints against unfair contracts…; (b) to entertain appeals against the orders of any District Commission within the State; and (c) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute…”

⚠️ The 2021 Rules revise these figures to above ₹50 lakh and up to ₹2 crore, which is the limit in force.

In Simple Terms: the State Commission does three jobs — it hears bigger claims itself, it hears appeals from the District Commissions, and it supervises them.

flowchart TD
    S["STATE COMMISSION (s.42)"]
    S --> C["Composition — President + not less than 4 members, at least one a WOMAN"]
    S --> O["ORIGINAL — consideration above Rs.50 lakh up to Rs.2 crore; also UNFAIR CONTRACTS"]
    S --> AP["APPELLATE — appeals from District Commissions in the State"]
    S --> RV["REVISIONAL — supervision of District Commissions; power to TRANSFER complaints"]
    S --> AN["Appeal to the NATIONAL COMMISSION within 30 days; deposit 50%"]

Case Laws

• Charan Singh v Healing Touch Hospital (2000) — the Commissions must award compensation that is just and reasonable, not merely nominal.

The National Commission

The apex consumer tribunal

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is established by the Central Government under s.53, and sits at New Delhi with regional benches.

A. Composition — s.54.

A President and not less than four members or such higher number as may be prescribed, at least one of whom must be a woman. Under the 2019 Act and the rules made under it, the President is a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice of a High Court, appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Committee — not, as under the repealed 1986 Act, “in consultation with the Chief Justice of India”.

B. Jurisdiction — s.58.

1. Original. Complaints where the consideration paid exceeds ₹2 crore, and complaints against unfair contracts where the value exceeds ₹2 crore.
2. Appellate. Appeals from the orders of any State Commission, and from the orders of the CCPA.
3. Revisional. Power to call for the records of any State Commission on the same three grounds — jurisdiction wrongly exercised, not exercised, or exercised illegally or with material irregularity.
4. Transfer. Power to transfer a complaint from one State Commission to another.

C. Appeal — s.67.

An appeal lies to the Supreme Court within 30 days from an order passed by the National Commission in its original jurisdiction, with a deposit of 50% of the amount ordered.

💡 EXAM TIP — answer all three Commissions with one template

The trap. Students learn one Commission properly and improvise the others, so the pecuniary limits get muddled.

What to write. Use the same five headings for each: establishing section · composition · pecuniary jurisdiction · territorial or appellate/revisional jurisdiction · appeal (forum, period, deposit). Then a closing line placing it in the three-tier structure.

Why it scores. Between them these three topics were asked in over twenty sittings. A template you can reproduce under time pressure is worth more than a beautiful answer on one of them.

Section 58(1), Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (bare text): “…the National Commission shall have jurisdiction — (a) to entertain — (i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crores…; (b) to entertain appeals against the orders of any State Commission; (c) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission…”

⚠️ The 2021 Rules revise this to above ₹2 crore, the limit in force.

In Simple Terms: the National Commission takes the largest claims, hears appeals from every State Commission, and supervises them — with a final appeal to the Supreme Court on its own original decisions.

flowchart TD
    N["NATIONAL COMMISSION (s.53) — President: a Supreme Court judge or a High Court Chief Justice, on a Selection Committee recommendation"]
    N --> O["ORIGINAL — consideration above Rs.2 crore"]
    N --> A["APPELLATE — from every State Commission, and from the CCPA"]
    N --> R["REVISIONAL and TRANSFER powers over State Commissions"]
    N --> S["Appeal to the SUPREME COURT within 30 days (original jurisdiction only); deposit 50%"]
    N --> T["THE THREE TIERS: District up to Rs.50 lakh, State Rs.50 lakh-2 crore, National above Rs.2 crore"]

Case Laws

• Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh (2004) — guidance on the assessment of compensation by the Commissions.

Complaint Procedure, Limitation, Appeals, Remedies and Penalties

How a complaint actually runs, and what the consumer gets

A. Who may complain and how.

A complainant under s.2(5) files a complaint in writing, in person or by post or electronically, with a nominal fee. No advocate is necessary; the Commissions are not bound by the CPC.

B. Limitation — s.69.

A complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. It may be entertained after that period if the complainant satisfies the Commission that he had sufficient cause for not filing within time — and the Commission must record its reasons for condoning the delay.

C. Procedure — ss.38 and 39.

The Commission refers a copy of the complaint to the opposite party, which must respond within 30 days (extendable by up to 15). Where goods require testing, samples are sent to a laboratory. The complaint is to be decided within three months where no testing is required, and five months where it is. Evidence is ordinarily on affidavit.

D. Reliefs the Commission may order — s.39.

Learn this list; every problem answer should end with it.

1. Removal of the defect in the goods, or the deficiency in the service.
2. Replacement of the goods with new goods of similar description, free from defect.
3. Refund of the price paid.
4. Compensation for loss or injury suffered due to the negligence of the opposite party.
5. Punitive damages in appropriate circumstances.
6. Discontinuance of the unfair or restrictive trade practice, and a direction not to repeat it.
7. Withdrawal of hazardous goods from sale, and cessation of the manufacture of hazardous goods.
8. Payment into the Consumer Welfare Fund where the loss is not attributable to identifiable consumers.
9. Corrective advertisement to neutralise a misleading advertisement.
10. Costs.

E. The appeal chain and the deposit rule.

District → State (45 days) → National (30 days) → Supreme Court (30 days, from an original order). At each stage the appellant must deposit 50% of the amount ordered. Appeals from the CCPA go to the National Commission.

F. Penalties — s.72 and s.88.

Failure to comply with an order of a Commission is punishable with imprisonment from one month to three years, or fine from ₹25,000 to ₹1,00,000, or both. Manufacturing or selling adulterated or spurious goods carries graded penalties under ss.90 and 91.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the late complaint and the right relief

Facts. A buys a refrigerator in January 2023. It fails repeatedly; the dealer promises repairs and strings him along until March 2025, when he finally refuses. The consumer files in June 2025 — more than two years after the purchase.

Rule. A complaint must be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arose (s.69(1)); a later complaint may be entertained if the complainant shows sufficient cause, and the Commission must record its reasons (s.69(2)).

Apply. The cause of action is not necessarily the date of purchase. Where the seller holds the consumer off with continuing assurances of repair, the cause of action can be taken to arise on the final refusal — March 2025 — which brings the complaint well within time. In the alternative, the two years of assurances are themselves sufficient cause for condonation.

Decoy. The date of purchase, which makes the complaint look hopelessly late.

Conclusion. The complaint is maintainable; reliefs under s.39 include removal of the defect, replacement, refund of the price, and compensation.

Section 69(1), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: “The District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.”

Section 69(2): “…a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Commission, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.”

In Simple Terms: two years, running from when the problem arose — but the Commission can excuse a late complaint if you show a good reason, and it must write down what that reason was.

flowchart TD
    F["Complaint filed — in writing, in person, by post or ELECTRONICALLY"]
    F --> L["LIMITATION — 2 years from the cause of action; condonable for sufficient cause (s.69)"]
    L --> P["Notice to the opposite party — reply in 30 days (+15)"]
    P --> H["Decision in 3 months (5 if testing required)"]
    H --> R["RELIEFS (s.39): remove defect · replace · refund · compensation · punitive damages · corrective advertisement · costs"]
    R --> A["APPEALS: District to State (45 days) to National (30 days) to Supreme Court (30 days) — deposit 50% at each stage"]
    R --> PN["PENALTIES for non-compliance — 1 month to 3 years and/or fine (s.72)"]

Case Laws

• Charan Singh v Healing Touch Hospital (2000) — compensation must be just, not token.
• Ghaziabad Development Authority v Balbir Singh (2004) — principles for computing compensation.

Product Liability, Mediation and the CCPA — the 2019 Additions

Donoghue v Stevenson made a manufacturer answerable to the consumer he never met, and it took the House of Lords to do it. In 2019 Parliament wrote the same idea into a statute, added the seller and the service provider, and gave the consumer a tribunal to enforce it in.

Three genuinely new chapters

A. Product liability — Chapter VI (ss.82–87).

A product liability action may be brought by a complainant for any harm caused by a defective product manufactured by a product manufacturer, serviced by a product service provider, or sold by a product seller.

1. The product manufacturer (s.84) is liable if the product contains a manufacturing defect, is defective in design, deviates from manufacturing specifications, does not conform to the express warranty, or fails to contain adequate instructions for correct use or a warning of improper use. And under s.84(2) he is liable even if he proves he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty — the qualifier matters, so quote it with the express-warranty limb, not as a general rule.

2. The product service provider (s.85) is liable where the service was faulty, imperfect, deficient or inadequate, or where there was an act of omission, commission, negligence or conscious withholding of information which caused harm.

3. The product seller (s.86) is liable where he exercised substantial control over the design, testing or manufacture, altered or modified the product, or failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining it.

4. Exceptions (s.87) — the seller is not liable where the product was misused, altered or modified by the consumer; and a manufacturer is not liable for failure to warn of an obvious danger, or where the product was legally meant to be used under an expert’s supervision.

B. Mediation — Chapter V (ss.74–81).

Consumer mediation cells are attached to each Commission. At the first hearing, or at any later stage, the Commission may, if it appears that there exist elements of a settlement acceptable to both parties, refer the matter to mediation. A settlement so recorded is passed as an order of the Commission, and no appeal lies against it.

C. The Central Consumer Protection Authority — Chapter III (ss.10–27).

The CCPA regulates matters relating to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements. Its powers include inquiring into violations, ordering recall of goods, ordering reimbursement of the price, discontinuing a misleading advertisement, and imposing penalties on manufacturers, advertisers and endorsers — up to ₹10 lakh for a first offence and ₹50 lakh for subsequent ones, with the endorser liable to be barred from endorsing for up to one and three years respectively.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the pressure cooker that burst

Facts. A pressure cooker bursts in normal use and injures the user. The handbook contained no warning about the maximum safe filling level. The user sues the manufacturer and the retailer.

Rule. A product manufacturer is liable where the product has a manufacturing or design defect or fails to contain adequate instructions for correct use or a warning of improper use (s.84(1)) — and under s.84(2) he is liable even if he proves he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty. A seller is liable only in the defined situations in s.86.

Apply. The absence of any warning about safe filling is itself a ground of liability under s.84, quite apart from any defect in the metal. The retailer, who merely sold a sealed product without altering it, is not liable under s.86 unless he exercised substantial control over its design or failed to maintain it.

Decoy. That the cooker itself may have been perfectly made — the missing warning is enough.

Note the limit. Under s.87 there is no liability for failure to warn of an obvious danger, or where the consumer altered or misused the product.

Conclusion. The manufacturer is liable; the retailer is not.

Section 2(34), Consumer Protection Act, 2019: “‘product liability’ means the responsibility of a product manufacturer or product seller, of any product or service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective product manufactured or sold or by deficiency in services relating thereto.”

In Simple Terms: if a defective product hurts you, the Act now names exactly who answers for it — the maker, the seller, and anyone who serviced it — and you claim before the same consumer Commission.

flowchart TD
    A["THE 2019 ADDITIONS"]
    A --> P["PRODUCT LIABILITY (Ch. VI) — manufacturer (s.84) · service provider (s.85) · seller (s.86); exceptions s.87"]
    A --> M["MEDIATION (Ch. V) — referral at the first hearing; settlement recorded as an order; NO appeal"]
    A --> C["CCPA (Ch. III) — recall · reimbursement · stop misleading advertisements · penalties on advertisers AND endorsers"]

Case Laws

• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) — the common-law ancestor of statutory product liability.
• [C-14] Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) — the manufacturer’s duty to the ultimate consumer.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Law of Torts topics