News

नमस्कार,
आता कोरोनामुळे उदभलेल्या संकटामुळे आपण सर्वजण अडचणीत आलेले आहोत, आणि अश्यातच MSEB ने जवळपास सर्वाना reading न घेता वाढीव वीज बिल दिलेले आहे, ते वाढीव वीजबिल कमी करण्यासाठी online तक्रार द्या किंव्हा MSEB ऑफिस ला जाऊन कमी करून आणा हे दोन पर्याय आहेत, त्यापैकी online तक्रारीचे निवारण होत नाही किव्हा झाली असे सांगून बिल आहे तेच ठेवतात.
दुसऱ्या प्रकारात line मध्ये उभे राहा, नंतर तेथील अधिकारी सांगतात की तुमचे average बिल आम्ही लावले, मागील महिन्यात तुम्हाला कमी लावले म्हणून या महिन्यात add केले आहे, अशी बिनबुडाची, कुठलाही आधार नसलेली उत्तर देतात, आणि बिल भरायला सांगतात. वाढीव बिल हे दर 2 ते 3 महिन्यात येत राहते आणि आपण MSEB ऑफिसात जात राहतो.

महाराष्ट्र विद्युत अधिनियम 2003 नुसार विज ग्राहकांना काही अधिकार देण्यात आलेले आहेत, जसे की,
जर आपण वेळेत बिल भरले नाही तर MSEB चे कर्मचारी हे घरी येऊन विद्युत पुरवठा खंडित करतात, परंतु हा विद्युत पुरवठा खंडित करण्याअगोदर काही तरतुदी हे महाराष्ट्र विद्युत अधिनियम 2003 मध्ये दिलेल्या आहेत.

चला तर त्या कोणत्या आहेत पाहुयात खालील जोडलेल्या परिपत्रकात....

आपण सर्वांनी ही माहिती आपल्या परिचयातील लोकांपर्यंत पोचवावी.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Key Highlights

The new Consumer Protection bill was passed by the Parliament on 06 August 2019 when it was passed through a voice vote in the Rajya Sabha. The bill was earlier presented and passed in the Lok Sabha on 30 July 2019. This bill would replace Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

• Broadening the definition of “consumer”
The definition of “consumer” has been expanded to include persons who engage in offline or online transactions through electronic means or by tele-shopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing. In our transactions concluded in all media in any case covered by CPA 1986.
The definition now provides consumers with a remedy in case of multi-level marketing. Thus, the seller at each level of multi-level marketing can be exposed to liability under CPA 2019 and not restricted to only the manufacturer of the product but all entities involved at various stages of production and marketing.
When services are provided for free, the person availing the service will not be considered as a consumer. Whether or not the service being provided is free is a question of fact and will have to be evaluated on case to case basis.

Some of the Key Highlights of the New Act:

➢ Covers E-Commerce Transactions:
The New Act has widened the definition of ‘consumer’. The definition now includes any person who buys any goods, whether through offline or online transactions, electronic means, teleshopping, direct selling or multi-level marketing. The earlier Act did not specifically include e-commerce transactions, and this lacuna has been addressed by the New Act.

➢ Enhancement of Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
Revised pecuniary limits have been fixed under the New Act.
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions will hear complaints where the dispute value is worth more than Rs. 10 crores.
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions will hear complaints where the disputed value is more than Rs 1 crore but less than Rs 10 crore.
While the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions will entertain complaints when the value of goods or service is up to Rs 1 crore.

➢ E-Filing of Complaints:
The New Act provides flexibility to the consumer to file complaints with the jurisdictional consumer forum located at the place of residence or work of the consumer. This is unlike the current practice of filing it at the place of purchase or where the seller has its registered office address. The New Act also contains enabling provisions for consumers to file complaints electronically and for hearing and/or examining parties through video-conferencing. This is aimed to provide procedural ease and reduce inconvenience and harassment for the consumers.
➢ Establishment of Central Consumer Protection Authority:
The New Act proposes the establishment of a regulatory authority known as the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), with wide powers of enforcement. The CCPA will have an investigation wing, headed by a Director-General, which may conduct inquiry or investigation into consumer law violations.
The CCPA has been granted wide powers to take suo-moto actions, recall products, order reimbursement of the price of goods/services, cancel licenses and file class action suits, if a consumer complaint affects more than 1 (one) individual.
➢ Product Liability & Penal Consequences:
The New Act has introduced the concept of product liability and brings within its scope, the product manufacturer, product service provider and product seller, for any claim for compensation. The term ‘product seller’ is defined to include a person who is involved in placing the product for a commercial purpose and as such would include e-commerce platforms as well. The defense that e-commerce platforms merely act as ‘platforms’ or ‘aggregators’ will not be accepted. There are increased liability risks for manufacturers as compared to product service providers and product sellers, considering that under the New Act, manufacturers will be liable in product liability action even where he proves that he was not negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product. Certain exceptions have been provided under the New Act from liability claims, such as, that the product seller will not be liable where the product has been misused, altered or modified.
• Product Liability
Who can be made liable:
CPA 2019 has gone a step forward and defined a product manufacturer, product seller and product service provider to provide clarity on who can be made liable for an action under Chapter VI of CPA 2019.
Ingredients to initiate product liability action:

1. Product manufacturer will be liable if product contains a manufacturing defect, or defective in design; or there is a deviation from manufacturing specifications; or does not conform to the express warranty; or fails to contain adequate instructions of correct usage to prevent any harm or any warning regarding improper or incorrect usage. Absence of negligence or fraud in making express warranty of a product cannot be pleaded as a defence.
2. Product seller who is not a product manufacturer may be held liable if (a) he has exercised substantial control over the designing, testing, manufacturing, packaging or labelling of a product that caused harm; or (b) he has altered or modified the product and such alteration or modification was the substantial factor in causing the harm; or (c) he has made an express warranty of a product independent of any express warranty made by a manufacturer and such product failed to conform to the express warranty made by the product seller which caused the harm; or (d) the product has been sold by him and the identity of product manufacturer of such product is not known, or if known, the service of notice or process or warrant cannot be effected on him or he is not subject to the law which is in force in India or the order, if any, passed or to be passed cannot be enforced against him; or (e) he failed to exercise reasonable care in assembling, inspecting or maintaining such product or he did not pass on the warnings or instructions of the product manufacturer regarding the dangers involved or proper usage of the product.

3. Product service provider may be liable if (a) the service provided was faulty or imperfect or deficient or inadequate in quality, nature or manner of performance which is required to be provided by or under any law for the time being in force, or pursuant to any contract or otherwise; or (b) there was an act of omission or commission or negligence or conscious withholding any information which caused harm; or (c) the service provider did not issue adequate instructions or warnings to prevent any harm; or (d) the service did not conform to express warranty or the terms and conditions of the contract.

CPA 2019 while defining a ‘product’ has specifically excluded human tissues, blood, blood products and organs. CPA 2019 also lists down certain exceptions to “product liability” action, in circumstances where the products have been misused, or if the product being purchased by the employer for use at the workplace did not adhere to installation warnings or instructions, or if the nature of the product is such that the user should have known the associated dangers, etc.

➢ Unfair Trade Practices:
The New Act introduces a specific broad definition of Unfair Trade Practices, which also includes sharing of personal information given by the consumer in confidence, unless such disclosure is made in accordance with the provisions of any other law.
Unfair Contracts & expansion of Unfair Trade Practices including the following, namely:—
1. requiring manifestly excessive security deposits to be given by a consumer for the performance of contractual obligations; or
2. imposing any penalty on the consumer, for the breach of contract thereof which is wholly disproportionate to the loss occurred due to such breach to the other party to the contract; or
3. refusing to accept early repayment of debts on payment of applicable penalty; or entitling a party to the contract to terminate such contract unilaterally, without reasonable cause; or
4. permitting or has the effect of permitting one party to assign the contract to the detriment of the other party who is a consumer, without his consent; or
5. imposing on the consumer any unreasonable charge, obligation or condition which puts such consumer to disadvantage.
The above provisions would directly impact the financial institutions such as banks, as the apex court has already stated that the Banks also get covered under the Act. This would specifically take into account contracts entered with banks, e-commerce platforms where parties are not left with any option but to agree to the standard terms to avail the services. With such a broad subjective definition, it remains to be seen how courts would interpret in case of online contracts.

2. Expanding definition of “unfair trade practice”

While CPA 1986 had listed six (6) types of unfair trade practices, three (3) types of additional unfair trade practices have now been added to the list which are as follows:

1. Failure or non-issuance of a bill or a cash memo;

2. Refusal to take back or withdraw defective goods or withdrawal or discontinuance of deficient services or refusal to refund the consideration amount paid within the period as stipulated in the bill or cash memo or receipt or in the absence of such stipulation, refusal to withdraw or refund goods or services within thirty (30) days; and
Before ascertaining whether it amounts to unfair trade practice, it become relevant to determine whether the goods or deficient services have been provided. The section as drafted in its current form pre-determines existence of defective product or deficient service. Separately, even if withdrawn or discontinued, companies could still be held liable under ‘product liability’ or for ‘deficiency of services’.

3. Disclosure of consumer’s personal information to any other person unless such disclosure is made in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force or in public interest.
The provision fails to give any clarity whether information can be shared if consent is taken from the consumers. The reliance will have to be placed on prevalent data protection law. The current data protection law in India does not require any specific compliance for data sharing in case the information is not in the nature of sensitive information i.e. relating to (i) passwords; (ii) financial information; (iii) physical, physiological and mental health conditions; (iv) sexual orientation; (v) medical records and history; (vi) biometric information; (vii) any detail relating to the above, as provided to a body corporate for providing services; and (viii) any of the information received under the above by a body corporate, for processing or storing data under lawful contract, or otherwise.

➢ Penalties for Misleading Advertisement:

The cases of misleading advertisements are not new in the Indian landscape, however, now the manufacturers may have to go to jail or pay a heavy fine under the new guidelines. The authority will have the power to impose a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh and imprisonment for up to two years for a false or misleading advertisement. Though there is no provision for jail for celebrities, they could be banned for endorsing products if it is found to be misleading.
In case of a subsequent offence, the fine may extend to INR 5,000,000 (Indian Rupees Five Million) and imprisonment of up to 5 (five) years. The CCPA can also prohibit the endorser of a misleading advertisement from endorsing that particular product or service for a period of up to 1 (one) year. For every subsequent offence, the period of prohibition may extend to 3 (three) years.
The New Act fixes liability on endorsers considering that there have been numerous instances in the recent past where consumers have fallen prey to unfair trade practices under the influence of celebrities acting as brand ambassadors. In such cases, it becomes important for the endorser to take the onus and exercise due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims made in the advertisement to refute liability claims.

➢ Provision for Alternate Dispute Resolution:
Alternate Dispute Resolution
The Act provides for mediation as an Alternate Dispute Resolution after admission of the Complaint or even at a later stage of the complaint proceedings in the District Commission. The Act provides for referral to Mediation within 5 days of receiving due consent of the parties to settle the matter through alternate means.
If the mediation proceedings fail to determine or resolve the issues between the parties, then the District Commission will be authorised to take up the complaint for its redressal as per the procedure prescribed in the Act.

A comparative chart of the substantive changes in the provisions of CPA 1986 and CPA 2019 are listed below:

*```CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65B (4) OF THE EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT NECESSARY BEFORE PRODUCING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN COURT : SC```*

Clarifying the law on section 65 of the Evidence Act, a three-judge bench headed by justice Rohinton F Nariman said a certificate is not a must in each and every case before electronic evidence can be produced in a court of law.
- It is not mandatory to obtain a certificate every time before electronic evidence can be adduced in a court of Law

- It is held that no certificate required to produced electronic evidence such as disks, pen drives, etc.

- About such evidence being stored in a network or in a server that cannot be produced in a court, the bench said a certificate will be required in those cases.