* CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

Enacted to provide for the better protection of

the interest of consumer

Act applies to whole of India except Jammu and

Kashmir

Chapter I, II and IV came into force on 15.4.1987.

Chapter III came into force on 1.7.1987

The act was amended in 2002 and the

amendments came into force w.e.f. 15 th March
2003.
* WHO IS A CONSUMER [2(1) (d)]?
 Any person who buys goods or avails services for
consideration

 Consideration may be fully paid, partially paid or fully

promised to be paid or partially promised to be paid

 Any body who uses the goods or services with the

consent of the consumer but
*WHO IS A CONSUMER ?
 Does not include any person who buys goods for
resale or commercial purpose and services for
commercial purpose

 However any person who buys goods for

commercial use but exclusively for his livelihood
by means of self employment is a consumer.

 Legal heir of consumer in case death of consumer

 Karnataka Power
vs.
Ashok Iron Works Private Limited,
(S.C.)
Decided on : 9th February, 2009
The Supreme Court has decided that the person
includes a company therefore the company
registered under the Companies Act is a
consumer and can file a complaint before the
consumer Forum/ Commission. Section 2 (1) (m)
 C. Venkatachalam vs. Ajitkumar C. Shah & Ors. (S.C.)

Decided on :- 29th August, 2011

 In this complaint filed before the Consumer Forum, Mumbai in which the
district consumer forum held that on authorised agent has no right to act and
plead before the consumer forum and some other forums has decided that
non advocates can appear then the issue was taken to the state commission
and the state commission has reverse the view, therefore the large no of the
cases where the authorised agents were appearing had come to stand still .

 the State Commission order was challenged in two writ petitions before the
Bombay High Court. The petitions were allowed by the Division Bench.

 The High Court in the impugned judgment held that a party before the District
Consumer Forum/State Commission cannot be compelled to engage services of
an advocate.

 The order of the High Court was confirmed by the Supreme court.
HIERARCHY
DISTRICT FORUM

STATE COMMISSION

NATIONAL COMMISSION

SUPREME COURT
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

LEGAL NOTICE

COMPLAINT
(Section 12 -Two Years)

JURISDICTION

TERRITORIAL PECUNIARY
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
 TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
(Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Where Opposite Where Opposite Where the cause

Party(ies) actually Parties carries on of action,
or voluntarily business or has a wholly or in
resides branch office part, arises
Cases on Territorial Jurisdiction
Subodh Kumar Baheti vs. Delhi Development Authority,
29th October, 2012 (NCDRC)
Petitioner Subodh Kumar Baheti who is resident of Bhilwara, Rajasthan filed a consumer
complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
against the OPs No.1 & 2, namely, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi and Nodal
Branch of ICICI Bank, Green Park Extension, New Delhi who are respondents No.1 & 2
respectively herein.

After hearing both the parties and looking into the matter, it was decided by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal as:-

Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that since the opposite parties did not
reside under the jurisdiction of the District Forum and the cause of action also did not
arise in its jurisdiction and hence the District Forum did not have jurisdiction to deal with
the complaint.

Conclusion:- the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer

forum on the basis of his residence.
 Dinesh Kumar vs. Manager, Oriental Insurance
Decided on 21 May, 2014 (SCDRC)
The grievance of the complainant in his complaint was that his vehicle
bearing registration No.DL-1LG-8355 was insured with the Oriental
Insurance Company Limited (respondent No.1 herein) for the period
August 31st, 2007 to August 30th, 2008. The vehicle was got financed
from the respondent No.2. The vehicle met with an accident on March
27th, 2008 in the area of Police Station Milk, District Rampur (U.P.).
The appellant gave application to the Police but no FIR was registered.
However, the police issued a certified copy of that application to him.
The appellant also gave intimation to the respondents. The
respondents deputed a surveyor, who took photographs of the
damaged vehicle. The service center prepared an estimate of
Rs.3,95,036/- of the damaged vehicle. The appellant did not settle his
claim.

The compliant filled before the Faridabad and the same was dismissed
on the ground that policy has taken from Delhi office and the cause of
action arises at Rampur UP therefore the District Forum , Faridabad
has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint under ground that the
  M/S. Sonic Surgical vs. National Insurance
Company Ltd on 20 October, 2009 (S.C.)

o It appears that there was a fire on 13-14th February, 1999 at 10.00 p.m. in the go down of the
appellant at Ambala. For claiming compensation, the appellant filed a claim petition before the
Consumer Commission of the Union Territory, Chandigarh constituted under Section 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short 'the Act'). The said claim petition filed by
the appellant herein was allowed by the Consumer Commission of the Union Territory,
Chandigarh. On appeal, the NCDRC allowed the appeal of the respondent herein on the ground
that the Consumer Commission at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate
the complaint. We are in agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC.

o In our opinion, no part of the cause of action arose at Chandigarh. It is well settled that the
expression 'cause of action' means that bundle of facts which gives rise to a right or liability. In
the present case admittedly the fire broke out in the go down of the appellant at Ambala. The
insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at
Ambala. Thus no part of the cause of action arose in Chandigarh.

o No doubt this would be departing from the plain and literal words of Section 17(2)(b)
of the Act but such departure is sometimes necessary (as it is in this case) to avoid
absurdity. In the present case, since the cause of action arose at Ambala, the State
Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint.
 PECUNIARY JURISDICTION
(Section 11 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
 Where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed
does not exceed Rupees twenty lakhs (District Forum).
 Exceeds Rs. Twenty Lakhs but does not exceed Rs. One Crore (State
Commission - Section 17)
 Exceeds Rs. One Crore (National Commission) Section 21

 Quality Foils India Private Limited vs. Bank od Madura Ltd.

And Anr., Decided on 30th May, 1996 (NCDRC)

Held, the criteria determining valuation for jurisdiction purpose is to refer it to

the quantum of relief put together i.e. the aggregate value of goods, service and
compensation as the case may be by the aggrieved consumer the result of claim
that may be ultimately granted is not to be taken into consideration for this
purpose
Therefore the above case was clearly fell within the jurisdiction of the state
commission and appeal allowed case remanded to the state Commission for
retrial of the compliant on merits in accordance with the law.
 KISHORI LAL BABLANI
vs.
M/S. ADITYA ENTERPRISE & 4 ORS.
Decided on 29th May, 2012 (NCDRC)
The complainant in the present case is seeking possession of the said flat and,
therefore, for all intent and purposes, value of the flat in question should be
considered as the same on which the complainant had agreed to purchase the
flat.

The complainant mainly seeks the possession of the flat in question which he
purchased at a price of Rs.40,70,000/- besides some interest and compensation.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that valuation of the claim made by
the complainant cannot in any case exceed Rupees One crore. As per the
provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint where claim is upto
Rupees One crore, is to be filed before the State Commission having jurisdiction
in the matter. We, therefore, hold that this Commission has no pecuniary
jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.
 Ambrish Kumar Shukla and Ors.
vs.
Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. ORS.
Decided on 7th October, 2016 (NCDRC)
The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section
12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer
dispute in which a large number of consumers are interested, without recourse to each of
them filing an individual complaint, it is necessary that such a complaint is filed on
behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest. A
complaint on behalf of only some of them therefore will not be maintainable. If for
instance, 100 flat buyers/plot buyers in a project have a common grievance against the
Builder/Developer and a complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection
Act is filed on behalf of or for the benefit of say 10 of them, the primary purpose behind
permitting a class action will not be achieved, since the remaining 90 aggrieved persons
will be compelled either to file individual complaints or to file complaints on behalf of or
for the benefit of the different group of purchasers in the same project. This, in our view,
could not have been the Legislative intent.
Continued on next slide……..
To be continued……..
It is evident from a bare perusal of Sections 21, 17 and 11 of the Consumer
Protection Act that it's the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if
any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
The Act does not envisage determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction based upon
the cost of removing the deficiencies in the goods purchased or the services to be
rendered to the consumer. Therefore, the cost of removing the defects or
deficiencies in the goods or the services would have no bearing on the
determination of the pecuniary jurisdiction. If the aggregate of the value of the
goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by a consumer, when added to
the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint by him, exceeds Rs. 1.00 Crore,
it is this Commission alone which would have the pecuniary jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint. For instance if a person purchases a machine for more
than Rs. 1.00 Crore, a manufacturing defect is found in the machine and the cost of
removing the said defect is Rs. 10.00 Lacs, it is the aggregate of the sale
consideration paid by the consumer for the machine and compensation, if any,
claimed in the complaint which would determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of the
Consumer Forum. Similarly, if for instance, a house is sold for more than Rs. 1.00
crore, certain defects are found in the house, and the cost of removing those defects
is Rs. 5.00 Lacs, the complaint would have to be filed before this Commission, the
value of the services itself being more than Rs. 1.00 crore.
The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the
pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.
 AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE FLAT BUYERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
vs.
AMRAPALI SAPPHIRE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

Decided On: 30th August, 2016 (NCDRC)

The registered consumer association can filed a compliant before the

consumer Fora commission Section 2 (1) (b) .
 If non appears on behalf of complainant / Opposite Party
Complainant
Dismiss in default
 Where an order is passed by the
National Commission dismissing the
complaint in default, the aggrieved
party may apply to the National
commission to restore the compliant
in the interest of justice.
 Section 22A of Consumer Protection
Act
Opposite Party
Ex-parte order
 Where an order is passed by the
National Commission ex parte against
the opposite party, the aggrieved party
may apply to the National Commission
to set aside the said order in the interest
of justice.
 Section 22A of Consumer Protection
Act
 Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & amp; Others
vs.
Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Another
(2011) (S.C.)

On careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly

clear that the Tribunals are creatures of the Statute and derive
their power from the express provisions of the Statute. The District
Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power
to set aside ex parte orders and power of review and the powers
which have not been expressly given by the Statute cannot be
exercised.
If non appears on behalf of complainant / Opposite Party

Complainant Opposite Party

Dismissed in default EX PARTE

District Forum District Forum

Appeal Appeal
State Commission State Commission
Appeal Appeal
National Commission National Commission
 WRITTEN STATEMENT / REPLY
The written statement or reply of the case to be submitted within a period of thirty days
or such extended period not exceeding fifteen days as may be directed by the district
forum from the date of receiving of copy of Compliant. (Section 13(1)(a))

Dr. J.J. Merchant & Ors.

Vs.
Shrinath Chaturvedi
(S.C.) Decided : 2002
The three judge bench at this court - the National Commission or the State
Commission is empowered to follow the said procedure. From the aforesaid Section it
is apparent that on receipt of the complaint, the opposite party is required to be given
notice directing him to give his version of the case within a period of 30-days or such
extended period not exceeding 15 days as may be granted by the District Forum or the
Commission.
For having speedy trial, this legislative mandate of not giving more than 45 days in
submitting the written statement or the version of the case is required to be adhered. If
this is not adhered, the legislative mandate of Disposing of the cases within three or
five months would be defeated.
 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
vs.
HILLI MULTIPURPOSE COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.
(S.C.), Decided : 2013

We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment delivered in the

case of Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) holds the field and therefore,
we reiterate the view that the District Forum can grant a further
period of 15 days to the opposite party for filing his version or
reply and not beyond that..

Kailash vs. Nanhku & Ors. [(2005) 4 SCC 480] the view taken
in this matter was not affirmed and the view taken in JJ
Merchant was affirmed.
 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANR
vs.

M/S MAMPEE TIMBERS AND HARDWARES PVT LTD AND ANR

(S.C.) Decided: 2017

The question involved in this appeal is whether the time
stipulated under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
for filing written statement is mandatory and whether no
flexibility is available with the Court in the interest of justice.

we consider it appropriate to direct that pending decision of the

larger bench, it will be opened to the concerned FORA to accept
the Written Statement filed beyond the stipulated time of 45 days
in an appropriate case, on suitable terms, including the payment
of costs, to proceed with the matter.
 Rejoinder
(Its not Mandatory but Subject to filling)

Evidence by complainant

Evidence by Opposite Party

Written Argument by both the parties

Final Argument
 STATE COMMISSION JURISDICTION

Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction

 If the value of goods or  Any person aggrieved by order made by
services and compensation District Forum, an appeal to be filed within
is more than 20 Lac but less 30days to the State Commission.
than Rs. 1 Crore
 If the value of goods or  Provided 50% of such amount or Rs.
services and compensation 25,000/-, whichever is less to be deposited in
is more than 20 Lac but less form of Fixed Deposit in favour of
than 50 Lac than Complaint Commission.
to be filed along with a fees
of Rs. 2000/- in form of
demand draft
 If the value of goods or Notice
services and compensation (to be continued on next Slide)
is more than 50 Lac but less
than 1 Crore than Complaint
to be filed along with a fees
of Rs. 4000/- in form of
Continued on next Slide……
demand draft
 Notice
If not filed within 30 days then move an application for condonation of delay
Delay

Notice issued to the Opposite party on Application

Delay condoned or Appeal dismissed

Application for Stay

Either 50 or 100 percent decreed amount

District Forum records may be called to be deposited and matter to be fixed for
Final Argument

Note :- Only one appeal is allowed in CPA.

 NATIONAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION

Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction

 If the value of goods or
services and compensation is
more than 1Crore than
Complaint to be filed along
with fees of Rs. 5000/- in
form of demand draft
(Section 21)
 Any person aggrieved by order made by
State Commission, an appeal to be filed
within 30 days to the National
Commission.
 Provided 50% of such amount or Rs.
35,000/-, whichever is less to be deposited
in form of Fixed Deposit in favour of
Forum.

Aggrieved party may file an appeal against the order of National

Commission (Original Jurisdiction) before the Supreme Court
within a period of 30 Days from the date of receiving of order.
 CRUX OF APPEAL
DISTRICT FORUM (Section 12)
Appeal (30 DAYS)
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION STATE COMMISSION (Section 15)
Section 17

APPEAL
(Section19) REVISION
(30 DAYS) Reg. 14 CPR,2005
(90 DAYS)
NATIONAL COMMISSION
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION
Section 21
APPEAL
(Section23) REVISION IN FORM
(30 DAYS) Art. 136 of COI
OF SLP (90 DAYS)
SUPREME COURT
 ARBITRATION CLAUSE
Aftab Singh V. Emaar MGF Land Limited & Anr.,
(NCDRC) 13 July, 2017
In view of the afore-going discussion, we arrive at the following conclusions:
I. the disputes which are to be adjudicated and governed by statutory enactments,
established for specific public purpose to sub-serve a particular public policy are not
arbitrable;
II. there are vast domains of the legal universe that are non-arbitrable and kept at a
distance from private dispute resolution;
III. the subject amendment was meant for a completely different purpose, leaving status
quo ante unaltered and subsequently reaffirmed and restated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court; (iv)Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act recognizes schemes under other
legislations that make disputes non-arbitrable and
IV. in light of the overall architecture of the Consumer Act and Court-evolved
jurisprudence, amended sub-section (1) of Section 8 cannot be construed as a mandate
to the Consumer Forums, constituted under the Act, to refer the parties to Arbitration
in terms of the Arbitration Agreement.
Consequently, we unhesitatingly reject the arguments on behalf of the Builder and hold
that an Arbitration Clause in the afore-stated kind of Agreements between the
Complainants and the Builder cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer Fora,
notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.
 EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
M/S Interglobe Aviation Ltd vs. N. Satchidanand on 4 July, 2011 (S.C.)
Each and every provision of Chapter VIA of LSA Act emphasizes that is the
Permanent Lok Adalat is a Special Tribunal which is not a `court'. As noted above,
Section 22C of the LSA Act provides for anapplication to the Permanent Lok Adalat
in regard to a dispute before the dispute is brought before any court and that after
an application is made to the Permanent Lok Adalat, no party to the application
shall invoke the jurisdiction of any court in the same dispute, thereby making it
clear that Permanent Lok Adalat is distinct and different from a court. The nature of
proceedings before the Permanent Lok Adalat is initially a conciliation which is non-
adjudicatory in nature. Only if the parties fail to reach an agreement by
conciliation, the Permanent Lok Adalat mutates into an adjudicatory body, by
deciding the dispute. In short the procedure adopted by Permanent Lok Adalats is
what is popularly known as `CON-ARB' (that is "conciliation cum arbitration") in
United States, where the parties can approach a neutral third party or authority for
conciliation and if the conciliation fails, authorize such neutral third party or
authority to decide the dispute itself, such decision being final and binding. The
concept of `CON-ARB' before a Permanent Lok Adalat is completely different from
the concept of judicial adjudication by courts governed by the Code of Civil
Procedure. The Permanent Lok Adalat not being a `court', the provision in the
contract relating to exclusivity of jurisdiction of courts at Delhi will not apply.