3. 3
Presentation Schema
Distinguish between COPRA
1986 and 2019
Definitions as per COPRA,
2019
Case law 1: Rohit Reddy
Chintha v. Amazon Seller
Service Private Limited
Product liability
Case law 2: Surender Kumar
Lamba v. Eureka Forbes
Limited
Case law 3: Union of India
& Anr. V. N. K. Srivasta &
Ors
4. 4
COPRA, 2019
Beginning of a new era of consumer rights in India in sync with new-age consumer
expectations
• Carries forward the rich legacy of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 &
• To meet the challenges of a rapidly growing, sophisticated and inter-dependent
market for goods and services
• To provide enhanced protection to the consumers by taking into consideration:
a. the rapid growing e-commerce industry and
b. the modern methods of providing goods and services through online sales, tele-
shopping, direct selling and multi-level marketing
5. Comparison at a glance
5
Provision Consumer Protection Act,
1986
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Regulator No separate regulator Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) is
the Central Regulator
Consumer
court
Complaint to be filed in a
place where the seller’s office
was located
Complaint to be filed in a place where either of
the party resides / has place of business / works
for gain
Mediation No provision Courts can refer settlement through mediation
Product
liability
No provision Consumers can seek compensation for any harm
caused by a product or service
E-Commerce No provision Provisions of direct sales extended to e-commerce
transactions
Video
conferencing
No provision Consumer can seek hearing through video
conference
7. 7
Complainant
A consumer or
Any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force or
The Central Government or any State Government or
The Central Authority or
1 or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest or
In case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or legal representative or
In case of a consumer being a minor, his parent or legal guardian
8. Complaint
8
An unfair contract / unfair trade practice / a restrictive
trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service
provider
The goods bought by him / agreed to be bought by him
suffer from one / more defects
The services hired / availed of / agreed to be hired / availed
of by him suffer from any deficiency
Any allegation in writing, made by a complainant for obtaining any relief provided by /
under this Act, that-
9. Contd.
9
A trader or a service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods / for the
services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price-
fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or
displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods or
displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the
time being in force or
Agreed between the parties
10. Contd.
10
The goods, which are hazardous to life and safety when used, are being offered for sale
to the public-
in contravention of standards relating to safety of such goods as required
to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force
where the trader knows that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public
The services which are hazardous / likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public
when used, are being offered by a person who provides any service and who knows it to
be injurious to life and safety
Claim for product liability action lies against the product manufacturer, product seller
/ product service provider, as the case may be
11. Defect
11
Any fault, imperfection or shortcoming
in the quality, quantity, potency, purity / standard
which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or
under any contract, expressed / implied or
as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever
in relation to any goods / product and
the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly
12. 12
Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming / inadequacy in the quality, nature and
manner of performance which is required to be maintained by / under any
law for the time being in force / has been undertaken to be performed by a
person in pursuance of a contract / otherwise in relation to any service and
includes-
Any act of negligence / omission / commission by such person
which causes loss / injury to the consumer and
Deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person
to the consumer
Deficiency in service
13. E-commerce
13
Means buying or selling of goods or services including digital products over digital
/ electronic network
Electronic Service Provider
Means a person who provides technologies / processes to enable a product seller
to engage in advertising / selling goods or services to a consumer and includes any
online market place / online auction sites
15. 15
Complainant received order from Amazon transportation services courier on
2/10/2015
Gold coins received by the Complainant were without any information relating to
purity, metal and BIS certification AND completely different from what was shown
on the website. Thus, raised a written request to the opposite party for refund of
his money
Complainant placed an order on 25/09/2015 for carrot lane 50 gram 24 Kt Lakshmi
gold coin for Rs. 2,85,284/-
Rohit Reddy
Chintha Amazon Seller Service
Private LimitedComplainant
Opposite
party
Case No.CC/683/2016
16. Contd.
16
On the same day, the Opposite party apologized for sending the wrong product
and accepted the Complainant’s written request
On 4/10/2015, the Opposite party asked the Complainant to return the wrong
product back to process full refund of the order
On 20/10/2015, Complainant received information from the Opposite party stating
that the wrong product reached them and refund will be processed within 5
working days
17. 17
Contd.
But the Opposite party failed to refund till 24/12/2015
After continuous follow-ups and escalations by the Complainant, the Opposite party
sent an e-mail on 24/12/2015 promising to refund the money within 2 to 4 days
But the Complainant did not receive any refund. Hence, the complaint notice was sent
to the Opposite party for appearance
18. Contentions made by the Opposite party
18
•The complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable
as the complainant had approached the Forum by supressing the
material facts and averments made in the complaint are vague
baseless and with malafide intention the Complainant has
misconceived and baseless allegations of unfair trade practices and
deficiency in service without any documentary evidence
•It was further contended that the opposite party merely provided
online market place for placing order through website. However,
the product was not purchased from them nor complainant paid
any consideration to them
•The Complainant purchased the product from 3rd party Luxury
Online Retail India private limited, selling its products on the
website operated by the opposite party
19. Contd.
19
Further contended that the Complainant does not fall
under the definition of consumer (1986 Act)
The opposite party has merely provided the online market
place where independent 3rd party sellers have listed their
products for sale
The opposite party is neither a necessary nor a proper
party in the Complaint
The Complainant explicitly by virtue of use of website
agreed to be bound by the terms contained in the
conditions of use
Thus denied all the other allegations of the Complainant
and prayed for dismissal of the complaint
20. Contd.
20
In order to substantiate the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence along
with documentary evidence
Wordings of Forum:
The Opposite party is a renowned online service provider. It is its duty to provide
platform not to deceive the customers and there should be a value for money in E-
commerce
The business activities of Opposite party also come under the domain of COPRA, 1986
by taking consideration through selling and purchasing of goods to customers
Based on letter and other email communications made by the opposite party, it is
evident that the Complainant did not receive refund despite returning the product
21. Contd.
21
District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ordered on
30th December, 2017 directing the opposite party:
a. To refund the amount of Rs. 2,85,284/- along with the interest
@ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization and
b. To pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of proceedings
23. Unfair trade practice
23
Means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use / supply of
any goods / for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method / unfair or
deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely-
Making any statement, whether orally / in writing / by visible
representation including by means of electronic record, which is actually
a false statement / misleading representations / misleading facts about
such goods / services
Permitting the publication of any advertisement, whether in any
newspaper / otherwise, including by way of electronic record, for the
sale / supply at a bargain price of goods / services that are not intended
to be offered for sale / supply at the bargain price / for a period that is,
and in quantities that are, reasonable, having regard to the nature of
the market in which the business is carried on, the nature and size of
business, and the nature of the advertisement
24. Product liability
24
Means the responsibility of a product manufacturer / product seller, of any product
/ service, to compensate for any harm caused to a consumer by such defective
product manufactured / sold / by deficiency in services relating thereto
Product liability action
Means a complaint filed by a person before a District Commission / State
Commission / National Commission, as the case may be, for claiming compensation
for the harm caused to him
Means any article / goods / substance / raw material / any extended cycle of such
product, which may be in gaseous, liquid / solid state possessing intrinsic value which
is capable of delivery either as wholly assembled / as a component part and is
produced for introduction to trade / commerce
Excludes: human tissues, blood, blood products and organs
Product
25. 25
Chapter VI of COPRA, 2019 provides provisions for Product liability and there is no such
provision in COPRA, 1986
For any harm caused by a defective product manufactured by a product manufacturer /
serviced by a product service provider / sold by a product seller, customer can claim
compensation in this Chapter under a product liability action
Product liability
When a product
manufacturer can
be held liable?
When a product
service provider
can be held liable?
When will product
sellers be held
liable?
Exceptions to
product liability
action
26. 26
Product Manufacturer
A person who, in the course of business, imports, sells, distributes, leases, installs,
prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs, maintains / otherwise is involved in placing
such product for commercial purpose and includes any activity as provided in the Act
Product Service Provider
A person who provides any service in respect of a product
Product Seller
One who makes any product / part thereof; assembles parts thereof made by others; puts
/ causes to be put his own mark on any products made by any other person; makes a
product and sells, distributes, leases, installs, prepares, packages, labels, markets, repairs,
maintains such product / is otherwise involved in placing such product for commercial
purpose; designs, produces, fabricates, constructs / re-manufactures any product before its
sale; being a product seller of a product, is also a manufacturer of such product
27. Liability of Product Manufacturer- Sec. 84
27
If the product contains any manufacturing defect or
If the product is defective in design or
If there is any deviations from manufacturing specifications or
If the product does not conform to the express warranty or
If the product fails to contain adequate instructions of correct
usage to prevent any harm / any warning regarding improper /
incorrect usage
He shall be held liable in a product liability action even if he proves that he was not
negligent / fraudulent in making the express warranty of a product
28. Liability of Product service provider- Sec. 85
28
If the service provided by him was
faulty / imperfect / deficient /
inadequate in quality, nature /
manner of performance which is
required to be provided by /
under any law for the time being
in force / pursuant to any
contract / otherwise
If there was an act of omission /
commission / negligence /
conscious withholding of any
information which caused harm
If the service provider did not
issue adequate instructions /
warnings to prevent any harm
If the service did not conform to
express warranty / the terms and
conditions of the contract
29. Liability of Product sellers- Sec. 86
29
Exercised substantial control over the
designing, testing, manufacturing,
packaging / labelling of a product
Altered / modified the product
Made an express warranty of a product
independent of any express warranty
made by a manufacturer
If the product has been sold by him and
the identity of product manufacturer of
such product is not known / if known,
the service of notice / process / 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 / to be
passed cannot be enforced against him
If he failed to exercise reasonable care in
assembling, inspecting / maintaining such
product / he did not pass on the warnings
/ instructions of the product
manufacturer regarding the dangers
involved / proper usage of the product
while selling such product and such
failure was the proximate cause of the
harm
Exception: Product liability action cannot be brought against him if, at the time of harm, the product
was misused, altered, or modified.
The Product seller will be held liable if he
was involved in any of the following activities
and such activity has caused harm to the
consumer
30. Exceptions to product liability action- Sec. 87
30
A product manufacturer shall not be liable for any action based on the failure to
provide adequate warnings / instructions if :
The product was purchased by an employer for use at the workplace and the product
manufacturer had provided warnings / instructions to such employer
The product was sold as a component / material to be used in another product and
necessary warnings / instructions were given by the product manufacturer to the
purchaser of such component / material, but the harm was caused to the complainant
by use of the end product in which such component / material was used
The product was one which was legally meant to be used / dispensed only by / under
the supervision of an expert / a class of experts and the product manufacturer had
employed reasonable means to give the warnings / instructions for usage of such
product to such expert / class of experts
The complainant, while using such product, was under the influence of alcohol / any
prescription drug which had not been prescribed by a medical practitioner
He shall not be liable for failure to instruct / warn about a danger which is obvious / commonly
known to the user / consumer of such product / which, such user / consumer, ought to have
known, taking into account the characteristics of such product
32. 32
Surender Kumar
Lamba Eureka Forbes
Limited
Complainant
Opposite
party
Facts of the case:
• Prior to the year 2002, the Complainant had a water purifier manufactured and sold by
Opposite Party (OP)
• The Complainant was paying AMC of Rs. 4,000/- every year for the RO
• The Complainant purchased and installed a new Reviva model of OP’s reverse osmosis
(RO) by paying a sum of Rs. 12,500 as the representatives of OP informed that the new
RO will discharge more purified water
33. Contd.
33
Suddenly, the Complainant started suffering knee pain and his doctor
informed him that the reason of such pain was due to low TDS level in
water consumed by him and subsequently he spent Rs. 40,000 for his
treatment
Hence, he requested the OP several times to check the TDS level in the
RO, but they paid no heed
In 2018, during door to door campaign for marketing the new RO
system, the OP visited the house of Complainant and informed him
that the RO installed at his premises was discharging water with a
TDS level of less than 15 which was quite bad for human
consumption
They persuaded the Complainant to instal Dr. Aquaguard Magna U.V.
Water purifier which retains and fortifies essential mineral and
nutrients in water for good health
34. Contd.
34
•Despite repeated requested to check the TDS level, the
Complainant had not received any response from OP
•Due to which, Complainant got the new water purifier
installed at a cost of Rs.13,290/-
•Complainant alleged negligence on the part of OPs
which resulted in mental agony, pain and suffering and
hence, he filed a complaint against them
35. Arguments by the OP
35
Denied that the output water of the machine of the Complainant had lower level of TDS
than the standards prescribed
OP had tested the water from the machine of the Complainant and submitted the test
report dated 17/04/2018 which shows TDS level at 367 and hence, it falsifies the claims
of the Complainant
The claim of the Complainant that loss of plasma was caused by low level of TDS was
untenable in the eyes of law in the absence of any such documentary evidence on
record
OP thus argued that it had no liability to compensate such remote, ill and imaginary
damages and AMC of machine does not cover any such remote or imaginary losses
There is neither any documentary evidence of low TDS on record nor there is any
documentary evidence which shows that loss of plasma was caused due to low TDS
36. Contd.
36
AMC only specifies what the OP is contractually bound to provide to its customer with
respect to the machine and the same has been provided to the Complainant
Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and it prayed for dismissal of
the complaint
In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence along with
documentary evidence
Similarly, calcium, magnesium and chloride were also examined to be extremely low
than the standard requirement
Forum emphasized upon the facts that as per the standards, the required TDS limit
should be from 500 mg/l to 2000 mg/l whereas, in the report dated 17/04/2018 of the
purified water of the Aqua Reviva RO, the TDS level was 51
Forum’s Analysis
37. Contd.
37
•Forum also relied upon the report named “Nutrients in water”
issued by WHO, which states as follows-
•“Scientific testing and the best unbiased brains in the world have
repeatedly demonstrated that long term consumption of
demineralized (RO) water is bad for the health and the RO
process removes 92-99% of beneficial calcium and magnesium
and consuming RO water for even just a few months can create
serious side effects”
•Forum held that although there was no direct evidence on file
that lack of TDS in water was the sole reason of the medical
problems, the reports and evidences proved that the essential
minerals like calcium, magnesium, chlorides had decreased to a
large extent in the RO purified water as compared to the normal
tap water
38. Decision of Forum
38
Under such circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that one of the cause of medical
problems might be related to reduced minerals and nutrients in the drinking water of
the Complainant
Hence, the forum held that the OPs had indulged in unfair trade practice and
misrepresentation of facts. Thus, Ops had been deficient in services
The complaint was partly allowed with an order on 30/07/2019 directing the Ops:
to refund Rs.13,290/- on account of cost price of Magna Purifier along with interest
@ 9% p.a.
along with Rs.19,965/- towards refund of AMC charges
Rs. 5,000/- for mental agony and harassment
Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation and
to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- in the account of Haryana State Council for
Child Welfare within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this order
failing which the said amount shall carry an interest @ 9% p.a.
40. 40
Union of India &
Anr.
N. K. Srivasta & Ors
Original case:
• The spouse of the Complainant who was pregnant, was admitted to Sarvodaya
Hospital in a medical emergency at about 5 am on 9/03/2004 and she delivered the
baby at about 8 am. The baby was delivered prematurely .
• The Complainant and the spouse were referred to Safdarjung Hospital for admission
of child for emergency medical care in a Nursery ICU
• The child died in the last week of April, 2004
Appeal arises from an order of National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission dated 7/10/2016
Civil Appeal No.2823 of 2020
41. Contd.
41
• Grievance against Hospitals:
1. Sarvodaya Hospital- Prior to the delivery, it had been represented that the Hospital
was fully equipped with a Nursery ICU and when the Complainant came to realise that
this was not the case, he felt cheated
2. Safdarjung Hospital- The baby was initially admitted to a General Ward and thereafter
to a General ICU, but was not placed in a Nursery ICU
• It held that Sarvodaya Hospital had an independent Nursery and ICU and hence there was
no misrepresentation of fact.
• The spouse of the Complainant was operated upon in an emergency to save the lives of
mother and child. Hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the hospital
• As regards Safdarjung Hospital, the complaint was held to be not maintainable as the
treatment had been afforded free of cost to the patient.
Hence, the complaint was presented before District Forum seeking damages against both hospitals
District Forum
42. Contd.
42
By its judgment dated 10/12/2013, ordered Sarvodaya Hospital to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as
compensation and cost quantifiable at Rs. 20,000 for guilty of medical negligence
Though SCDRC had found negligence on the part of Safdarjung Hospital, it relied upon the
affidavit that the treatment had been provided free of cost. Hence, the complaint was not
held to be maintainable as it was not amenable to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora
as per the COPRA, 1986
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC)
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)
NCDRC came to a conclusion that Sarvodaya Hospital was not guilty of medical negligence.
The finding was that the spouse had been admitted in a precarious condition and referred the
patient to a specialized facility after taking the consent of the Complainant in the absence of
nursery facilities to handle a premature baby.
NCDRC ordered Safdarjung Hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for medical
negligence.
Revision petition filed
43. Appeal to Supreme Court
43
Appeal was filed by Union of India, through the Secretary in the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare and Safdarjung Hospital, challenging the
order of NCDRC
Arguments by the original defendants for
want of appeal
Safdarjung Hospital levied no charge for medical facilities provided to
the complainant
All facilities as available in both the hospitals were made immediately
available to the patient on their arrival
44. Analysis by the Court
4444
Some of the important facilities available in Safdarjung
Hospitalwere not provided to the patient at the right time
Regarding no charge for services rendered by the hospitals, Apex
Court relied upon its decision in Indian Medical Association for
interpretation of the term ‘service’ enshrined u/s 2(1)(o) of the
Act and inter-alia held that -
“It is only where a hospital provides medical services free of
charge across the board to all patients that it would stand outside
the purview of the Act”
The Court held that a hospital which renders free services to a
certain category of patients, while providing for services which
are charged to the bulk of others would not lie outside the
purview of the jurisdiction of the consumer fora
Therefore, the instant appeal was held to be not tenable in the eye of
law. It was thus ruled that the decision of this Court / NCDRC in this
case should not be regarded as a precedent
45. Decision of the Court
45
On 23/07/2020
The Court dismissed the appeal and directed to make the payment of Rs 2
lakhs to the original complainant, in compliance of the order of the NCDRC
within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified true copy
of the order
