New Consumer Protection Bill 2018 Will Entail More Punishment

Coming straight to the crux of the matter, let me begin first and foremost pointing out that a new Consumer Protection Bill has been tabled in the Lok Sabha on January 5, 2018. This was presented on the last day of the winter session of Parliament. The Union Minister for Consumer Affairs – Ram Vilas Paswan introduced the new Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 in the Lok Sabha.
                   Replacing Old Act By New
                                       Needless to say, if all goes well, the Bill will certainly become an Act sooner than later. It will replace the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 is more wider in its ambit as compared to the Act of 1986.
                            Object Of New Bill
                                      This new Consumer Protection Bill, 2018 seeks to enforce stringent provisions in order to protect consumers by regulating online sales, providing for higher manufacturer liabilities, even restricting tall claims, including some made through celebrity brand endorsers. It thus legislates on at least three new areas vis-à-vis the older law. It seeks to set up an authority to safeguard consumer rights in view of current challenges posed by e-commerce, direct selling, tele-marketing and misleading ads, among others.
                         Wider Scope
                                    As it turns out, the new law will apply to all goods and services, including sale/construction of homes/flats and telecom services. It brings within its fold all forms of selling – offline/online sales, teleshopping, direct selling and multi-level marketing. In other words, this new law envisages wider application covering all goods, services and selling.
                                         Truth be told, while the earlier law did cover unfair trade practices, the current one certainly seeks to make it more comprehensive. It adds practices such as failure to issue a bill or a receipt, refusal to accept a good returned or refusal to discontinue service within 30 days (if it is so stipulated and requested by the consumer) and disclosure of personal information given in confidence, to the list of unfair practices. It also defines unfair contracts. Issues such as excessive security deposit requirements, penalty for breach of contract which is disproportionate to the loss incurred and refusal to accept early repayment of debt on payment of applicable penalty will now fall squarely under its ambit.
                        Product Liability
                                  It must be reiterated here that the highlight of the new law is the inclusion of the product liability action. Thus, we see that when any one of us suffer any harm due to a defect in a product made by the manufacturer, serviced by a service provider or sold by a product seller, earlier there was no fixed liability but now we have a right to claim compensation once the 2018 Bill becomes a law. The 2018 Bill further lays down the appropriate circumstances under which the manufacturer, service provider and seller will be held liable.
                        Conditions For Liability
                                      As for instance, we see now that a product manufacturer will be liable to compensate for harm caused to the consumer under any one of the following conditions. Those conditions are as follows: –
1.  The product contains a manufacturing defect;
2.  It is defective in design;
3.  There is a deviation from the manufacturing specifications;
4.  It does not conform to the express warranty; and
5.  It does not contain adequate instructions for correct usage.
                    Regulator On Anvil
                                    It is well known that to promote and protect the consumer rights, the Consumer Protection Councils at the district, state and national levels are prescribed under the current law. But its biggest handicap is that it is only an advisory body and hence does not have powers of enforcement. To overcome this handicap, this new Bill brings in a regulator for consumer affairs, much like the Securities and Exchange Board of India  (SEBI) for the markets or the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) for insurers.
                                      To be called the Consumer Protection Authority, the new regulator will be a central authority with offices at the regional level. The new Consumer Protection Authority will have power to monitor and enforce the new regulatory regime that the Bill seeks to implement. The Bill says very specifically that, “This fills an institutional void in the regulatory regime extant. Currently, the task of prevention of or acting against unfair trade practices is not vested in any authority.”
                                      To be sure, this Authority will have the requisite powers to inquire and investigate into complaints and initiate prosecution. It will also be empowered to issue safety notices/pass orders in relation to matters such as recall of goods, reimbursements of the amount paid by consumers, misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices/contracts. This would ensure that consumer protection law is not blatantly violated with impunity as this Consumer Protection Authority would check this and act as a powerful deterrent.
    Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC)
                                 It must be added here that the CDRCs will be set up at the district, state and national levels. A consumer can file a complaint with CDRCs in relation to:
(i)                         unfair or restrictive trade practices;
(ii)                      defective goods or services;
(iii)                   overcharging or deceptive charging; and
(iv)                   the offering of goods or services for sale which may be hazardous to life and safety.
Complaints against an unfair contract can be filed with only the State and National CDRCs. Appeals from a District CDRC will be heard by the State CDRC. Appeals from the State CDRC will be heard by the National CDRC. The final appeal will lie before the Supreme Court.  
         Jurisdiction Of CDRCs
                           To tell the truth, the District CDRC will entertain complaints where value of goods and services does not exceed Rs one crore. The State CDRC will entertain complaints when the value is more than Rs one crore but does not exceed Rs 10 crore. Finally, the complaints with value of foods and services over Rs 10 crore will be entertained by the National CDRC.
        Punishment For Non-Compliance  
                                        To put things in perspective, the non-compliance of the order issued by the Consumer Protection Authority is punishable with am imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to Rs 20 lakh, or both. The Authority may also impose penalties with regard to the misleading advertisements, food adulteration and spurious goods. A penalty on the endorser of the misleading advertisement is suggested as well, which could put celebrities who endorse products that don’t live up to its claims, in the dock.
Punishment For False Claims In Advertisements  
                                       It must be highlighted here that misleading ads in various media touting exaggerated claims are very common and it is the consumers who have to suffer the most because of all this! Earlier there was a lack of clear legal provisions. But this new Consumer Bill of 2018 seeks to specify what constitutes false and unfulfilled claims.
                                      This proposed new Consumer Protection Bill of 2018 imposes a jail term of up to two years and Rs 10 lakh as fine for manufacturers making false and misleading claims in advertisements. This could go up to five years in jail and Rs 50 lakh fine for repeat offenders. Very rightly so!
                                         It is noteworthy that endorsers making such claims will face a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh and a ban of a year from making endorsements. The repeated offenders would attract fines of up to Rs 50 lakh and a ban of up to three years. In fact the jail term for such repeated offenders must not be less than 5 years. But what an unbeatable irony that for repeated offenders no jail term is prescribed. This again must be set right!
                                       Not just this, the repeated offenders must be barred permanently from making endorsements but this has not been done till now. It must be done before it becomes a law so that it acts as an adequate deterrent for repeated offenders. It is quite baffling that why this has not been done. 
                 Defence For Endorsers   
                                    According to the Bill, the endorsers who can prove that they applied “due diligence” or appeared in an ad in “normal course of business” without knowledge of fraudulent intentions may use it as a “defence”. They have every right to stand immune from legal proceedings if they can prove that they had no fraudulent intentions of any kind while endorsing. No one can deny or dispute this! However, the Bill in the same vein also states that, “The burden of proof of such defence shall lie on the person raising such defence”.
               Vulnerability Of Consumers
                                 The Bill says that growth in e-commerce, international trade and newer services as well as innovative delivery chains have increased the choice before consumers but also made them vulnerable. So consumers have to be protected from becoming a vulnerable target who are liable to be exploited most easily!      
                                 Truly speaking, the Bill also states that, “The modern market place contains a plethora of products and services. The emergence of global supply chains, rise in international trade and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new delivery systems for goods and services and have provided new options and opportunities for consumers. Equally, this has rendered the consumer vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and unethical business practices.”
        Curbing The Misuse Of Limitation
                                          Unfair trade practices often take advantage of limitations in the current law. This must be plugged in the new Bill. If this is not done, the whole purpose of the new Bill will stand defeated. Pradeep Mehta of the CUTS International which is a consumer rights activist group points out that, “In an earlier era, issues like misleading ads and cheating were dealt with under the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act. But since the Competition Act, 2002, replaced the MRTP Act, it left out effective regulations to deal with unfair trade practices. This new Bill hopefully will address these shortcomings.” The Bill also provides for framing of rules subsequent to passage of the Bill for product recalls and on the responsibility of a firm for both safety and efficacy of its products.
                        Mediation Cells
                          Presently, a Redressal Commission operates at the district, state and national levels to adjudicate consumer disputes. The new law stipulates for an alternative dispute redressal mechanism if there is chance for a settlement agreeable to the parties to the dispute. The new Bill calls for setting up of mediation cells attached to the district, state and national commissions.
                               Conclusion
                                  All said and done, this new Bill is certainly a marked improvement over the previous one. But still many more loopholes can and must be plugged before finally getting it assented to by the President. It certainly merits more deliberation in both Houses of Parliament. Only after a proper debate, discussion and deliberations by both Houses of Parliament should it be passed after going through it in detail so that no loophole is left out. This new Bill directly affects consumers in a huge way and so has to be taken most seriously so that consumers don’t suffer under any circumstances and have enough remedy to pursue when aggrieved which can be possible only if all their genuine concerns are taken into board and simultaneously also addressed before making it into a law by getting it passed in both Houses of Parliament!
 Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

India Can’t Be Refugee Capital: Government

Let me begin at the beginning itself by pointing out that I fully endorse and support the Government’s stand that India can’t be the refugee capital of the world. Centre rightly told the Supreme Court on January 30 that, “We do not want India to become the refugee capital of the world.” What wrong has Centre said?
                                            To put things in perspective, the government was responding to a submission made by Rohingya refugees that the Border Security Force (BSF) at the borders was “pushing back” their compatriots fleeing persecution in Myanmar with chilli spray and stun grenades. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta while appearing for the government orally submitted before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra orally submitted very rightly that, “People from every other country will flood our country.” Very rightly said!
                                             To be sure, Tushar rightly submitted that, “India will be flooded with refugees. We don’t want India to become the refugee capital of the world. Anybody can enter the country and we can’t do anything? These things are better left to the executive.” What wrong has Tushar said? Judiciary must leave this delicate issue which falls within the government’s purview and which has tremendous security implications to decide for itself!
                                   With due respect to judiciary, I very strongly feel that it should instead first set its own house in order. The 230th report of Law Commission strongly recommended the setting up of more high court benches in different states. But see the unbeatable irony that only one state that is Karnataka has alone gained from it. Karnataka already had a bench at Hubli but 2 more benches still were created at Dharwad and Gulbarga for just 4 and 8 districts by the previous UPA government in 2012! UP has more than 10 lakh cases pending and Karnataka has just less than 2 lakh cases pending still Karnataka has 3 benches and UP just one! Worst of all, West UP which alone accounts for more than half of the pending cases and which alone has 26 districts and whose population alone is 9 crore which is 3 crore more than that of Karnataka has not even a bench leave alone high court and 3 benches! Why judiciary has never stepped in to correct this?
                                      Why Justice Jaswant Singh Commission appointed by former PM late Mrs Indira Gandhi to recommend where all benches were needed in late 1970s had recommended that UP must have 3 benches at Agra, Dehradun and Nainital but not one bench was set up even though on its recommendations benches were set up at Aurangabad in Maharashtra which already had 2 benches, Madurai in Tamil Nadu and Jalpaiguri in West Bengal? Why judiciary never probed this baffling and blatant disregard of the landmark recommendations of the Justice Jaswant Singh Commission report? Why people of West UP and people of Uttarakhand who till 2000 formed part of UP were compelled to travel thousands of kilometers all the way to Allahabad to get justice and not a single bench was given to them despite the landmark recommendation to create 3 benches here by Justice Jaswant Commission and yet judiciary never investigated into the same?
                                             Why judiciary has never ensured that the vacancies in subordinate judiciary the filling of which is in its hands are filled completely and still more than 6000 posts are lying vacant? Why UP has maximum pending cases, maximum population, maximum districts, maximum MPs, maximum MLAs, maximum Judges but has least benches only one at Lucknow which is so close to Allahabad and no bench at West UP which witnesses maximum crime, maximum riots, maximum killings etc and yet judiciary has never taken any action on this? It is high time and judiciary must act on this as soon as possible so that people of West UP especially litigants are not compelled to travel whole night to Allahabad which is more than 700 km away and the high court and benches of 8 states and even Lahore High Court in Pakistan is nearer to West UP as compared to Allahabad and this was raised by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Parliament as Leader of Opposition in 1986 when he demanded bench of high court for West UP but 32 years later still there is no bench!
                                          Anyway coming back to the main topic: How can this be ignored that India is already an overpopulated country? How can this be ignored that India already has its own refugee problem and lakhs of Kashmiri Pandits have been displaced from their own house in Kashmir? How can this be ignored that Rohingyas are being planted in Kashmir and Jammu which will only serve to further fuel the growing imbalance and fuel further militancy in the area?
                                      Why do Muslim countries especially Pakistan which always champions the cause of Muslims not take Rohingyas in their own land? Why do European countries which lecture India on human rights not either grant them refuge in their own country? Why is America which again believes in lecturing us on human rights not forthcoming in giving refuge to them in their own country?
                                              Why only India is expected to give refuge to Rohingyas? Why no other country comes forward to welcome them in their own country? Why even Bangladesh which has given refuge to Rohingyas seeks all sorts of help for Rohingyas from India and not Pakistan? India has generously helped Rohingyas in Bangladesh by providing them all humanitarian help but how can it disregard its own national and security interests and give refuge to all Rohingyas who have been displaced from Myanmar?
                                          What is the guarantee that terrorists will not infiltrate along with Rohingyas to India? What is the guarantee that those Rohingya terrorists who killed about 100 Hindus after brutally maiming them and torturing them and then killing them will not enter India along with Rohingya refugees? What is the guarantee that those who come to India will not be brainwashed and after getting paid by ISI will not work to destabilise India?     
                                        Who can deny that Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army is a Rohingya insurgent group active in northern Rakhine State of Myanmar? Who can deny that Hafiz Saeed who is chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba has close links with these terror groups? Who can deny that Hafiz can easily use Rohingyas in India as mere pawns to destabilize India and carry out terror attacks to kill innocent Indians in large numbers? Who can deny that India will become a refugee capital if such people are not stopped promptly from entering India?
                                        Who can deny that Rohingyas already in large numbers have been staying illegally in India since many years? Who can deny that they must be sent back to their original country from where they came? Who can deny that some parties don’t want them to go back as they are playing voter bank politics and by illegal means have got them Indian citizenship?
                                                I have absolutely no hesitation in concluding that Supreme Court must stay away from ruling in such cases which involves policy making decisions and especially which directly concerns the security of citizens. Tushar rightly said that if the argument of the petitioner is accepted then, “The country would be flooded by refugees. We do not want India to become the refugee capital of the world. These are matters between countries involving diplomatic relations. We cannot allow people to enter like this.” The court will take up the matter next onMarch 7.
                                             On a concluding note, the Supreme Court must take very seriously what Tushar has rightly said and instead direct its whole energy in setting up more benches in lawless states like UP whom former UN Secretary General Ban ki moon had termed as “rape and crime capital of India” still has least benches in India and West UP and Bihar which is another lawless state has none!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi,
A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,
Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.