Q.A gas distributor insists his customers to buy a gas stove as a condition to the gas connection.
is
it tie up sale? Give reasons and refer to relevant case law?
Facts:
A gas distributor mandates that customers must purchase a gas stove from them in order to
receive a new gas connection. This condition is imposed regardless of whether the customer
already owns a stove or wishes to purchase one from another seller.
Issues:
Whether making the purchase of a gas stove compulsory for obtaining a gas connection
constitutes a tie-up sale and amounts to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019.
Holding Law / Applied Law:
As per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, "unfair trade practice"
includes:
“Forcing the consumer to buy, hire or avail of any goods or services as a condition
precedent for buying, hiring or availing of other goods or services.”
This legal provision directly prohibits tie-in sales that restrict consumer choice.
Rationale:
The act of making a gas connection conditional upon purchasing a gas stove restricts the
consumer's right to choose and compels them to buy unwanted goods. Such coercion distorts
consumer freedom and violates the principles of fair trade. This was confirmed in the case
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Consumer Protection Council, 1994 (1) CPR 568 (NC),
where the NCDRC held that forcing consumers to buy a gas stove as a condition for a gas
connection is an unfair trade practice.
Hence Proved:
Yes, insisting customers buy a gas stove to obtain a gas connection is a tie-up sale. It is an
unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as
established in judicial precedent. Consumers have the right to file a complaint against such
practices.
Q: A supplies defective seeds to B. Because of which B's crop fails. What is the
legal remedy available to B?
Facts:
A supplied seeds to B, which were found to be defective. As a result, B suffered a crop
failure, leading to financial loss and agricultural damage.
Issues:
What legal remedies are available to B, as a consumer, under Indian law when defective
seeds are supplied, resulting in crop failure?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019
o Section 2(10): “Defect” includes any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in
the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of goods.
o Section 2(6): “Complaint” can be filed for defective goods and compensation
for loss.
o Section 2(9): “Consumer” includes a person who buys goods for
consideration for self-use or for livelihood.
2. Indian Contract Act, 1872
o Section 73: Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.
Rationale:
Since B purchased the seeds for cultivation, and the seeds turned out to be defective, B
qualifies as a consumer. Supplying defective seeds violates the seller’s obligation to supply
goods of merchantable quality. The failure of the crop is a direct consequence of the
defective seeds, for which B is entitled to compensation.
The consumer may approach the Consumer Commission under the Consumer Protection
Act for:
• Refund of amount paid
• Compensation for loss due to crop failure
• Punitive damages, if applicable
This principle was upheld in:
• M/s. National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy & Anr., (2012)
2 SCC 506
→ The Supreme Court held the seed supplier liable for crop failure due to defective
seeds and upheld the award of compensation to the farmer.
Hence Proved:
B, being a consumer, can file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and/or
claim damages under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 for loss caused due to defective seeds.
Courts and Consumer Commissions have recognized farmers’ right to compensation in such
cases.
Q: Mr. X purchased a ticket on Indian Airlines. The flight was later cancelled
on account of technical reasons. Is it a deficiency in service?
Facts:
Mr. X bought an airline ticket from Indian Airlines. The scheduled flight was cancelled due
to technical reasons, and Mr. X was unable to travel as planned.
Issues:
Whether the cancellation of a flight due to technical reasons constitutes a deficiency in
service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
• Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines:
"Deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in
the quality, nature and manner of performance required to be maintained
by a person in relation to any service.
• Aviation services are included under the definition of "service" in Section 2(42) of
the Act.
Rationale:
Whether cancellation amounts to deficiency in service depends on circumstances:
• If the flight was cancelled due to unforeseen and genuine technical reasons, and the
airline promptly informed passengers and provided refunds or alternatives, then no
deficiency in service occurs.
• However, if the airline failed to notify, delayed refunds, or did not provide
assistance, it may be treated as deficiency in service.
In Indian Airlines v. Dr. Jiteswar Ahir (1996), the court held that:
Mere cancellation of a flight due to technical problems is not a deficiency in service, if the
airline takes reasonable steps to compensate or accommodate the passenger.
Hence Proved:
No, flight cancellation due to genuine technical reasons does not amount to deficiency in
service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provided the airline acts reasonably and
responsibly in compensating or assisting the passenger. If not, it may amount to deficiency.
Q: Mr. X purchased a sewing machine for her personal use. Later, she found
the machine to be defective. Discuss the remedies available.
Facts:
Mr. X bought a sewing machine for personal/domestic use. After using it, she discovered
that the machine was defective, failing to function as promised or advertised.
Issues:
What legal remedies are available to a consumer when goods purchased for personal use turn
out to be defective?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
• Section 2(7): Defines a consumer as a person who buys goods for consideration and
not for resale or commercial purpose (personal use is included).
• Section 2(10): Defines “defect” as any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the
quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard of goods.
• Section 2(6): Allows a consumer complaint to be filed for defective goods.
• Section 2(1)(c): Defines “complaint” to include:
o (i) unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice
o (ii) defect in goods
o (iii) deficiency in services
o (iv) overcharging
o (v) hazardous goods or services
Rationale:
Since the sewing machine was bought for personal use, Mr. X qualifies as a consumer under
the Act. The seller is obligated to provide a product that is free from defects and suitable for
its intended purpose.
Mr. X may seek the following remedies:
1. Repair of the sewing machine.
2. Replacement with a new, defect-free machine.
3. Refund of the purchase amount.
4. Compensation for any inconvenience or consequential loss suffered.
5. Litigation costs or punitive damages (if bad faith is proven).
These remedies can be sought by filing a complaint with the appropriate Consumer
Commission (District/State/National, depending on the value of the goods and claim).
Hence Proved:
Mr. X, being a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is entitled to remedies
such as repair, replacement, refund, or compensation for the defective sewing machine
by approaching the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
Q: X undergoes eye surgery in a charitable medical camp and loses his eye.
Can he file a case against the charitable trust for deficiency in service?
Facts:
X underwent an eye surgery at a charitable medical camp organized by a trust. The
surgery resulted in loss of vision (eye). The service was provided free of charge, as part of
the charitable activity.
Issues:
Can a person who receives free medical treatment in a charitable camp file a case under the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for deficiency in service?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
• Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines “service” as any kind
of service provided in exchange for consideration, including healthcare, but excludes
services rendered free of charge.
• Section 2(6) allows a complaint to be filed by a consumer for deficiency in service.
• Section 2(7) defines a consumer as a person who hires or avails any service for
consideration.
Rationale:
Since the eye surgery was performed free of cost at a charitable camp, X does not fall
under the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, a
complaint for deficiency in service under this Act is not maintainable.
However, X may seek alternate legal remedies, such as:
• Filing a civil suit for negligence under the law of torts, or
• Approaching the High Court under writ jurisdiction (Article 226), if there is a
breach of fundamental rights or state involvement,
• Filing a criminal complaint under Section 304A IPC for medical negligence if gross
negligence is evident.
This principle was upheld in the case:
V.P. Shantha v. Indian Medical Association, (1995) 6 SCC 651
The Supreme Court held that free services do not come under the purview of the Consumer
Protection Act. Only when services are rendered for consideration, or cross-subsidized,
does the patient qualify as a consumer.
Hence Proved:
No, X cannot file a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for deficiency in
service as the medical service was free of charge. However, he may pursue remedies under
tort law or criminal law for medical negligence.
Q: A, a vendor mixed water in the milk and sold it to customers. The
authorities under the Food Adulteration Act questioned it. A contended that
mixing water in the milk does not amount to adulteration. Decide.
Facts:
A, a milk vendor, intentionally mixed water in the milk before selling it to customers. The
authorities under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (now replaced by the Food
Safety and Standards Act, 2006) took action against him. A argued that water is not
harmful, and hence it does not amount to adulteration.
Issues:
Does mixing water with milk amount to food adulteration, even if water is not harmful to
health?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
Section 3(i)(a) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (now Section 3(1)(zx) of
Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006) defines "adulterated food" as:
"A food shall be deemed to be adulterated if any substance has been added to it so as to affect
its nature, substance or quality."
Even if the added substance (water) is not harmful, altering the natural composition or
reducing the quality of the food product qualifies as adulteration.
Rationale:
Adding water to milk:
• Alters the purity and standard quality of milk.
• Deceives consumers, as it reduces the nutritional value and misrepresents the
product.
• Violates public health standards, even if water itself is not toxic.
In the case of:
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970
The Supreme Court held that adding water to milk amounts to adulteration, even if the
water is not harmful. The mere fact that the standard quality of milk is lowered is sufficient
to constitute an offence.
Hence Proved:
Yes, mixing water in milk amounts to adulteration, even if water is not harmful. A’s
contention is invalid. He is liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and such
action invites penal consequences for violating food safety standards.
Q: A announces a discount sale of readymade garments without mentioning
the quality of the cloth. Is it an unfair trade practice?
Facts:
A retailer announces a discount sale of readymade garments to attract customers. However,
the quality, grade, or standard of the garments is not disclosed in the advertisement or sale
announcement.
Issues:
Whether failing to disclose the quality of goods in a discount sale amounts to an unfair
trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
As per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, unfair trade practice
includes:
“Making a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness,
quality, grade, composition, style or model of goods or services.”
It also includes:
“Permitting the publication of any advertisement which is misleading or deceptive.”
Further, if discounts are advertised without clarity on what is being sold (e.g., inferior or
defective items), it may create a false impression and mislead consumers.
Rationale:
When a trader advertises a discount but does not disclose the quality or grade of the goods,
and this omission misleads or deceives consumers, it is treated as an unfair trade practice.
Consumers are led to believe they are getting quality products at a lower price, whereas
they may be receiving inferior or substandard goods.
In such a case, the omission becomes material, as consumers make purchase decisions based
on incomplete or misleading information.
This principle is reinforced in consumer forum decisions, such as:
Common Cause v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1539
Misleading advertisements or partial disclosures, particularly when they influence consumer
choice, fall under unfair trade practices.
Hence Proved:
Yes, announcing a discount sale without mentioning the quality of garments can amount
to an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as it may mislead
consumers and affect their ability to make informed choices.
Q: A, a courier company delivers the hall ticket of B after the stipulated
period. B is not allowed to write exams. What is the remedy available to B?
Facts:
B booked a courier service with company A to deliver his hall ticket within a specified
time. The courier was delivered after the deadline, due to which B was not allowed to
appear for the exam, causing him significant loss and hardship.
Issues:
What legal remedy is available to B under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, for the late
delivery of the hall ticket resulting in loss of exam opportunity?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
• Section 2(7): B is a consumer, as he hired courier services for consideration.
• Section 2(42): Courier service is a “service” under the Act.
• Section 2(11): “Deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or
inadequacy in the manner of performance of a service that is required to be
maintained.
If the courier company fails to deliver on time, especially when timely delivery is critical,
it constitutes a deficiency in service.
Rationale:
The courier company was under an obligation to deliver the hall ticket within the promised
or expected timeframe. Failure to do so resulted in denial of B’s right to appear in the
exam, a serious consequence. This failure amounts to deficiency in service.
This was upheld in:
Bharati Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier, AIR 1996 SC
2508
The Supreme Court held that when a courier fails to deliver important documents in time and
causes loss to the consumer, it is liable for deficiency in service.
Remedy Available to B:
B can file a consumer complaint before the appropriate Consumer Commission and seek:
1. Compensation for mental agony, loss of opportunity, and financial loss (e.g., re-
registration fees).
2. Refund of courier charges.
3. Litigation costs and damages for deficiency in service.
Hence Proved:
Yes, B has a remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for deficiency in service by
the courier company. He can claim compensation for the loss of exam opportunity and
other damages resulting from the late delivery of his hall ticket.
Q: Mr. Sudha did not receive a registered letter sent to her. It was not
delivered by the post office. Is there any case of deficiency in service?
Facts:
A registered letter was sent to Mr. Sudha through the post office, but it was not delivered.
As a result, Mr. Sudha suffered inconvenience or potential loss.
Issues:
Whether non-delivery of a registered letter by the post office amounts to deficiency in
service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
• Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines deficiency as:
Any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and
manner of performance of service.
• Postal services fall under the definition of “service” under Section 2(42) of the Act
only when consideration is involved.
• However, there is a special bar to consumer complaints against postal services, due
to the Indian Post Office Act, 1898, and related judicial interpretations.
Rationale:
While registered post involves payment, and postal services perform a service, the Supreme
Court in:
Union of India v. N.K. Srivastava, (2006)
Held that postal services provided by the Government (Department of Posts), even if
paid, are governed by sovereign functions, and in many cases are excluded from liability
under consumer law.
Also, in:
Department of Post v. Raja Prameelamma, (2004) 2 CPJ 18 (SC)
The Court held that postal services, especially those related to sovereign functions like mail
delivery, may not always be liable under consumer law unless gross negligence or willful
misconduct is proved.
Hence Proved:
In general, non-delivery of a registered letter by the post office may not amount to
deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, due to the sovereign
nature of postal duties. However, if there is clear evidence of negligence or misconduct,
the sender or addressee may have a remedy in civil court or under the Post Office Act,
1898.
Q: Mr. Kumar, a consumer, purchased medicines without noticing the date of
expiry. He has not taken the cash memo from the shopkeeper. Discuss the
rights and duties of Kumar in this context.
Facts:
Mr. Kumar bought medicines from a medical shop. He did not check the expiry date on the
medicine, nor did he collect a cash memo or receipt from the shopkeeper. Later, he
discovered the medicine was expired or defective.
Issues:
1. What are Mr. Kumar’s rights as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act,
2019?
2. What are his duties as a responsible consumer in such a transaction?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
Rights of the Consumer (as per Section 2(9) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019):
1. Right to safety – protection against hazardous goods.
2. Right to be informed – about quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard, and price,
including expiry date.
3. Right to seek redressal – against unfair trade practices or defective goods.
4. Right to be heard – at appropriate forums.
Duties of the Consumer:
Although the Consumer Protection Act primarily focuses on protecting consumer interests, it
also expects consumers to:
1. Be aware of product details, including expiry dates and instructions.
2. Ask for a bill or cash memo as proof of purchase.
3. Check the product before buying (especially in case of medicines, food, or
electronics).
4. Complain promptly if there is a defect.
Rationale:
• Mr. Kumar has the right to safety and right to be informed—the shopkeeper had a
duty to sell only safe and non-expired medicines and disclose relevant details.
• However, Mr. Kumar also failed in his duty as a responsible consumer by:
o Not checking the expiry date.
o Not collecting the cash memo, which is essential to prove the transaction in
case of a legal complaint.
Without a cash memo, Mr. Kumar's ability to prove the transaction in a consumer forum
becomes difficult, although not entirely impossible (e.g., through witnesses, CCTV, card
payment proof).
Hence Proved:
Mr. Kumar has consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, including the
right to safety and redressal. However, he failed in his duties as a consumer by not checking
the expiry date and not collecting the cash memo. While he may still seek a remedy, his
case will be weaker due to the lack of proof of purchase. This emphasizes the importance of
exercising both rights and duties as a vigilant consumer.
Q: There are a number of false advertisements relating to fairness creams in
print and electronic media. What are the relevant legislations to regulate
misleading advertisements in cosmetic creams?
Facts:
Numerous misleading advertisements are being published in print and electronic media,
especially related to fairness creams. These advertisements often claim unrealistic results,
exploit social insecurities, and may deceive consumers.
Issues:
What are the relevant laws and authorities that regulate false or misleading
advertisements in the context of cosmetic creams, especially fairness products?
Relevant Legislations and Authorities:
1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019
• Section 2(28): Defines misleading advertisement as one that falsely describes a
product or gives a false guarantee.
• Section 2(47): Includes misleading advertisements under unfair trade practices.
• Section 21: Empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to:
o Investigate, issue directions, and penalize endorsers/manufacturers.
o Order withdrawal or modification of misleading advertisements.
o Impose penalty up to ₹10 lakh (and ₹50 lakh for subsequent offences).
2. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
• Prohibits advertisements of drugs and remedies that claim to:
o Improve fairness, sexual potency, beauty, or miraculous cures.
• Section 3 & 4: Ban misleading claims relating to the treatment or enhancement of
physical attributes.
• Applicable to cosmetic creams making unrealistic fairness claims.
3. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
• Governs the manufacture and sale of cosmetics.
• Misbranding or misleading labels/claims attract penalties under this Act.
• Rule 148 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945: Prohibits claims that give false
impressions about a cosmetic’s efficacy.
4. Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) – Self-regulatory Body
• Enforces the Code for Self-Regulation in Advertising.
• Has specific guidelines for advertising fairness creams, including:
o No promotion of social prejudice.
o Claims must be scientifically substantiated.
o Avoiding unrealistic or guaranteed results.
Though ASCI is not a statutory authority, its guidelines are respected by the judiciary and the
CCPA often considers ASCI decisions.
5. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995
• Prohibits airing of advertisements that are misleading, false, or harmful to public
interest.
• The Advertising Code under this Act is enforced by the Ministry of Information
and Broadcasting.
Judicial Viewpoint:
In CCPA v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, and other recent rulings, courts have
upheld that misleading ads—especially those preying on beauty norms—must be
scrutinized strictly.
Hence Proved:
False advertisements related to fairness creams are regulated under multiple laws, including
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Drugs and Magic Remedies Act, 1954, and Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Enforcement is also supported by bodies like ASCI and the
CCPA, which have powers to penalize, ban, or modify misleading cosmetic
advertisements.
Q: Lordwell Ltd. purchased five cars from an automobile dealer for the use of
its executives. One of the cars had a manufacturing defect. Can the company
file a complaint for replacement of the car?
Facts:
• Lordwell Ltd., a company, purchased five cars from an automobile dealer.
• The cars were bought for the use of its executives, not for resale or commercial
profit.
• One car had a manufacturing defect.
• The company seeks to file a complaint for replacement.
Issues:
Can a company, which purchases goods (in this case, cars) for its employees’ use, be
considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and thus file a complaint
for replacement of defective goods?
Holding Law / Applied Law:
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
• Section 2(7): Defines a consumer as:
Any person who buys goods or hires services for consideration, but excludes
those who obtain goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
However, "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person for the
purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment.
Rationale:
• In this case, Lordwell Ltd. purchased cars not for resale or commercial
exploitation, but for internal use by its executives (e.g., for travel, official duties,
etc.).
• The purpose is organizational utility, not profit-making from the cars.
• Courts have held that where goods are used as tools or instruments to facilitate work
or functioning (and not sold for profit), such usage does not amount to commercial
purpose.
Case Law Reference:
H.P. State Electricity Board v. Mahesh Dahiya,
It was held that juridical persons (like companies) can be consumers if the goods/services
are not used for commercial purposes in the strict sense (e.g., resale/profit).
Conclusion / Hence Proved:
Yes, Lordwell Ltd. can file a consumer complaint for replacement of the defective car,
since the cars were purchased not for resale or commercial profit, but for the use of its
executives. Therefore, the company qualifies as a consumer under the Consumer
Protection Act, 2019, and is entitled to seek redressal for the manufacturing defect.