Comparative Analysis of Consumer Protection Act 1986 And 2019

INTRODUCTION

For every economy to grow, and for the world to become a better place, a nation must make its population happy. This can be done through one of the parameters, that is making the consumers happy and satisfied with the goods they sell and buy. Thus, consumer protection is of utmost importance to be practiced. In India, in the year 1986, the legislature passed the Consumer Protection Act which safeguards the rights of consumers and further puts up an obligation on sellers to fulfill their duties and dispense them. The Consumer Protection Act promotes the interests and welfare of buyers emphasizing caveat emptor meaning the buyer beware. Thereby, a need comes to structure this protection and welfare of consumers by legislation like that of consumer protection.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1986

In the year 1986, lawmakers decided to structure the protection of consumers by passing and enforcing the Consumer Protection Act. The act dealt with promising the needs of the buyer and his rights after the reporting of many cases where this duty was breached. The act thereby led to punishment and serious consequences if the seller failed to keep up with his duty and this multi-dimensional approach has led to various judicial pronouncements as well as paving the way for safeguarding such rights. Section 6 of this act dots down various provisions and mentions about the protection of consumer rights- 

• Right to get safe goods and safety from hazardous goods or substances.^[1]

This means that no seller will sell harmful or heinous substances or products to any consumer that may harm him or her.

• No false statement or misrepresentation of goods to be made by the seller. ^[2]

This means the fact that the seller who may sell his goods should not make any wrong statement of facts that leads to the sale of his misrepresented goods. It might happen that the false claims which may sound good cause some side effects or some harm physically to the person who has consumed those goods. In the recent case of Patanjali, the Supreme Court has said that no such misrepresentations or false claims will be tolerated that cause harm in the future. Also, the court of law has asked Patanjali to stop such advertisements and promote what’s real. 

• Right to choice

The consumer when buying any of the goods should get various options so that his choice is not violated and breached. Also, his or her choice of buying any goods may not be restricted to the mind of the seller and he must provide as many as possible options he has to the buyer.

CASE- INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION V. VP SHANTHA AND OTHERS^[3]

In this case, the medical association that is the hospital failed to provide the proper medical services that a medical practitioner needs to perform. Also, this negligence in failing to provide these services led to some issues for the patient. This matter was redressed under the Consumer Protection Act and additionally in the Indian Medical Council act as well. The court of law ruled in this case that the association failed to [provide the best services and the fees taken against them should be duly returned.

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 2019

Every act needs to be amended to meet the needs of the evolving society and the demands of consumers as well. Thus, an amendment was thereby introduced in the year 2019 by the legislature in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to cope with the upcoming needs. This act now created a better mechanism and structure for consumer redressal, and it also expanded its scope further, not just limiting itself to the traditional Consumer Protection Act 1986. Let’s dive into the major provisions and additions made in the amended act of 2019. 

• Expanding the scope and inclusion

The traditional Consumer Protection Act was narrower in its scope limiting itself to just a few areas like misrepresentations and false claims. However, this amended act expanded its scope further to false description and guarantees as well as concealment of facts at may be holding utmost importance for consumers. 

• Increment in punishments and fines

In the new act, the punishments and fines that are imposed have increased. Now, under this a seller if unable to fulfill his obligations and duties can be sentenced from 12 months to three years. Also, a fine of 10 to 50 lakhs can be imposed determining the breach of consumer protection. 

• Establishment of a central consumer protection authority.^[4]

One of the major changes to the amendment was the establishment of a central consumer protection authority which was not present in the traditional 1986 Consumer Protection Act. The establishment of this authority has acted as a mediator in solving and disposing of various cases regarding where there was a breach of the buyer’s right and seller’s obligation. It was a fast and economical method of disposing of cases as well as providing justice to people. 

CASE- HORLICKS LTD V. ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD. (2020)^[5]

Both companies are involved in the production of nutritional drinks. Zydus advertised for its rival company degrading its image and its product. The electronic media is one source that spreads widely, and this led to a fall in the reputation of Horlicks and its goods. The case went to the Delhi High Court where the judicial precedent of PepsiCo v. Coca-Cola was used. It was held that the advertisement against the rival company cannot be deemed to be correct as it firstly degrades its image in society as well as creates doubt in the minds of people regarding its ingredients.

CONCLUSION

Consumer protection is the foremost duty of any seller, and the buyer must get his or her rights exercised to ensure shortly such acts do not happen. In the comparative analysis of the Consumer Protection Act, it is concluded that the 1986 act was narrower and its ambit was not wider. Also, there didn’t exist any proper authority like that in the case of the 2019 act where one can get redressal under central consumer protection authority. Another point of distinction is that the amended act is far more structured, and strictness has been followed. 

Reference(s):

[1] Jain s, ‘Comparative Analysis of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and 2019’ [2020] lawlex.org

[2] TRH, ‘COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 WITH THE 2019 ACT’ II(I) Indian Journal in Integrated Research in Law

[3] Indian medical association v V P Shantha, Supreme court of India, 1996 AIR 550, 1995 SCC (6) 651 (India)

[4] Jain s, ‘Comparative Analysis of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and 2019’ [2020] lawlex.org

[5] HORLICKS LTD V. ZYDUS WELLNESS PRODUCTS LTD. (2020), Supreme court of India, 2020 (India)