You are on page 1of 3

them with a mechanism for quick, easy repair and cheap grievance against powerful and

unscrupulous producers / traders and service providers.

Consumer Protection laws

According to this an acts according to three levels system was provided under the laws to deal with
complaints from consumers; (a) district Forum - It works at the district level and deals with
complaints from consumers on the value of the goods of other services and compensation exceeding
is not Rs. 20 Lake. (b) State Commission - It works on the level of States and handles complaints of
Rs.20 Lake value exceeding is not Rs.100 Lake. It also hears appeals against the District Forum. (c)
national Commission - It works at the national level for the value complaints exceed Rs.100 Lake and
hears appeals against the orders of the Board of the State. Complaints against any other goods
services may be preferred before the forum mentioned above by the consumer himself, else by a
consumer association recognized where the consumer is a member of another where there remain a
number of consumers with similar interests, other more consumer on behalf of another for the
benefit of all consumers who are so interested. Complaints may also be preferred by the Central of
the State Government. In accordance with article 2, paragraph 1 (c), acts, following may be subject
to the complaint-1. An unfair commercial practice remains a restrictive trade practice adopted by
any economic operator 2. Defect of the purchased goods 3. Deficiency in service 4. Overload of
prices within the scope of the purpose of this article, it should be noted a few important definitions
provided in the acts. (1) service: The word Service {article 2, paragraph 1, (o)} has been defined in
the laws for services of any kind, and includes the provision of facilities for banking, finance,
insurance, transport, transformation, power or other energy etc, but does not include the provision
of one free service on the other under a personal services contract. (2) deficiency: the lack of word
{article 2, paragraph 1 (g)}, means any fault, the imperfection, the deficiency of another mismatch in
the quality, nature and mode of execution must be kept under any law else under one contract else
otherwise. ((3) consumption: the word consumer section 2 1 d of the acts, a consumer is a person
belonging to the following category - one) we buy goods for a consideration that was paid another
promised another partially paid and partially promised under any system of deferred payment. ((b)
hiring of more products from any other services service, including any recipient remains a review
that has been paid promised else otherwise partially paid and partially promised else under any
deferred payment system c) it includes one beneficiary another user of the goods to another other
services that the person actually buys goods from other hires/availability services where it is carried
out with the approval to buy another rental. (4) consumer dispute: the case of consumption of Word
has been defined in accordance with article 2 (c) acts to mean a conflict where the person against a
complaint was filed denied else contests the allegation in the complaint. The allegation concerned
can apply to the vice of the goods, deficiency in service, overload, sale of dangerous goods, the
adoption of commercial practices and restrictive business practices of other practices.

Study of the law of consumer protection and it applicability to the banking sector

According to acts, the 'consumer', article 2 1 d of the Act, includes a person rents availability more of
a service for consideration. So in transactions Bank, a customer of a Bank has a bank account with
the Bank or a person buys a bank draft, hires locker installation else gets the bank guarantee to a
bank to stay all 'consumers' and can submit complaints under the laws for 'deficit in service', the
share of the Bank on the other "restrictive business practices" elsewhere "unfair commercial
practice" adopted by the Bank. A person asked the sharing is a consumer, against the General
misunderstanding that the applicant for shares before their attribution may not be a consumer. The
reason for this misunderstanding is the judgment of the supreme court in the Morgan Stanley case
where the supreme court has interpreted the provisions of the Consumer Protection is before being
modified in June 1993 and held that a plaintiff cannot enjoy the status of a consumer prior to award.
Fortunately, the CPacts, has been amended in 1993 so that potential consumers, agreed to purchase
all goods and would also have the right to file a complaint. Requests to stay actions mainly made by
tender of the application to the specified banks appointed by a company for this purpose. These
banks are still required to process applications by presenting a check of the applicant for the
customs clearance, and then credit the proceeds to the account of the company. Subsequently,
society assigns actions otherwise sends the order of refund under the terms of assignment. Several
times during a treatment, the Bank lost otherwise loses some application forms. In other cases, the
Bank appoints some computer Agency for the treatment of the data. Due to an error in the diet of
the details, some stay cheques returned for re-presentation after correcting relevant errors. Instead
to make the necessary correction and re-presenting the cheque, the Bank can accommodate in the
matter, and at the time wherever the applicant comes to know of this fact, the question has already
been closed. In such cases, the money the applicant has not received by society floating stock, and
so he is not entitled to shares of the company. Here, the action would be may be against the Bank
and not the company. Can the Bank take position that the applicant did not pay all service fees to
the Bank to accept and process the request and so free services remain outside the scope of the
laws on the Protection of consumers? No, the Bank cannot escape from outside by lifting a such
excuse. The Bank is working on a commercial basis and is paid by the company to accept applications
in his name. Therefore, even if the applicant is unable to pay the bank service charges, the service is
not free. The applicant becomes a beneficiary of the services hired by the company and is therefore
the right to file a complaint against the Bank for negligence and the lack of service. Can be filed a
complaint against the Bank. To provide the most attention to the definition of the word consumer,
let us consider the following cases in the Court. These cases are still in favor of customer 1) in Punjab
and Sind Bank vs Vermand {CPJ of 1994 (3) 532}, it was considered by the Committee of State of
Punjab who holds a savings account is a consumer under the

Act. It was pointed out that the difference of the landing and the borrowing rate is the counterpart
of favor by the Bank. It also observed that even if the Bank does not charge for the provision of
facilities of check to the account holder, cannot be said that the same is given without consideration.
in fact, the cheque book facility is obtained by the applicant in return for its funding of the provision
of the Bank. (2) in the case of Grover Chandra Vimal vs Bank of India {CPJ 2000 (2) 11 (SC): AIR 2000
SC 2181}, it was argued before the supreme court on behalf of the appellant Bank, facilitated
overdraft from the Bank by promising action, is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer
Protection is. The supreme court rejected the arguments of the Bank and held that this Bank is
rendered service offering to a consumer overdraft facilities, which is not unrequited. Bank takes over
interest and other costs as well in the provision of the service. Provision for the overdraft facility is
certainly a part of banking and falls under the meaning of 'service' as provided for in article 2 (1) (o)
acts. (3) in Shobhatai Ranoji Tardel vs Maharashtra Rajya Shahakari Krishi & development of Gramin
Bank {2004 (2) CPJ 349}, acts of the question put to the Commission of State of Maharashtra was the
recognition of the justifiability of the order of the District held forum that the Forum had no
jurisdiction for the dispute because the complainant was a member of the defendant Bank which
was recorded as part of the cooperative society of Maharashtra, 1961 and in these conditions, the
Court would be the Court of cooperative and not to the consumer court. The Council of State did not
share this point of a view. He concluded that the nature of the service, engaged by the complainant
relates to banking activity which is permitted by the Bank to proceed under the provisions of the
Reserve Bank of the India acts and acts of banking regulation, 1949 and as such, would be downright
lend themselves to the jurisdiction of a forum of consumer according to the definition of 'service'
under article 2 (1) (o) of the acts. The Council of State also held that the jurisdiction of the consumer
for one is not also waived in view of the provisions of article 3 of the Act, which provides an
additional remedy in addition to those that are available in other laws to the parties. At the same
time, we must study the following cases remaining oust by the Court. These cases stay which is held
under the Consumer Protection Law does not apply to banks. Some of these cases are listed below
one) in T.A. Abrahim vs RBI {2001 (3) CPJ 293}, RBI also came within the purview of the laws on the
Protection of consumers. The issue before the Commission of the State of Kerala was that the
complainant had requested a loan under the scheme of Housing Facility of the RBI, which he was the
employee. He said he suffered inconveniences and losses had to delay sanctioning of loan, which
amounted to the lack of service and for which he was entitled to compensation. The District Forum
held that the complaint was not easy to manage, but the Council of State before the call was
preferred by the complainant, who held it using a loan from an institution as the RBI can be regarded
as 'service' within the meaning of article 2 (1) (o) of the acts as a character of the opposite party as a
banking institution cannot be disputed. In addition, in accordance with the definition of "consumer"
in section 2 (1) (d) (ii), it is not necessary that the true consideration should transmit to the other
party at the same time that the using the service. The definition of such plans review, like the one
that is also promised. The State Commission

You might also like