Basic or Essential Amenities and Services
Essential utility provisions, such as electricity and LPG gas distribution, are covered under consumer protection laws because payments for these connections constitute valid legal consideration.
Tenants using an electrical connection with their landlord’s consent qualify as consumers, and state electricity boards or private providers fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora.
As established in Manju Singh Chauhan v. M.P. Electricity Board and Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Y.N. Gupta, disconnecting power without notice, delaying billing, raising sudden back-dated arrears, billing without actual meter readings, or denying sufficient payment windows constitute actionable deficiencies in service.
Similarly, LPG distributors supplying gas cylinders for payment, including cylinder hiring costs, are liable before Consumer Fora for negligence or defects relating to their safety and delivery.
9.4 E-commerce: Within the Ambit of Consumer Protection Act
Under Section 2(16) of the Consumer Protection Act, “e-commerce” means the buying or selling of goods, services, or digital products over electronic networks.
Section 2(17) defines an “electronic service provider” as any person who supplies technology or processes enabling sellers to market or sell products, expressly including online marketplaces and auction sites.
Even before these statutory inclusions in the 2019 Act, Consumer Fora regularly exercised jurisdiction over online transactions, holding entities accountable for defective products, deficient services, and unfair trade practices in digital commerce.
9.4.1 Cancellation of Orders - Supriyo Ranjan Mohapatra case.
In Supriyo Ranjan Mohapatra v. Amazon Development India Pvt. Ltd., a student ordered a laptop listed at a heavily discounted price of ₹190 instead of ₹23,499 during an Amazon promotion.
Amazon sent an official confirmation email but cancelled the order two hours later due to a price error.
After ignoring his legal notice, the student purchased a laptop elsewhere and sued Amazon for deficiency in service.
Amazon claimed immunity as an intermediary without privity of contract because the product was listed by a third-party seller.
However, the District Forum and State Commission rejected this defense, with the State Commission enhancing the compensation.
It held that the student was a valid consumer under Section 2(d)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act because Amazon displayed the advertisement, processed the order, and issued the confirmation.
9.4.2 Wrong Description - Sri Animesh Baidya case
In Sri Animesh Baidya v. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., a customer bought a smartphone on Amazon based on a listing promising dual nano-SIM support with dedicated expandable memory.
However, the device had a hybrid slot, forcing the user to choose between a second SIM card and an SD card.
When Amazon refused the return, claiming non-defective items were non-returnable, the buyer filed a consumer complaint against Amazon and the manufacturer, relying on the product listing and invoice.
Amazon claimed to be a mere facilitator protected by “safe harbor” under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and sought dismissal due to non-joinder of the third-party seller.
Overturning the lower forum’s view, the SCDRC held that since the transaction occurred on Amazon’s platform and was delivered through its logistics division, Amazon functioned as a co-seller.
It ordered Amazon to refund the purchase price with costs, while allowing it to seek recovery from the manufacturer.
9.4.3 Quality Issues - Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd v. Rahul Popal
In Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Rahul Popal, a buyer purchased a smartphone featuring a 1-year warranty on Amazon, but experienced persistent overheating, charging, and connectivity defects immediately upon delivery.
Despite multiple unsuccessful repair attempts by Amazon’s service center—including software updates, battery replacements, and motherboard repairs—Amazon consistently denied the buyer’s request for a replacement device.
After the manufacturer also failed to rectify the defects, the buyer won a consumer complaint, which Amazon appealed by claiming immunity as a middleman selling sealed boxes under manufacturer warranty and arguing a lack of local territorial jurisdiction.
Dismissing the appeal, the State Commission held that the local District Forum possessed jurisdiction because the product was ordered and delivered to the buyer’s residence.
Furthermore, since Amazon profits directly from user clicks and order volumes, it has a legal obligation to ensure product quality standards, rendering Amazon jointly and severally liable with the manufacturer for service deficiencies and customer harassment.
E-Commerce Rules under the Act
Enforceable from July 23, 2020, under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules impose clear legal duties and liabilities on sellers, marketplace aggregators, inventory platforms, and foreign e-commerce companies serving Indian consumers.
The framework requires platforms to appoint a Grievance Officer, provide complaint tracking systems, and display details regarding returns, refunds, warranties, shipping, and payment options.
The rules also prohibit unfair trade practices such as fake reviews, misleading advertisements, and refusal to accept returns for defective items.
Sellers must display itemized price details and ensure the genuineness of imported goods.
Notices Through WhatsApp
In Aleena Nelson v. Amjomol Jose, a consumer paid for a kurta and dupatta through Google Pay, but the seller failed to deliver the items and stopped communication.
When the seller repeatedly changed physical locations to evade court summonses, the buyer sought permission to serve notice digitally.
Relying on Section 65 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which authorizes electronic service, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, recognizing modern messaging platforms for effective service, the Consumer Commission allowed legal notices to be served through WhatsApp and other electronic means, preventing respondents from avoiding legal liability by shifting addresses.
Restrictive Trade Practice- S. 2(41)and Unfair Trade Practice-S. 2(47)
Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, restrictive trade practice and unfair trade practice are two important forms of consumer exploitation.
A restrictive trade practice refers to a business practice that manipulates prices, delivery or supply of goods and services in a way that imposes unjustified costs or restrictions on consumers.
It includes deliberately delaying supply to increase prices and forcing a consumer to purchase one product or service as a condition for obtaining another.
On the other hand, an unfair trade practice involves false, misleading or deceptive methods to promote the sale or supply of goods and services.
It includes falsely representing the quality, quantity, standard or benefits of products, selling second-hand goods as new, making false claims about sponsorship or approval, misleading warranties or guarantees, fake bargain prices, unsafe or spurious goods, failure to issue bills or receipts, refusal to take back defective goods or refund money, and improper disclosure of consumers’ personal information.
The 2019 Act expanded the scope of unfair trade practices and strengthened consumer protection by addressing refunds, defective goods, deficient services, bills and consumer privacy.
These provisions aim to prevent consumer manipulation, promote fair competition and ensure fair treatment in the marketplace.
Section 9.6: Unfair Contract under Section 2(46)
Under Section 2(46) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, an “unfair contract” is defined as an agreement between a business and a buyer containing terms that significantly alter or diminish consumer rights.
The statute identifies six abuses: demanding excessive security deposits, imposing penalties disproportionate to actual losses, refusing early debt payoffs, granting unilateral termination rights without valid cause, allowing contract reassignment without consumer consent, and enforcing harsh or unreasonable conditions.
This provision protects consumers against standard “take-it-or-leave-it” terms imposed by banks, service providers and e-commerce portals where consumers lack bargaining power.
Building upon earlier judicial rulings, the 2019 Act gives consumers clear grounds to challenge biased or one-sided contract terms before Consumer Fora.
9.6.1 One-Sided Contracts - Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. case
In Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna, the Supreme Court held that one-sided apartment buyer agreements favoring real estate developers at the expense of homebuyers are unfair trade practices and cannot legally bind the weaker party.
The Court noted that while consumer fora had implicit authority to strike down oppressive terms under the 1986 Act, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 gives the State and National Commissions explicit power to declare such unfair terms null and void.
The ruling also clarified that consumer remedies operate in addition to RERA provisions, supported by Sections 18, 79 and 88.
However, under the doctrine of election of remedies, an aggrieved homebuyer must choose one legal pathway, as selecting one forum precludes simultaneous proceedings before another for the same cause of action.
9.7 Advertisement—S. 2(1)
Under Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, an “advertisement” includes any audio, visual, digital, print or physical representation, including labels, wrappers and invoices, used to promote goods or services.
In Francis Vadakkan v. The Proprietor, A-One Medicals & Ors., a buyer sued after a hair cream failed to deliver its advertised promise of tripling hair growth within weeks.
Despite the manufacturer’s defense of individual result variations and the celebrity endorser’s claim of non-use and lack of control over the advertisement, the Consumer Commission ruled for the buyer.
It held that endorsers must verify product claims before promoting them and held the manufacturer and celebrity liable for ₹10,000 each in compensation, while the selling medical store was fined ₹3,000 for misleading the consumer.
10. Consumer Protection Councils
The Consumer Commission concluded the misleading advertisement case by holding that celebrities share responsibility for verifying product claims before endorsement.
Accordingly, the hair cream manufacturer and celebrity were each directed to pay ₹10,000 as compensation to the complainant, while the selling medical store was fined ₹3,000.
Beyond individual disputes, Chapter II of the Consumer Protection Act provides a framework for consumer advocacy through Consumer Protection Councils at three levels—Union, State, and District—to advise on protecting consumer interests.
The Central Council is established by the Union Government under the chairmanship of the Central Minister of Consumer Affairs and must meet at least once annually.
Similarly, State Councils under Section 6 are headed by the State Consumer Affairs Minister, while District Councils are headed by the District Collector, with both required to meet at least twice a year.
11. Mediation
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 incorporates mediation to establish a two-pronged dispute resolution system alongside its 3-tier quasi-judicial adjudication hierarchy.
Under these provisions, parties may be referred to mediation at any stage of the proceedings, provided the presiding Consumer Commission finds viable elements of a settlement acceptable to both the consumer and the opposing party.
11.1 Mediation Cells
Chapter V of the Consumer Protection Act governs all mediation proceedings by mandating dedicated mediation cells attached to every District and State Commission, as well as the National Commission and its regional benches.
Each mediation cell is required to maintain an official panel of empanelled mediators, detailed case records, proceeding documentation, and other regulatory information.
To maintain oversight and track dispute resolution progress, every cell must submit a quarterly report (every 3 months) to its respective Consumer Commission.
11.2 Panel of Mediators
Under Section 11.2 of the Consumer Protection framework, each Consumer Commission forms a 5-year panel of mediators based on recommendations from a selection committee comprising the Commission President and a member, following regulations set by the National Commission.
While assigning a case, the Commission must ensure that the mediator’s expertise matches the dispute, and the mediator must disclose any financial, personal, or professional conflict of interest that could affect impartiality.
The Commission may replace a mediator after hearing them if such a conflict arises.
Under Regulation 8 of the Consumer Protection (Mediation) Regulations, 2020, the Commission President fixes a consolidated fee based on the matter’s complexity, which both parties split equally and pay in advance; if mediation fails, the mediator receives only half of the deposited fee.
11.3 Place of mediation and Special Considerations
Under Section 11.3, mediation sessions must be held within the dedicated mediation cell attached to the relevant Consumer Commission and conducted within set time limits.
According to Regulation 12 of the Consumer Protection (Mediation) Regulations, 2020, the appointed mediator acts as a non-binding facilitator who clears misunderstandings and helps parties generate options for a voluntary resolution, but cannot impose settlement terms.
The mediator considers the parties’ rights and duties, trade practices, case background, and principles of natural justice.
Regulation 13 further mandates absolute confidentiality and prohibits audio or video recordings to maintain an open environment.
11.4 Settlement Report, Written Agreements and Signatures
Under Section 11.4 of the Consumer Protection rules, whenever mediation resolves some or all issues, the terms must be put in writing and signed by the parties or their authorized representatives after the mediator clearly explains all conditions.
The mediator then prepares a settlement report and submits it, along with the signed agreement, to the presiding Consumer Commission; if no compromise is reached within the allowed time or settlement is impossible, a failure report is submitted.
Upon receiving a successful settlement report, the Consumer Commission must issue an order recording the agreement and dispose of the matter within 7 days.
If mediation fails entirely, the Commission resumes proceedings on all issues, while in case of partial settlement, it records the settled terms and hears only the remaining unresolved matters.
11.5 Consumer Protection (Mediation) Rules, 2020
Section 11.5 details the Consumer Protection (Mediation) Rules, 2020, which provide the legal framework for voluntary dispute resolution when Consumer Commissions find potential for mutual settlement, with complainants receiving a full refund of their application fee upon referral.
However, Rule 4 excludes certain high-stakes or public disputes from mediation, including medical negligence causing severe injury or death, serious fraud, forgery, criminal non-compoundable offences, mass consumer claims, and matters with no settlement scope.
Each Mediation Cell is supported by a designated mediator panel, support staff, and government-provided infrastructure.
The rules also bar parties from initiating parallel judicial or arbitral proceedings on the mediated subject matter and provide that an executed settlement agreement remains enforceable by or against the deceased party’s legal representatives rather than expiring upon death.
12. Composition, Jurisdiction and Powers of Redressal Commissions
While the 2019 Act has retained the district, state and national level classification, it has introduced some changes in the composition and jurisdiction of the hierarchy of the consumer commissions.
12.1 District Commission
12.1.1 Composition
Section 12.1.1 outlines the establishment and composition of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, placing the duty on State Governments to set up a District Commission across all districts, comprising a President and a minimum of two members, with any upper member limit set in consultation with the Central Government.
While the Central Government defines member qualifications, the State Government regulates salaries, allowances, and service terms.
Section 31 provides transitional protections for incumbents appointed before the 2019 Act, allowing them to serve out their full terms, while Section 36 specifies that valid Commission proceedings require the President and at least one member to hear cases together.
12.1.2. Jurisdiction and Other Provisions
Section 12.1.2 of the Consumer Protection Act outlines the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of District Commissions under Section 34.
Financially, District Commissions can hear complaints where the total consideration paid for goods or services does not exceed ₹50 lakh, subject to future modifications by the Central Government.
Territorially, a complaint may be filed where the opposite party resides, conducts business, maintains a branch office, or works for gain, with special permission required if only one of multiple opposite parties falls within its local limits.
Jurisdiction also extends to any district where the cause of action arises wholly or in part, or where the complainant personally resides or works for gain.
The State Government may also establish Commission sittings beyond traditional district headquarters in consultation with the State Commission.
Difference of Opinion
Difference of opinion arises between the President and a member during a Commission proceeding, the specific points of disagreement must be formally recorded and referred to another member for hearing.
The referred member must give their opinion within one month from the date of reference.
The final decision of the Commission is based on the majority opinion of the participating members.
12.2 State Commission
12.2.1 Composition
Section 12.2.1 sets out the structure and operational framework of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), established by the State Government—typically in the state capital, with provisions for regional benches.
It consists of a President along with at least 4 members, subject to maximum limits defined in consultation with the Central Government.
While member qualifications are determined by the Central Government, the State Government regulates their salaries, allowances, and terms of service and provides the necessary support staff under the general superintendence of the President.
Additionally, Section 45 provides transitional protection, ensuring that Presidents and members appointed before the commencement of the 2019 Act remain in office until their original terms expire.
12.2.2 Jurisdiction and Other Provisions
A. 12.2.2.1 Jurisdiction
Section 12.2.2.1 details the jurisdiction of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Financially, the State Commission has original jurisdiction to entertain consumer complaints where the consideration paid for goods or services ranges between ₹50 lakh and ₹2 crore, subject to Central Government modification, and matters concerning unfair contracts valued up to ₹10 crore.
It also serves as an appellate body to hear appeals against orders issued by any District Commission within the state.
Furthermore, it retains revisional authority to call for records and pass corrective orders in District Commission cases where the lower tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to exercise its authority, or acted with material irregularity or illegality.
Benches.
The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the State Commission may be exercised by Benches constituted by the President with other member(s).
Such benches will be presided over by the senior-most member.
Difference of Opinion.
If bench members differ on a point, it will be determined by majority.
If they are equally divided, the points of difference will be stated and referred to the President, who may hear the matter himself or refer it to other members.
In the latter case, it will be determined by a majority of members, including those who first heard it.
Such subsequent opinions must be given within one month from the date of reference.
A complaint can be instituted before a State Commission whose jurisdiction—
(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties – at the time of instituting such complaint, (i) ordinarily resides, (ii) carries on business, (iii) has a branch office, (iv) personally works for gain.
It may be noted that permission of the State Commission will be required where a complaint is sought to be instituted where only one of many opposite parties at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain;
(b) the cause of action arises – wholly or in part,
(c) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.
B. 12.2.2.2 Powers
In the interests of justice, the Commission can suo motu or on the application of the complainant transfer any complaint pending before a District Commission to another District Commission within the State at any stage of the proceedings.
Section 49(2) also provides that the Commission may declare any term of a contract unfair to a consumer to be null and void.
The SCDRCs may also direct any individual, organization, or expert to assist it in matters concerning the larger interests of consumers, either on the application of the complainant or otherwise.
12.3 National Commission
12.3.1 Composition
Section 12.3.1 details the composition and regulatory framework of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), established by the Central Government to function primarily in the National Capital Region, with provisions for regional benches.
The Commission comprises a President and a minimum of four members, whose terms, qualifications, and salaries are regulated by the Central Government, with Section 55(2) ensuring that service conditions cannot be altered to their disadvantage after appointment.
Appointments are for a five-year term with re-appointment eligibility, subject to maximum age limits of 70 years for the President and 67 years for members.
In the President’s absence or vacancy, duties fall to the senior-most member.
Transitional provisions further ensure that officeholders appointed before Section 177 of the Finance Act, 2017 remain governed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
12.3.2 Jurisdiction and Other Provisions
Section 12.3.2 covers Section 58 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, outlining the jurisdiction and powers of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The NCDRC has original jurisdiction to hear consumer complaints and disputes over unfair contracts where the consideration paid for goods or services exceeds ₹2 crore, subject to modification by the Central Government.
It also functions as an appellate authority for orders issued by any State Commission or the Central Authority.
Additionally, the NCDRC retains revisional jurisdiction over State Commissions to correct jurisdictional errors, non-exercise of authority, or legal irregularities, but may set aside concurrent factual findings only when they are perverse, unsupported by cogent evidence, or outside proper jurisdiction.
Benches.
The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission may be exercised by Benches constituted by the President with other member(s).
Such benches will be presided over by the senior-most member.
Difference of Opinion.
When members of a Bench differ on any issue, the decision is determined by majority.
If they are equally divided, the points of disagreement are stated and referred to the President, who may hear the matter personally or assign it to other members.
The issue is then decided by an overall majority, including the original members who first heard it.
Any subsequent opinions must be delivered within two months from the date of reference.
12.3.3 Powers [S. 59(2)]
Under Section 12.3.3 [S. 59(2)], the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) possesses key administrative and judicial powers.
In the interest of justice, the NCDRC can transfer pending complaints from a District or State Commission in one state to a corresponding commission in another state at any stage, either suo motu or upon a complainant’s application.
Section 59(2) also grants the NCDRC authority to declare unfair contract terms null and void and to seek assistance from experts, individuals, or organizations in matters involving broader consumer interests.
Additionally, if the NCDRC issues an ex parte decision, the aggrieved individual or entity may apply directly to the Commission to have the order set aside.
13. Administrative Control
Section 13 outlines the supervisory structure under Section 70 of the Consumer Protection Act, placing overall administrative control of Consumer Fora under the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in consultation with the Central Government.
The NCDRC exercises administrative oversight over State Commissions by monitoring case institution, disposal, and pendency through periodic returns, conducting inquiries into misconduct allegations against Presidents or members, and submitting reports to the State and Central Governments.
It also ensures procedural uniformity, such as advance copy service and English translations of judgments, and inspects State and District Commissions without compromising their quasi-judicial independence.
Similarly, each State Commission exercises administrative authority over District Commissions within its state and regularly submits pendency reports to the State Government.