Consumer Protection: Introduction and Purpose
Consumers are of the utmost importance in an economic system as they are the central source of demand for goods and services. Simply put, a consumer is an individual who avails products and services for personal use and satisfaction. In light of ever-increasing wants steering by the growing needs of the population,the protection of the consumers has become more important than ever. The rapid growth of consumption has resulted in a phenomenon wherein customers are regularly lured by sellers into purchasing adulterated, low-quality products. Customers are also exploited through the means of false advertisements and inaccurate information. The United Nations Guidelines on Consumer Protection proposing the adoption of various measures for the protection of the consumers were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1985.
CONSUMER PROTECTION IN INDIA: A TIMELINE
- The Manu Smriti–The ancient Indian society would follow the rules and principles that were prescribed in the “Manusmriti” or the “code of Manu”, which is the most well-known of the ancient theological texts in India, described ethical trade practices. Manu, the ancient lawgiver, had also prescribed certain punishments that’d be dealt out to fraudulent traders. Thus, “consumer protection” is an age-old notion, which has its roots in ancient legal texts.
- Artha Shastra – Kautilya’sArthashastra bestowed the responsibility of maintaining fair trade practices upon the “Director of Trade”. Arthashastra, a discourse on statecraft, also mandated the establishment of standard weights and measures.
- Consumer Protection under British Administrators – Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests were acknowledged in some of the legislations that were established under the British rule. These legislations includethe Indian Penal Code of 1860, The Indian ContractAct of 1872, The Sale of Goods Act of 1930, The Drugs and Cosmetics Act of 1940,and so on.
- Consumer Protection in Post-colonial India – After the nation achieved independence in 1947, various Acts were established for the preservation of the interests of the consumers. These include:
- The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954
- The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
- The Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976
- The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- The Competition Act, 2002
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019
- The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – The Consumer Protection Act, which came into effect on December 24, 1986, provided for the foundation of consumer protection councils at the central, state, and district levels for the safeguarding of the interests of the consumers and the settlement of consumer grievances. This Act was later replaced by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION: LEGISLATIONS AND CASE JUDGMENTS
Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 defines “Services”. The definition has been laid down to include “services” of any description that are provided in exchange for any form of consideration.
Meanwhile, under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, a consumer “includes any person who buys any goods for consideration or hires/avails any services for consideration”.
Section 2(1)(g) establishes “a deficiency of services” which includes services that fall short of the reasonable standards that were expected in exchange for any form of consideration.
The jury is still out on whether educational institutions fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. However, various consumer councils and forums have delivered judgments excto protect students from deceitful assurances. In September 2000, in the case ofBhupeshKhurana and others vs. Vishwa Buddha Parishad and Others,[1]the National Commission held that the services rendered by educational institutions fell under the scope of “Services” defined in the 1986 Consumer Protection Act.
A student who sought to apply for re-evaluation of his results was considered to be within the ambit of “Consumer” under the 1986 Act by the Court in Ram Kumar Aswani vs. M/S A.K. Structural Foam Limited.[2]
In the case of Birla Institute of Technology and Science vs. Abhishek Mengi,[3]the complainant had not been refunded his full fees which resulted in the National Commission observing that the confiscation of fees by the institute would amount to “unfair trade”.
SonalMatarpurkar vs. S. Niglingappa Institute[4]saw the National Commission observing that the institute must refund the donation and compensate the students for deficiency of services.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court held that educational institutions constituted industries under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 in the case of Bangalore Sewage Boat and Water Supply etc. vs. Rajappa and Others.[5]
While the aforementioned cases are instances wherein the National Forums and Commissions have provided the aggrieved with redressals, several judgments have seen the Courts and Commissions refusing to accept educational institutions as service providers. The same was held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Suresh Prasad Sinha[6]and P.T. Koshy &Anr.vs Ellen Charitable Trust and Ors.[7].
RIGHTS OF THE CONSUMERS AND THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE STUDENTS
Under the Consumer Protection Act, the government confers various rights upon the consumers such as:
- Right to safety
- Right to Choose
- Right to be informed
- Right to be heard
- Right to seek Redressal
- Right to Consumer Education’
Meanwhile, the students are also entitled to various rights in the form of Right to Education, Right to information, Right to receive a good quality education, Right to Redressal and grievances, and so on.
An educational institution, such as a school or University, provides educational services to the students in exchange for some consideration. However, the University-student relationship isn’t beiidentical to the relationship between a buyer and a seller as the institute requires its students to meet certain criteria. In the case of Taneja vs. Calcutta District Forum[8], it was held that the student-teacher relationship did not constitute a consumer-service provider relationship.
The Central University Act, 2009, which provides for rules and norms to aid the students in receiving a good quality education and provides for redressal of grievances, is still considered lacking in several significant aspects by many.
MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY vs. SURJEET KAUR[9]
In this case, the respondent was pursuing a full-time course and another correspondence course simultaneously and was found to violate clause 17(b) of the General Rules of Examination.
The University found the students violating the rules and regulations of the university and directed the same to disenroll from one course. The student, however, took part in the supplementary exam of the correspondence course despite having un-enrolled from the same.
The apex court, in this case, held that education is not a commodity and the university isn’t a service-provider. The court observed that these matters cannot be entertained by the Consumers Act.
CONCLUSION
The Bangalore Water Supply Case Judgment bore witness to the Court classifying educational institutions as a type of Industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
While these institutions provide the students with certain services in exchange for some consideration, it is to be kept in mind that not all services fall under the purview of “marketable services”. In the Bihar School Examination Board case, the Apex Court had observed that conducting examination does not come under “marketable services”. However, educational institutions cannot be completely excluded from the narrative of “consumer protection” as the same may result in the educational sector turning into a business sector.
Also, the aggrieved or the complainant, who is looking forward to the redressal of grievances, must be sure about the “service-provider”.
The population of India is equivalent to 17.7% of the total world population, 41% of which account for people below 18 years of age. The privatization of educational institutions in a country like India is an unavoidable phenomenon. The Apex Court unfollowing the trend of not recognizing educational institutes as service-providers will help in this scenario as it will prevent this sector from turning into a business sector. At the same time, a student should be prevented from availing undue advantage as a consumer of their services.
By-
Abantika Ghosh
[1]BhupeshKhurana v. Vishwa Hindu Parishad, (2001) 2 CPJ 74 (NC)
[2]1993 CPC 383 (India)
[3]Birla Institute of Technology & Science v. Abhishek Mengi, 2013 SCC OnLine NCDRC 394: (2013) 2 CPJ 681 (NC)
[4]SonalMatapurkar v. S. Niglingippa Institute, 1997 (2) CPJ 5 (NC)
[5]Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board etc vs. Rajappa and Others (1978) 2 S.C.C. 213 (India).
[6]Bihar School Examination Board v. Suresh Prasad Sinha, (2009) 8 SCC 483 (India).
[7]P.T. Koshy and Another vs. Allen Charitable Trust and Others, 3 CPC 615 (SC) (India)
[8]N. Taneja v. Calcutta District Forum, 1991 SCC Online Cal 241: AIR 1992 Cal 95
[9]MaharshiDayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, (2010) 11 SCC 159
Previous post: https://desikanoon.in/interview-of-yashvardhan-rana-recipient-of-top-50-emerging-ip-players-award/