CONSUMER SECURITY ACT: GOAL
The consumer security act was enacted back in 1986, to be able to mainly protect the hobbies of the client. There was common consumer movements back then. That is a consumer...?
Anybody who buys goods, which has been paid or will be paid Hires or avails something by having to pay or with credit
Services and goods obtained for commercial uses are not included.
Rights of any consumer
Someone has the following rights
Directly to safety
Directly to be informed
Right to be read
Right to Redressal
Right to Consumer Education
Popular features of Consumer Protection Act
Supplies better security of passions of consumers
Acknowledges the legal rights of the customers mentioned above
Defines and provides problems for defect, deficiency operating, unfair operate practices and restrictive trade practices*. Describes who is someone and who have all will make complaints: Buyer, A group of consumers, a consumer affiliation and the Central or the Local government.
Procedure for producing complaints
Client protection act points out three forums in which complaints can be made
*Defects in Merchandise
Defects in goods identifies
Shortcomings-Purity, quality, potency
*Deficiency in Companies
Deficiency in services identifies
Inadequacy in quality and performance
*Restrictive trade practices
Manipulation of delivery
Any activity which limits the circulation of goods.
1 . MR. KASHI PRASAD MODI VS SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONIC DEVICES P. LIMITED. Mr. Kashi Prasad Modi bought a Samsung Refrigerator and within 90 days of obtain due to normal water leakage fruit and vegetables started having spoilt and there was no cooling in the fridge. �
Mr. Modi approached CFBP on Dec 2008 with his complaint and 5th February 2009 CFBF received a letter by Samsung India Electronics Ltd. stating that the defect inside the fridge has been rectified and it is now in satisfactory doing work condition. installment payments on your MR. E. JINARAJAN VS HDFC BANK
Mister. K. Jinarajan, of Thirukunnapuzha of Kerala registered a complaint with CFBP against HDFC Bank� Borivali(W) Branch: wrongful debit of Rs. 20, 000/- from his Kottayam Subset of HDFC Lender for the money obtained through Mumbai department under distinct A/c. The situation was taken up with HDFC Mumbai as well as with Kottayam Branch on 13th November 2009 and the same was resolved for the satisfaction of Mr. E Jinarajan three or more. Mohan Lalvani, Mumbai V/s Skoda Automobile India Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad Mohan Lalvani bought Skoda Superb about December 2009. He was un- happy with the performance as well as the car as well had regular problems. A few months later on, after reducing to 5-10 km/hr and then re-accelerating, he found there was clearly a major oscillation before the car touched over 20 km/hr. The Skoda Automobile service business owners failed to identify the cause of this vibration and resolve the situation. Hence, this individual filed a complaint for the CFBP in March 2011. Case References