Consumer Is Not Always Right

However, there are instances when judgements unfavourable for the consumers have been made. It is equally important to pay attention to these as well. Keeping this is mind, here are two decisions of the National Commission, the highest consumer court.

Court fee

Can a litigant who has instituted a suit or other proceedings in a civil court after payment of court fee be regarded as a consumer who has hired or availed of a service on the payment of a consideration?

The National Commission considered this situation and in an order on December 15, 1993, observed, "The dispensation of justice is not conducted by the court as a quid pro quo for the court fee that has been remitted. All sums levied and collected as court fees go to the consolidated fund of the state and hence, it cannot be said that the payment of court fee was by way of consideration for the hiring or availing of a service from the Court."

A person paying court fee cannot therefore be regarded as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus the National Commission has enunciated a very important principle which has a very wide application.

Computer service

The use of computers is becoming increasingly popular. It is but natural then that the users may sometimes face problems related to its use and purchase.

A case addressing this point was that of a person who purchased a computer with the service contract covering the period between June 19, 1992 and June 18, 1993. There was a dispute over the charges demanded for a part replaced in the machine in September 1992. The company selling the computer billed the part for Rs 1,500 in October 1992.

The consumer protested and did not pay. The bill was subsequently reduced to Rs 1,250, but the consumer still refused to make the payment. The company reacted to this non-payment by sending a 'stop service' notice to the client.

However, irrespective of this action on the part of the seller, the service contract for which the payment had been made earlier, expired in June 1993. The computer allegedly broke down, the data was wiped out and the software was removed in May 1994. Events after June 1993 was not covered by any agreement.

In the light of this, the National Commission in its order on January 24, 1997 held in appeal that no case of deficiency of service can be made out under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, the National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission and dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.

A refresher course

For newcomers to Caveat Emptor, here are some useful definitions. The words 'deficiency' and 'service' are defined as follows in the Consumer Protection Act:

Section 2(1) (g) Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

Section 2(1) (0): Service is of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities for banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or loading or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but excludes any service rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

Under the three-tier redressal forum of the CPA, the district forum, state

forum, and finally the apex body, the National Commission, examine claims

for compensation under Rs 5 lakh, between Rs 5 and 20 lakh and over Rs 20 lakh respectively.