FREE WORKSHOP ON RERA BY ADVOCATE NEERJA SHARMA 27 SEPTEMBER 2020

hurry!!!! book your free space 

 

LIVE ON SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 27, 2020

TIME: 4:30 P.M.

ABOUT THE WORKSHOP

RERA (Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016) is an act for regulation and promotion of the real estate sector to ensure the sale of apartment, plot, or building in an efficient and transparent manner. The Act aims to protect the interest of consumers.

WORKSHOP WILL COVER

1. RERA as a career for budding lawyers

2. Practical Aspects of RERA

ABOUT THE INSTRUCTOR

ADVOCATE NEERJA SHARMA IS A FORMER LEGAL ASSISTANT, U. P. REAL ESTATE REGULATION AUTHORITY, RERA EXPERT AND ADVOCATE – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, R.E.R.A. DELHI HIGH COURT.

FOR REGISTRATION CONTACT:+ 91 8448434566

EMAIL: decodethelaw@gmail.com

 

FREE WORKSHOP ON RERA, BOOK YOUR SPACE HURRY!!!

Attention Legal Professionals – Do You want to Have your Own E-Business Card?

Attention Legal Professionals!!

Do you want to have your own E-Business Card?

Do you want to boost your Career to Attract More Clients?

Do you want your E-Business Card Becomes Popular on Google while Searching upon the type of work you are Providing to attract more clients?

Well This is the Right Opportunity For you.

Your E- Business Card together with E-Link of Website, is your Face Value, which will in turn becomes Adding Value to Clients By you.

Get your Own E-Business Card, with Introduction Get it Published on Website, with a Brief Introduction About you.

Choose from the samples. Get it Published, Use it for Clients.

A small token of Fee Worth Rs.499/- only

Contact For more Details +91 8860789347

Note: Samples Will be Shared Via Whatsapp. Once Selected by you, Payment Must be Made, Share a screen Shot. With in a day Your E-Business Card, together with Website E-Link will be Shared. Details of how to make Payment will be shared on Whatsapp.

The Offer of Publishment is LIMITED . GRAB YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

This Can be yours too

HURRY!!!!

 

Attention Legal Professionals!! Get your Own E- Business Card with E-link?

Article Writing Competition on Real Estate Law – Rights and Obligations of Home Buyers, in Pursuance of RERA

Do you like to Write?

Then this is the Right Platform for you.

DecodetheLaw is giving opportunity to all the Passionate Content Writers to Write and Earn.

Register Now For Article Writing Competition On Real Estate Law – Rights and Obligations of Home Buyers.

Perks to the Winner:-

  1. Cash Prize of Rs. 1000/-
  2. Certificate of Appreciation to the Winner
  3. Article of Winner will be Published on the Website.
  4. All the Participants will receive certificate of Participation.
  5. The Results will be declared on the Website within one week from the date of last date of Registration, Kindly make yourself updated.
  6. Email will also be sent to the Winner.
  7. Last Date of Registration –  August 31, 2020

REGISTERATION FEES : 100/-

Kindly follow Guidelines and SOP for the Competition given below.

Guidelines for Competition 

SOP FOR ARTICLE

 

Article Writing Competition - Write and Earn

Neelkamal Realtors Vs Union of India

WRIT PETITION NO. 2711 OF 2017

The provisions of RERA (Real Estate Regulatory Authority) whose constitutional validity were challenged and contentions of the parties. The second part will deal with the observation, decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and relevance/importance of the Neelkamal Case.

Introduction

In a victory for home buyers, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court vide its judgment dated 06.12.2017 upheld the validity of the various provisions of the RERA (Regulation and Development) in the matter of Neelkamal Case. The judgment dated 06.12.2017 was pronounced on a bunch of Petitions filed by real estate developers and individual plot owners, all challenging the constitutional validity of RERA (Regulation and Development). The Hon’ble Bombay High Court upheld RERA (Regulation and Development) and its applicability to ongoing projects across states.

Facts

A number of writ Petitions were filed by the builders i.e. Neelkamal Realtor Suburban Private Limited & Another (for short “the Petitioners”) of real estate project against the Union of India & Others (for short “the Respondent”) before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of various provisions i.e. first proviso to Section 3(1), Section 3(2)(a), Explanation to Section 3, Section 4(2)(l)(C) & (D), Section 5(3) and the first proviso of Section 6, Sections 7,8,18, 22,38,40,46,59,60,61,63,64 of RERA (Regulation and Development)  as being violative of the Articles 14, 19(1) (g), 20 and 300A of the Constitution of India (for short “Constitution”).

Before delving/ into the analysis or introspection of the comprehensive judgement dated 06.12.2017 pronounced by the Justices Naresh Patil and R.G. Ketkar of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it is important to understand RERA (Regulation and Development), the provisions whose constitutional validity were challenged by the Petitioners and the contentions of the Parties.

Issues

  1. Whether the provisions of RERA (Regulation and Development) as stated above are violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 20 and 300A of the Constitution or not?
  2. Whether the provisions of RERA (Regulation and Development) have retrospective/ retroactive application?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

The Petitioners advanced main submissions regarding ongoing real estate projects. The Petitioners challenged the validity of above provisions of RERA (Regulation and Development) on the following grounds:

(a) Retrospective/ retroactive application of certain provisions.

(b) Unreasonable restrictions placed by certain provisions of RERA (Regulation and Development), contrary to Article 19(1) (g) and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(c) Absence of judicial member in the REAL (Regulation and Development) constituted under Section 46 (b) of RERA (Regulation and Development).

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

(a) The Petitioners attacked the proviso of Section 3(1) by submitting that registration of ongoing projects under RERA (Regulation and Development) would be contrary to the contractual rights established between the promoters and allottees under the agreement for sale executed prior to registration under RERA (Regulation and Development), further the proviso had retrospective application.

(b) Section 4(2) (l)(C) was challenged by the Petitioners on the ground of arbitrariness and section 4(2) (l)(D) of RERA was challenged by the Petitioners on the ground that no guidance in respect of 70% of the amount realized from the allottees is provided under Section 4(2) (l) (D), and the Petitioners referred to situations where the promoters may not receive 70% of the amount from the allottees etc.

(c) Section 6 was challenged on the ground that the provision does not take into consideration practical difficulties (i.e. nonavailability of labour and raw material, stoppage of work due bto strike etc.) of the promoter to complete the project within the time line prescribed by the promoter under Section 4(2) (l) (C). That as per the proviso to Section 6, the Authority has not been given power under RERA (Regulation and Development) to grant further extension of registration of project beyond the period of one year.

(d) The Petitioners challenged the validity of Section 18 on the ground, that the Section 18(1) (a) is harsh, arbitrary, penal, and drastic and against the business of the promoter.

(e) The Petitioners submitted that provisions of penalties (Sections 59, 60, 61, 63, 64) operate retrospectively and therefore, violative of Articles 14 & 20 of the Constitution.

OBSERVATION

The Allottees approaching MahaRERA (Maharashtra’s Regulation and Development Authority) Authorities have urged for grant of interest for delayed possession in respect of their respective flats booked by them .The Agreement interalia provided that the Promoter was to hand over possession of the flat to the Allottees on 31.12.2014 with a grace period of one year i.e. by the end of 31.12.2015. The principal grievance is, the date stipulated has been deliberately ignored by the Promoter.

The Promoter principally emphasized on economic downturn faced by the them and the economical situation. He travelled through the entire report to impress as to how the economical conditions worsened the development in the project and Promoter has suffered a lot. In the appeals for the first time balance sheets are produced to show the quantum of losses successively suffered by the Promoter for last three years.

From submissions from both the sides, it emerges that the allottee does not want in each of the case to withdraw from the project. The principal grievance is payment of interest for delayed possession.

The allottee has grievances to the concession extended in the order of Ld. Member-I, MahaRERA (Maharashtra’s Regulation and Development Authority), Mumbai, subject of challenge and orders passed in respect of the said project in other cases of allottees. He has criticized the same branding it to be misuse of discretion by the Authority. He calls such order to be arbitrary in its character.

The appeal preferred by Neelkamal Realtors Versus Keshavlal Upadhyay in which on 25th April 2015 where the the promoter was declined to be entertained in respect of economic downturn or the non-availability of raw material. It was observed in the said order; the delay occasioned in completing the project cannot be attributed to be suffered by the allottee. The allottee was mandated under the terms of the agreement if he commits default to release interest @21% p.a. however when the turn of the Promoter comes, he took an umbrella to the legal provisions of MOFA (Maharashtra Ownership Flats ) to release interests @9% p.a.

when committed default in making payment suffered liability of interest at 9% p.a. Thus no concession is extended to them in remittance.

The grounds raised by the promoter and involvement of huge project of 25 buildings which is undertaken by the Promoter and additional 8 buildings to be handed over to the Govt. of Maharashtra under the Scheme may be a stalk ground reality but it will not tilt the balance so far as payment of interest is concerned to be saddled and borne by the promoter, for delayed possession.

JUDGMENT

The Promoters are directed to release interest from 7.7.2016 @ 10.05% p.a. The Promoter is at liberty to appropriate / adjust the interest if certain recoverable are due by the allottees.

Thus the allottees’ two appeals are partly allowed.

REFRENCES:

http://www.mcolegals.in/kbview?kb=Big-Win-for-Home-Buyers:-Neelkamal-Case&kid=MTI0

https://maharera.mahaonline.gov.in/Upload/PDF/vikas%20pandey%20ashish%20pandey%20vs%20neelkamal%20realtors.pdf

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82600930/

https://www.casemine.com/search/in/neelkamal%2Brealtors

This Article is Written by Mr. Keval Tachak, Final Year Student of KES College of Law, Mumbai University.

Petitions filed by real estate developers and individual plot owners, all challenging the constitutional validity of RERA (Regulation and Development)

Application Invited for Internship for Online Legal Content Writer

Instructions:

1.Send your CV and a Sample Article (Maximum words – 1400) on Real Estate Law or Corporate Law or Consumer Protection Law.

2.The candidature shall have great Writing and Research Skills

3. 5 Best Articles will be published only after Scrutinization.

4.The Content has to be Unique and Written by the Author – No Plagiarism shall be Involved.

5.Only dedicated and Passion Lovers can apply.

6. Gift will be provided to hardworking, diligent and enthusiastic candidate.

7.Selected Candidature  shall have to provide proof  incase of Student, Professional or a Lawyer.

8.Application to be sent on decodethelaw@gmail.com

9.Period of Internship – 30 days.

10. Last Date of Submission – 12.08.2020

Join 171 other subscribers

Application Invited for Internship for Online Legal Content Writer

NCDRC HELD REFUND MUST BE GIVEN TO COMPLAINANT CASE SANJAY GUPTA vs. THREE C SHELTERS PVT. LTD. & ANR. NUMBER: – 3814 OF 2017

Brief facts of the case

The original allottee booked an Apartment for the total consideration of Rs.87,16,800/- OP scheme. By letter of allocation dated 16.08.2012. Apartment No.1102 was assigned on 11 floor in Tower 11 and later on 24.08.2015 the same was endorsed in favor of the plaintiff. The agreement of the flat buyer was signed between the parties on 13.06.2013 given to the original buyer and subsequently endorsed on 24.08.2015 in favor of the claimant. Opposite parties have failed to produce the possession within 42 months with a grace period of 6 months i.e. by 16.02.2016. To date, the plaintiff has paid Rs.75,96,776/- on 05.04.2016 to opposing parties where last instalment was paid. The primary prayers made in the complaint are as follows: –[1]

  1. To direct OP to refund Rs.75,96,776 amount paid to OP with 18% p.a. penal interest.
  2. To direct OP to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000 & Rs.1,00,000 towards litigation costs.

Issue

  1. Whether OP is liable to pay refund of Rs. 75,96,776 with 18% penal interest or not?
  2. Whether OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs 5,00,000 and Rs, 1,00,000 towards litigation cost or not?

Sections invoked

  1. Section 54 of INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872: – “Effect of default as to that promise which should be performed, in contract consisting of reciprocal promises.—When a contract consists of reciprocal promises, such that one of them cannot be performed, or that its performance cannot be claimed till the other has been performed, and the promisor of the promise last mentioned fails to perform it, such promisor cannot claim the performance of the reciprocal promise, and must make compensation to the other party to the contract for any loss which such other party may sustain by the non-performance of the contract. —When a contract consists of reciprocal promises, such that one of them cannot be performed, or that its performance cannot be claimed till the other has been performed, and the promisor of the promise last mentioned fails to perform it, such promisor cannot claim the performance of the reciprocal promise, and must make compensation to the other party to the contract for any loss which such other party may sustain by the non-performance of the contract.””[2]
  2. SECTION 55 OF INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872: – “Effect of failure to perform at a fixed time, in contract in which time is essential.—When a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee, if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract. —When a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing at or before a specified time, or certain things at or before specified times, and fails to do any such thing at or before the specified time, the contract, or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee, if the intention of the parties was that time should be of the essence of the contract.” Effect of such failure when time is not essential.—If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. —If it was not the intention of the parties that time should be of the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing at or before the specified time; but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure.” Effect of acceptance of performance at time other than that agreed upon.—If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.1 —If, in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise at the time agreed, the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.

Analysis of the case

No breach of agreement by complainants: – Entitled to relief under Sections 54 and 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Argument with regard to Articles 54 and 55 of the Indian Contract Act , 1872, OPs relied on the Commission’s judgment in DLF Southern Town (P) Ltd. v. Dipu C. Seminal, in which the claimant had deposited only the booking sum and no installments were charged, while in the present case instalment was charged up to a reasonable limit and the payment was stopped without any progress in construction.

Force Majeure: –

OPs cannot take defence of force majeure because there was no construction ban and OPs would have put their money and management expertise to carry water from outside to complete the construction in time.

Joint project: –

Three C Shelters (P ) Ltd. pleaded for force majeure delay conditions and Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd., on the other hand, pleaded that Three C Shelters was responsible for the delay in construction. Each had signed the “Apartment buyer agreement” and so the Commission claimed that both were responsible for the delay.

Apartment buyer agreement: –

Bench noticed that the OP’s obviously failed to complete the project and to give the possession to the homebuyers in time under the Apartment Buyer Agreement.

Therefore, allottee are entitled to seek compensation due to the unreasonable period that lasted 1 year, the possession was to be issued in 2016.

No forfeiture of earnest money: –

So far as the issue of earnest money forfeiture is concerned, it is seen that the plaintiffs are demanding refund as the project has been delayed excessively. While the RERA, Haryana took a meeting to accelerate the project and Three C Shelters (P) Ltd. decided to complete the project in stages.

Held

The Commission noted that the OPs did not pay the government to EDC and IDC and it seems that the OPs were not serious about completing the project in due time. And there can be no question of serious money forfeiture in these circumstances.

Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Diwan Singh, (2010) 14 SCC 770, observed that subsequent purchasers are entitled to obtain interest only after the date of approval in their favour.

In view of the above, the Commission ordered Three C Shelters to refund the balance at interest of 9 per cent per year.

In one of the cases, after receiving an occupancy certificate, Orris Infrastructure (P) Ltd. is directed to complete the construction work and move the possession before 30-09-2020, paying interest of 6 percent p.a. On the amount of money deposited.

If the possession is not delivered till 30-09-2020, the complainant shall be at liberty to take refund of the total deposited amount Rs 77,58,581/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till actual payment.[3]

The opposite party Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. shall refund the amount of Rs.75,96,776/- in CC 3814/2017, Rs.85,72,435/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of respective deposits till actual payment subject to the restriction that no interest shall be payable for the period before 24.08.2015 in CC 3814/2017. The order be complied with within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite party Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- in each complaint case to the complainant(s) as cost of litigation.

References of the government websites

  1. The judgement can be found here: – https://lawsisto.com/uploads/documents/1595787480judgement2020-07-20.pdf
  2. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/07/27/ncdrc-possession-of-apartments-due-in-2016-not-handed-over-till-date-developers-directed-to-refund-amount-at-an-interest-of-9-per-annum/
  3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1648530/

 

This Article is Written by Ayush Garg, 3rd Year Student of Gujarat National Law University

[1]https://lawsisto.com/uploads/documents/1595787480judgement2020-07-20.pdf

[2]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1648530/

[3]https://lawsisto.com/uploads/documents/1595787480judgement2020-07-20.pdf

Brief facts of the case The original allottee booked an Apartment for the total consideration of Rs.87,16,800/- OP scheme. By letter of allocation dated 16.08.2012. Apartment No.1102 was assigned on 11 floor in Tower 11 and later on 24.08.2015 the same was endorsed in favor of the plaintiff. The agreement of the flat buyer was…

CERTIFICATE COURSE BASICS OF REAL ESTATE LAW IN INDIA

HURRY UP !! LIMITED SEATS

ADVOCATE  NEERJA SHARMA IN ASSOCIATION WITH LEGAL VIEWS

PRESENTS 

CERTIFICATE COURSE ON “BASICS OF REAL ESTATE LAW IN INDIA”

 ABOUT THE COURSE

The course consists of 5 modules relating to Basics of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (RERA). The course benefits to Students, Professionals, Homebuyers, Promoters and Common Citizen who is keen to know about the Real Estate Law In India.

The Course briefly explains about the position of Real Estate Law in India. 

The language of the course is simple and easy to understand. The nature of the course is descriptive with latest and lives cases. It also provides for the live case discussion and question answer session for the better understanding. 

There will be live lectures on the topics.

Live classes will be provided by the instructor Advocate Neerja Sharma and interaction of the student will take place for better understanding and knowledge.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE COURSE

o PROVIDE KNOWLEDGE OF REAL ESTATE LAW

o ACCESSIBLE STUDY MATERIAL

o LIVE INTERACTIVE CLASSES

o LIVE DISCUSSION OF CASES

o LEARNING FROM A REAL ESTATE LAW SPECIALIST

o EASY TO ACCESS

o ENHANCE YOUR CV

 MODULES OF THE COURSE

MODULE 1 – INTRODUCTION 

1. Background and Law Before RERA under Real Estate Sector

2. Objective and Definitions 

3. Spectrum of Parties and Provision Under the Act.

4. What is Real Estate Authority?

5. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 implementation and its Establishment?

6. Notification for application of the Act

7. Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Court

8. Constitutional Validity of the Act

9. How many Sections, Chapters, Rules, Regulations divided in the Act?

10. What do you mean by Rules and Regulations?

11. Power to make changes under the RERA Act, 2016?

12. Laws Linked with the Act.

MODULE 2 – BRIEF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO REGISTRATION OF REAL ESTATE PROJECTS

1. Real Estate Projects and its Registration Involvement

2. Applicability of Real Estate Projects 

3. Exempted Real Estate Projects

MODULE 3 – RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF HOME-BUYERS

MODULE4 – RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PROMOTERS 

MODULE 5 – WHO CAN FILE COMPLAINT FOR REFUND AND COMPENSATION AND ITS PROCESS? 

 NOTE – SOFT COPY OF THE BOOKLET OF THE COURSE WILL BE MAILED YOU BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE COURSE. 

  

Ø EXAMINATION DETAILS

· AN OPEN BOOK EXAMINATION WILL TAKE PLACE AFTER THE COMPLETION* OF THE COURSE

· OBJECTIVE EXAM WILL BE TAKEN

· TOTAL MARKS WILL BE 100 MARKS 

· THERE WILL BE TOTAL OF 50 QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE COURSE

· MINIMUM REQUIRED MARKS WILL BE 40 FOR PASSING THE EXAM

· CERTIFICATE WILL BE PROVIDED AFTER PASSING THE EXAMINATION

Ø ELIGIBILITY 

ANYONE INTERESTED CAN REGISTER FOR THE COURSE

Ø DURATION OF THE COURSE

· DURATION OF THE COURSE IS OF 1 MONTH 

· THE COURSE WILL COMMENCE FROM 23 AUGUST 2020

· AND THE EXAM WILL BE CONDUCTED ONCE THE COURSE IS COMPLETED.

 

REGISTRATION DETAILS

ACTUAL MARKET FEES:  2500/-

DISCOUNTED FEES  RS. 1699/-

REGISTRATION PROCESS

NOTE  – THE REGISTRATION FORM SHALL BE FILLED POST THE PAYMENT OF THE  REQUISITE REGISTRATION FEES. A PROOF OF THE SAME (SCREENSHOT) SHALL BE  ATTACHED IN THE REGISTRATION FORM.

MODE OF PAYMENT –

BHIM / PAYTM  / GOOGLE PAY / BANK ACCOUNT TRANSFER

For BHIM or any UPI – 9956360266@paytm

For Paytm – 9956360266

Bank Account Details – 

Name – Maneesh Adesh Srivastava

Account No- 919956360266

IFSC Code – PYTM0123456

IMPORTANT-   AFTER REGISTRATION IS COMPLETE A CONFIRMATION MAIL WILL BE SEND WITHIN  48 HOURS TO YOUR GIVEN MAIL ID WITH THE STUDY MATERIAL PROVIDING THE  LINK OF A WHATSAPP GROUP AND FURTHER YOU WILL BE UPDATED FROM THE GROUP.

LAST DATE OF REGISTRATION IS 22ND AUGUST 2020 

CONTACT INFORMATION

EMAIL – decodethelaw@gmail.com

                   contact.legalviews@gmail.com

MOBILE – +91 – 8860789347, 8956956486, 8004000520, 9956360266 

DOWNLOAD BROCHURE

Basics of Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 (RERA)

Consumer Protection Act,2019 in its Implementation With Effect From 20.07.2020

consumer protection act 2019

The Central Government has issued a notification designating the 20th day of July 2020 as the date of entry into force of the many provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 . With effect from the above date, the following provisions will come into force for the aforesaid date: –
a. Section 2 [Except clauses (4), (13), (14), (16), (40)] [Definitions]
b. Sections 3 to 9 (both inclusive); [Consumer Protection Councils]
c. Sections 28 to 73 (both inclusive); [Except sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58.] [Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission]
d. Sections 74 to 81 (both inclusive); [Mediation]
e. Sections 82 to 87 (both inclusive); [Product Liability]
f. Sections 90 and 91; [Except sections 88, 89, 92 & 93] [Offences and Penalties]
g. Sections 95, 98, 100, -Section101 [Except clauses (f) to (m) and clauses (zg), (zh) and (zi) of sub –section 2] [Miscellaneous]
h. Sections 102, 103, 105, 106, 107 [Except sections 94, 96, 97, 99, 104] [Miscellaneous]

Parliament passed the Consumer Protection Bill 2019 last year, which aims to amend completely the Consumer Protection Act 1986 . The Act seeks to ensure the protection of consumer interests and, for that reason, to create authorities to manage and resolve consumer disputes in a timely and efficient manner. On 9 August 2019, the Bill received the President’s assent.

The scope of the Act has been broadened by the inclusion under its purview of various provisions like e-commerce. The Act seeks to protect and strengthen consumers ‘ rights by creating authorities, enforcing strict liability and penalties on drug producers, electronic service providers, misleading marketers, and by providing direct mediation to settle consumer disputes.

There are administrative shifts in numbers of members, honorariums, and personnel in the Customer Courts. There are administrative improvements like giving notice of specific mode and the improvements are based on legal issues like giving powers of review.

Enhanced Pecuniary Jurisdiction:

The limits of pecuniary jurisdiction has been expanded in the following manner : –
• District Forum: – Rs. One Crore from Rs. Twenty Lakhs
• State Commission: – Rs. Ten Crores from Rs. One Crore
• National Commission: – Above Rs. Ten Crores from Rs. One Crores

Liability of celebrity endorse: –

The Act tackles endorser liability. ‘Endorsement’ means, pursuant to Clause 2(18),:- I any letter, verbal declaration, demonstration; or (ii)representation of an individual’s name, signature, likeness or other recognizable personal characteristics; or (iii)representation of any institution or organization’s name or seal, which makes the user believe that it responds to the opinion, nding or experience of the person making such a declaration; Under Clause 21, the endorser may be charged with penalty for false and misleading advertising to rupees of ten lakhs by the CCPA. The endorser would not be responsible, however, if he has exercised due diligence to check the veracity of the statements made in the advertising relating to the product or service which he endorses.
Offences: – The Act makes consumer rights violations criminal offences and Chapter VII tackles them. As mentioned above, misleading advertising is punishable. The Act also addresses the threat of adulteration by making punishable offences for manufacturing , selling, storing products mixed with adulterants. Cognizance of offence may only be taken by a judge on a CCPA-led case. The Act also includes extended denials under Clauses 2(47) and 2(46), respectively, for “unfair trade practices” and “unfair contracts.” The Central Government is empowered to control direct sales, multi-level marketing, e-commerce, tele-shopping and so on.

Lok Sabha Passes Consumer Protection Bill

The Lok Sabha passed the Consumer Protection Bill 2019 on July 30th, 2019, which aims to provide enhanced protection for consumers’ interests and to settle their grievances on time.
The Bill, soon to be debated in the Rajya Sabha, provides for the creation of an executive agency called the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) with a mandate to investigate consumer rights abuses, recall hazardous products and services and discontinue unfair trade practices and misleading ads. The CCPA also has the authority to enforce fines on hazardous products producers and endorsers and publishers of misleading advertising.
It aims to give repeatedly a prison sentence of up to five years to manufacturers and service providers who make false or misleading ads and a fine of up to half a lakh. However, an additional aspect of the proposed Legislation is the amount of penalties it aims to give out to celebrities who promote goods or star in ads with false statements.

According to the Bill, an endorser may have to pay a fine of up to a maximum of Rs.10 lakhs and may also be barred for one year from endorsing any drug. Any subsequent violation of the bar will last up to three years.

However, the current law, which would amend the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, expanded the reach of product liability beyond manufacturing and design defects to involve deviations from production requirements, failing to provide sufficient directions for proper usage and for the delivery of faulty, incomplete and inadequate services.

References:

  1. https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2020-07/8e905bb8-5ee5-48a4-a870-72a6c845c429/Consumer_Protection_Act__2019_notification.pdf
  2. http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/210422.pdf
  3. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/in/in076en.pdf

This Article is Written by Ayush Garg, 3rd Year Student of Gujarat National Law University.

The Central Government has issued a notification designating the 20th day of July 2020 as the date of entry into force of the many provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 .