Law of Torts - II : Previous Year Questions (2020)

PART – A

Q1. What is the maximum punishment or penalty for non-compliance of order passed by consumer court?

Ans. According to Section 72 of the CPA, 2019:

1. Imprisonment up to 3 years
2. Fine between Rs. 25,000 – Rs. 1 lakh
3. Or both.

Q2. A person is aggrieved from the decision of National Commission can he make an appeal? If yes, who will hear this appeal?

Ans. Yes. The concerned person can make an appeal in the Supreme Court. Section 67 of the Act provides for Appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date of the order. However, the Supreme Court can allow a delay if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause. The Supreme Court can confirm, modify, or set aside the order of the National Commission. And decide on questions of law, errors of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice. 

Q3. What is the time limit for making an appeal?

Ans. Under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019, the time limit for filing an appeal varies based on the forum, generally requiring action within 30 to 45 days. Appeals against orders from the District Commission to the State Commission must be filed within 45 days. Appeals against orders from the State Commission to the National Commission, or from the National Commission to the Supreme Court, must be filed within 30 days.

The appellate commission may accept an appeal after the 30/45-day period if there is "sufficient cause" for the delay.

Q4. Define the term potential consumer (user).

Ans. Consumer refers to a person who must have already completed the transaction (paid or promised to pay). Whereas, a potential consumer is someone who is browsing, inquiring, or intending to buy but has not yet paid or promised payment. A potential consumer generally does not have the same legal rights under the Act as a consumer, as the act of buying or availing is central to the definition.

Q5. What do you mean by deficiency?

Ans. According to Section 2(11) of the CPA, 2019, Deficiency means any fault or imperfection or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force, or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes: -

1. Any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.
2. Deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.

Q6. What do you mean by Consumer Dispute?

Ans. A consumer dispute is a disagreement between a buyer and a seller/service provider, occurring when a person against whom a complaint is made denies or disputes the allegations, such as defective goods, deficient services, overcharging, or unfair trade practices. It arises when consumer rights are violated, necessitating redressal through consumer courts or arbitration. [In CPA, 2019, Section 2(8) defines consumer dispute].

Q7. Define the term ‘Trader’.

Ans. According to Section 2(45) of the CPA, 2019, "trader", means a person who sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form, includes the packer thereof.

Q8. Describe the limitation period for filing complaints.

Ans. Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 establishes a two-year limitation period for filing consumer complaints from the date the cause of action arises. While commissions may allow complaints after this period, the complainant must show sufficient cause, and the commission must document reasons for condoning the delay.

Q9. Who will be the chairman of National Commission?

Ans. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is headed by a President, who is a sitting or retired Supreme Court Judge or Chief Justice of a High Court.

Q10. Define "Goods".

Ans. According to Section 2(21) of the CPA, 2019, Goods means every kind of movable property and includes “food” as defined in section 3(1)(j) of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006.

PART – B

Q11. What is the Composition of National Commission under Consumer Protection Act 1986? [CPA, 2019 in present context]

Ans. Composition of NCDRC as under CPA, 2019:

Composition (Section 54):

The National Commission shall consist of: -

1. A president.
2. Members not less than 4 and not more than such number as may be prescribed.

Qualification and Appointment of the President of National Commission [Section 55(1)]:

A person shall be qualified for appointment as President of the National Commission, if he: -

1. Is, or has been a judge the Supreme Court; or
2. Is, or has been, Chief Justice of High Court.

The President of the National Commission shall be appointed by the Central Government on the recommendation of a search-cum-selection committee, consisting of the following:

1. Chief Justice of India / any judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him. (Chairperson).
2. The outgoing President of the National Commission. (Member).
3. Secretary to the Government of India, Minister of consumer affairs, food and public distribution. (Member).
4. Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce (Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade) – Member.

Qualification and Appointment of the Members:

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member, unless he: -

1. Is or has been a judge of High Court; or
2. Has, for a combined period of 10 years, been a DJ/ADJ; or
3. Is a person of ability, integrity, and standing and having special knowledge of, and professional experience of not less than 25 years, in economics, business, commerce, law, finance, accountancy, etc. which is useful to the National Commission.

Term of Office [Section 55(2)]:

President – for a term of 4 years or 70 years of age, whichever is earlier.

Members – 4 years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier.

Q12. Discuss the procedure of filing of complaint in District forum.

Ans. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission) can take up cases where the amount of goods paid or services availed does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs.

Under the Act, the following persons can file a consumer complaint:

1. Voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or the Companies Act, 2013, or under any other law. 
2. A Central authority. 
3. The Central or the State Government. 
4. One or more consumers having the same interest. 
5. The legal representatives or legal heirs, in the case of the death of a consumer. 
6. The parent or legal guardian of a minor consumer.

The complaint must be filed within 2 years from the date the cause of action arose. However, the court may entertain a complaint after the expiration of the limitation period, if there is sufficient cause to be believed.

Follow the below steps to file a complaint in district commission:

Step 1: Issuance of Notice

The consumer should send a notice to the trader or service provider who provided defective goods or services. The notice should indicate the intention to file a consumer case if the opposite party does not resolve the defect or deficiency or if compensation is not paid. 

Step 2: Draft the Complaint 

If the trader or service provider is not willing to rectify the defect in goods or deficiency in services or provide compensation after receiving the notice, the complainant must draft a formal complaint to be filed before the appropriate consumer court (district commission in our case) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint must contain the following details: 

• Name, description and the address of the complainant and the opposite party. 
• Cause of action (reason for filing the case), the approximate date, time and place. 
• Relevant facts and circumstances relating to the cause of action. 
• Relief or remedy claimed by the complainant. 
• Signature and verification by the complainant.

Step 3: Provide Relevant Documents 

The copies of documents relevant to the case and supporting the claim against the opposite party must be attached to the consumer complaint. These documents include:

• Copy of the bill or receipt. 
• Record of online booking of goods or services 
• Warranty or guarantee certificates, if any 
• Copy of the notice sent to the opposite party

Step 4: Filing of the Complaint 

The complainant must file three sets of the complaint along with documents in the appropriate consumer court (District Commission in our case).

Step 5: Payment of Court Fees

The prescribed court fee must be paid in the consumer court office while filing the complaint. The court fee depends on the value of the goods bought or the service paid and the amount of compensation/ relief sought.

Step 6: Submission of an Affidavit 

The complainant must submit an affidavit to the consumer court stating that the statements and facts presented in the case are correct and true to the best of their knowledge.

Consumers can also file a consumer complaint on the National Consumer Helpline website before filing a case in the consumer court. The complaint will be registered and sent to the service provider or trader to resolve the issue instead of going to court.

Q13. Do you think that National Commission has power to dismiss the frivolous or vexations complaints? If yes, discuss the relevant provision.

Ans. Yes, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has the power to dismiss frivolous or vexatious complaints.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this power was expressly provided under Section 26, which authorised the District Forum, State Commission, and National Commission to dismiss frivolous or vexatious complaints and impose costs up to ₹10,000 on the complainant.

However, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not contain a separate provision equivalent to Section 26. Nevertheless, the Consumer Commissions continue to possess such powers through the procedural and adjudicatory provisions of the Act.

1. Section 36 – empowers the Commission to examine the admissibility and merits of complaints. If a complaint is baseless or an abuse of process, it may be rejected.
2. Section 39(1)(m) – empowers the Commission to award costs. This provision is often used to impose exemplary or punitive costs on parties filing frivolous or vexatious complaints. The same principle applies to the State Commission and National Commission through Sections 49 and 59.
3. Inherent powers and judicial precedent – Consumer Commissions have inherent authority to prevent abuse of the legal process and to ensure the ends of justice. Therefore, they may dismiss meritless complaints and impose appropriate costs.

Unlike the 1986 Act, the 2019 Act does not prescribe a fixed cap of ₹10,000 for such costs, thereby giving greater discretion to Consumer Commissions.

Q14. Discuss the provision of appeal against the order of Penalty.

Ans. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, any person aggrieved by an order of a Commission or the Central Authority (CCPA) has the right to appeal. The key provisions are:

1. Appeal Hierarchy

1. From District Commission: An appeal against a penalty order passed by the District Commission lies with the State Commission (Section 41).
2. From State Commission: An appeal against orders passed by the State Commission lies with the National Commission (Section 51).
3. From CCPA: Appeals against penalty orders issued by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) are filed before the National Commission (Section 24).

2. Limitation Period (Timeline) - An appeal against a District Commission order must be filed within 45 days from the date of the order.

Appeals against State or National Commission orders generally must be filed within 30 days.

3. Mandatory Pre-deposit - The Act imposes a strict condition for filing an appeal: the appellant must deposit 50% of the penalty amount ordered by the Commission before the appeal can be entertained. This is intended to discourage frivolous litigation.

4. Finality of Orders - If no appeal is filed within the prescribed period, the order of the Commission becomes final. However, the Appellate Commission may entertain a late appeal if the appellant shows "sufficient cause" for the delay.

PART – C

Q15. Write a short note on unfair Trade Practices.

Ans. The term ‘Unfair Trade Practices’ is defined under Section 2(47) of the CPA, 2019.

It refers to the use of various deceptive, fraudulent, or unethical methods to obtain business. Unfair business practices include misrepresentation, false advertising, tied/tie-in selling, deceptive pricing and non-compliance with manufacturing standards. Such acts are considered unlawful by statute through the consumer protection laws.

Unfair Trade Practices may be categorised under:

1. False representation
2. Bargain price
3. Non-compliance of prescribed standard
4. Falsification of trademark
5. Unsafe and hazardous goods

1. False Representation:

The practice of making any written statement or representation which –

1. Falsely suggest that goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition and model.
2. Falsely suggest any rebuilt, second-hand, renovated, re-conditioned, or old goods as new.
3. Represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, or affiliation which such goods or services do not have.
4. Makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for or usefulness of any goods or services.
5. Gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficiency, or length of time of a product that is not based on an adequate or proper test.

2. Bargain Price:

Where an advertisement is published in a newspaper, whereby goods/services are offered at a bargain price, when in fact there is no intention that the same may be offered at that price for a reasonable period of time. It shall amount to an unfair trade practice.

3. Non-compliance of prescribed standard:

Any sale/supply of goods used by the consumer, having reason to believe that goods do not comply with the standard prescribed by some competent authority in relation to their performance, composition, content, design, packaging, as are necessary to prevent the risk of injury to the person using such goods shall amount to an unfair trade practice.

4. Falsification of Trademark:

Falsely applying of a trademark is said: -

1. When a person deceptively applies the falsified trademark to goods/services or any packet which contains goods.
2. When a person uses that package which has a false trademark or deceptively similar trademark of the proprietor for the purpose of packaging or wrapping of goods other than the real goods of the trademark.

5. Unsafe and Hazardous Product:

The term hazardous goods have not been defined in the act. The dictionary meaning of the term is dangerous or risky. However, the term is used in context of goods only. A person can make a complaint of he is not informed about the hazardous nature of the goods, but the same is not true in case of hazardous services. The rationale behind the provision is to ensure physical safety of the consumer. The law seeks to ensure that those responsible for bringing goods to the market, in particular supplier, importer, or retailer and the same should ensure that while in care, these goods are not rendered unsafe through improper handling or care.

Relevant Case Laws:

1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Rajiv Kumar Loomba (2009)

This is a landmark consumer protection case involving "unfair trade practices" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It addresses whether a manufacturer can charge a consumer for equipment not provided under the guise of a "uniform pricing policy."

Facts of the Case:

The respondent (Loomba) purchased a Maruti car in Chandigarh. At the time, federal regulations required cars sold in the four major metros (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai) to be fitted with catalytic converters to meet emission norms. This was not required in Chandigarh. The appellant (Maruti) charged the respondent the same price as metro customers, effectively charging an extra ₹7,000 for a catalytic converter that was not installed in his car. The District, State, and National Consumer Forums ruled in favour of the consumer, leading Maruti to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning of the Court):

The Court held that while forums usually don't interfere in price setting, they have full authority to intervene when a consumer is billed for a specific item not supplied. Charging for a feature not included in the vehicle is inherently deceptive and falls squarely under "unfair trade practices." Even if a uniform pricing policy existed, applying it in a way that forces a customer to pay for "nothing" is arbitrary and violates the principle of equity under Article 14.

Decision:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the lower consumer court's order directing Maruti Suzuki to refund the excess amount (₹7,000) to the consumer along with interest and costs. The Court clarified that manufacturers cannot use "policy" as a shield to justify charging for unrendered services or unsupplied goods.

2. Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. (2003)

This case concerns the legality of comparative advertising and the thin line between "puffing" (extolling one’s own goods) and "disparagement" (denigrating a competitor's goods). It arose from a series of commercials released by Coca-Cola that allegedly mocked Pepsi’s brand.

Key Issues Involved: Trademark infringement (using "Pappi" for Pepsi), Copyright infringement (copying the Roller Coaster commercial/theme), and disparagement of Pepsi's product as inferior.

The court found that Coca-Cola’s commercial was a "literal imitation" of Pepsi’s original Roller Coaster commercial, including similar character dress and setting. The appeal was partly accepted. The court restrained Coca-Cola from airing the specific commercials that mimicked Pepsi’s theme and infringed on their copyright. The ruling established that comparative ads cannot be used to copy a competitor's original creative expression, upholding that "the entire theme of the advertisement and the sequence of events" cannot be stolen.

3. CCPA v. Rapido (Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited) (2025) [Misleading Advertisement]

Context: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) investigated advertisements for "Guaranteed Auto" and "Auto in 5 min or get ₹50". The "₹50" was actually "Rapido Coins" (valid only for bike rides, expiring in 7 days), not cash, and the T&C disclaimer was in unreadable font.

Verdict: The CCPA imposed a ₹10 lakh penalty, finding that the company overstated its service capability while concealing qualifying conditions, which misled consumers into using the platform. The authority also directed the platform to ensure that any consumer who availed the offer of “auto in five minutes or get ₹50”, and did not receive the promised ₹50, shall get the amount in full without any further delay or condition.

4. Irshad Rashid Dand vs. Physics Wallah Private Limited & Anr. (2026) [Non-refund of Fees]

The complainant paid ₹35,000 for a NEET coaching course, but Physics Wallah failed to provide access to the classes. The commission deemed the retention of fees without providing services as an "unfair trade practice" and a "deficiency in service".

The court ordered a refund of the ₹35,000 fee, plus ₹50,000 as compensation for academic loss/mental agony and ₹10,000 for litigation costs (totaling ₹95,000). The ruling serves as a notable precedent in 2026 regarding the accountability of ed-tech platforms under consumer protection laws.

Q16. What do you mean by "Service" Do you think Airline Services, Banking Service, Educational Institutions are covered under it? Refer the relevant case laws.

Ans. According to section 2(11), deficiency is any shortcoming, fault, imperfection, or defect in features, quality, amount, nature, authenticity, capacity, standard which is obligatory to be maintained and regulated as per laws and statutes in function or any agreement signed by the seller, including any act of negligence, omission by the seller, which causes loss to the consumer.

According to Section 2(42), the term service means service of any description which is made available to potential users and include, but not limited to, the provision of facilities in connection with: -

1. Banking
2. Financing
3. Insurance
4. Transport
5. Processing
6. Supply of electrical or other energy
7. Telecom services
8. House construction
9. Entertainment

But does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service.

When we talk about service under CPA, we take it as a regular transaction. Thus, the service rendered under the contract of personal service are specifically excluded from the deficiency of service.

The term ‘contract of personal service’ is not defined under the act. In common, it means a contract to render service in private capacity to individuals.

Example:

1. Where a landlord agrees to supply water to his tenant.
2. Where a servant enters into a contract with a master for employment.

Contract ‘of’ personal service and Contract ‘for’ personal service:

In contract of personal service, the service seeker can order or require what is to be done and how it should be done.

Example: like a master can tell his servant to bring goods from a particular place.

But in a contract for personal service, the service seeker can tell only what is to be done. How the work will be done is at the wish of the service provider.

In CPA, contract ‘for’ personal service is considered.

Airline Service as a Service:

Airline service is considered a "service" under the definition of service in consumer protection laws. Airline services including passenger air transport, cargo handling, and ticketing, are classified as consumer services because they involve a contractual agreement where a passenger pays for transportation in exchange for safety, timely transport, and baggage handling.

As per Rule 3(9) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, air transport service is defined as a service for the transport by air of persons, mail, or goods for remuneration.

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, recognizes air travel as a "service," allowing passengers to file complaints regarding deficiency in service, such as flight delays, cancellations, baggage loss, and unfair trade practices.

Case: Indigo Airlines v. Dr. Anu Girdhar

Dr. Anu Girdhar booked Indigo tickets from Amritsar to Delhi for herself and her children, along with a connecting Air India flight to Gwalior. On the day of travel, Indigo cancelled the flight without timely prior notice. Because of the cancellation, the family missed their connecting flight and had to buy expensive last-minute tickets and hire a taxi to reach Gwalior for her son’s school interview. She filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The Commission held Indigo Airlines liable for deficiency in service because passengers were informed only after reaching the airport, no satisfactory reason for cancellation was proved, and no proper alternative arrangements were provided. The Commission upheld the District Forum’s order directing Indigo to reimburse travel losses, pay compensation for mental harassment, and pay litigation costs. The case reaffirmed that airlines must provide timely notice of cancellations, comply with DGCA Civil Aviation Requirements, and adequately assist passengers when flights are cancelled. Failure to do so can amount to deficiency in service under consumer protection law.

Banking Service as a Service:

Banking services are explicitly included in the definition of "service" under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 2019. As services of any description made available to potential users, banking facilities (savings accounts, loans, credit cards) fall within this ambit, making banks liable for "deficiency in service" or "unfair trade practices".

A person who avails of banking services for consideration (fees, interest, charges) is a consumer. A person using banking services for a commercial purpose (e.g., in a current account for business) is generally not considered a consumer, unless the services are used exclusively for earning livelihood via self-employment. Any fault or inadequacy in service (e.g., failure to provide safe internet banking, unauthorized transactions, delays in processing) constitutes a deficiency.

Case: Arun Bhatiya vs HDFC Bank and Ors (2022)

Arun Bhatiya and his father jointly held an FD with HDFC Bank. After the FD matured, both allegedly instructed the bank to renew it jointly. Later, the father alone requested the bank to transfer the FD proceeds to his personal account. The bank complied, despite objections from Arun Bhatiya.

Bhatiya filed a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service by the bank. However, the State Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint, treating it as a family dispute between father and son rather than a consumer dispute. The NCDRC also dismissed the complaint.

The Supreme Court held that a person availing banking services is a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. Banking disputes involving alleged mishandling of accounts or deposits can constitute “deficiency of service.” The consumer forum wrongly refused to hear the complaint merely because a family dispute was involved in the background. The core issue was the bank’s conduct, not the private dispute between father and son. The Court restored the appeal before the NCDRC and directed it to decide the matter on merits.

Locus of current bank account holders:

It is well established that banking services are squarely covered under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. However, there are certain challenges which a current bank account holder has to face while holding a bank accountable in case of a deficiency in its services. This has a direct impact on the maintainability of the account holder's complaint before a consumer forum. A current account holder availing services of a bank for its business is hit by the test of commercial purpose, due to which it is thrown out of the definition of “Consumer”. Be it a corporate entity like a company or a HUF, or an individual, anyone opening a current account is not reckoned as a consumer.

In the recent case of PSS International and Another vs. Punjab National Bank through its Chief Manager and Another, a current account holder was unable to get relief under the shadow of the Consumer Protection Act, wherein accusations of deficiency in service by the bank in providing safe and secure internet banking were raised. The complainant company alleged that huge amounts have been transferred from its current account without its knowledge via internet banking. The National Commission, without exploring the deficiency aspect, dealt with preliminary objection raised by the bank and held the consumer complaint to be not maintainable as being filed by a commercial company, thus hitting the commercial purpose bar.

Educational Institutions as a Service:

Imparting education is considered a statutory or charitable function, not a commercial service. The process of conducting examinations, evaluating papers, and awarding degrees is not a service. Conversely, private coaching centres or vocational institutions that are not formal educational boards/universities may be considered providers of service. If an institution is involved in unfair trade practices (e.g., misrepresenting affiliation), they may be held liable.

Case: Km. Shubhangi Tiwari & Richa Tiwari v. Manager, Unison World School

The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, upon reviewing the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the District Commission that had previously favoured the appellants. The Commission held that educational institutions do not fall under the definition of 'service providers' as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that students are not 'consumers.' Consequently, the reliefs sought by the appellants were denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Case: Deepak Tyagi & 14 Ors. v. Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society & Anr.

In this case, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) examined whether students can be treated as “consumers” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and whether educational institutions provide a “service.”

The case involved complaints by students against educational institutions alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, particularly concerning recognition and affiliation of courses. The Commission reviewed conflicting Supreme Court precedents on whether education falls within the scope of consumer law.

The NCDRC ultimately held that core educational activities such as admission, teaching, examinations, and granting degrees, do not constitute “services” under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, students generally cannot maintain consumer complaints against educational institutions regarding such academic matters. However, institutions may still be liable in cases involving clear misrepresentation, fraud, or commercial coaching services operating outside traditional educational functions.

The decision relied heavily on Supreme Court rulings such as P.T. Koshy v. Ellen Charitable Trust and Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur, emphasizing that education is not a commercial commodity.