Lok Sabha Debates
The Motion For The Consideration Of The Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 ... on 30 July, 2019
Seventeenth Loksabha > Title: The motion for the consideration of the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 (Bill-passed).
उपभोक्तामामले, खाद्यऔर सार्वजनिकवितरण मंत्री (श्रीरामविलासपासवान): अध्यक्षमहोदय, यह बिल एकनया बिलहै ।…(व्यवधान) जोपहले काबिल था, वह दिसम्बर 1986 में एक्ट बना था । …(व्यवधान) 33 साल के बाद यह बिल दोबारा सदन के सामने आया है ।…(व्यवधान) मैं आपकी अनुमति सेउपभोक्ता संरक्षण बिल, 2019 पर विचार करने काप्रस्ताव करना चाहता हूं ।…(व्यवधान)
महोदय, मैं प्रस्ताव करता हूं:
“कि उपभोक्ताओं केहितों कासंरक्षण करने केलिए औरउक्त प्रयोजन केलिए उपभोक्ता विवादों केसमय सेऔर प्रभावी प्रशासन तथा परिनिर्धारण केलिए प्राधिकरणों कीस्थापना करने औरउससे संबद्ध याआनुषंगिक विषयों केलिए उपबंध करने वाले विधेयक परविचार किया जाए । ” अध्यक्षमहोदय, यहबिल वर्ष1986 मेंबना था । …(व्यवधान) उसके बाद सेलगातार मांग होरही थीकि जोउपभोक्ता हैं, …(व्यवधान)
संसदीय कार्यमंत्री; कोयलामंत्री तथाखान मंत्री (श्रीप्रहलादजोशी): रामविलासजी, यहांसे आवाजआ रहीहै ।…(व्यवधान) आपथोड़ा पीछे होकर बोलिए ।…(व्यवधान)
श्री रामविलासपासवान: रावसाहेबदानवेजी, आपसंक्षेपमें बोलदीजिए ।…(व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रस्ताव प्रस्तुत हुआ:
“कि उपभोक्ताओं केहितों कासंरक्षण करने केलिए औरउक्त प्रयोजन केलिए उपभोक्ता विवादों केसमय सेऔर प्रभावी प्रशासन तथा परिनिर्धारण केलिए प्राधिकरणों कीस्थापना करने औरउससे संबद्ध याआनुषंगिक विषयों केलिए उपबंध करने वाले विधेयक परविचार किया जाए” …( व्यवधान)
उपभोक्तामामले, खाद्यऔर सार्वजनिकवितरण मंत्रालयमें राज्यमंत्री (श्रीदानवे रावसाहेबदादाराव): अध्यक्ष महोदय, मैं आपकी अनुमति सेउपभोक्ता संरक्षण बिल, 2019 पर विचार करने काप्रस्ताव करता हूं ।…(व्यवधान)
अध्यक्ष महोदय, यहजो बिल है, …(व्यवधान) उपभोक्ता संरक्षण बिल को 10 अगस्त, 2015 कोलोक सभा में प्रस्तुत किया गया था ।…(व्यवधान) उसके बाद बिल परविचार हेतु विभाग संबंधी स्थायी समिति कोभेज दिया गया था । संसद कीस्थायी समिति ने26 अप्रैल, 2016 कोअपनी 9वीं रिपोर्ट दीथी, जिसमें 37 प्रमुख सिफारिशें कीगई थीं ।…(व्यवधान) उसमें भ्रामक विज्ञापन सेनिपटने, मिलावट औरप्रस्तावित केन्द्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण एवं सेफ्टी आदि सेसंबंधित सिफारिशें शामिल थीं ।…(व्यवधान)
अध्यक्ष महोदय, स्थायी समिति कीइन सिफारिशों कोपूर्ण रूप सेअथवा कुछ एकसंशोधनों केसाथ स्वीकार करलिया गया । उसके बाद ग्रुप ऑफमिनिस्टर्स कीसमिति द्वारा इनसिफारिशों परविचार किया गया । …(व्यवधान)
अध्यक्ष महोदय, एकनया संशोधित बिल ग्रुप ऑफमिनिस्टर्स, स्टैंडिंग कमेटी औरविधि मंत्रालय कोध्यान में रखते हुए,उपभोक्ता संरक्षण विधेयक, 2018 बनाया गया,और इसे लोक सभा में 05.01.2018 को प्रस्तुत किया गया ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, लोक सभा ने 20.12.2018 को इस बिल कोपारित भीकर दिया था,किंतु 16वीं लोक सभा केविघटन केकारण यहबिल लैप्सहो गया ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, इसबिल कोकुछ संशोधनों केसाथ दिनांक 8 जुलाई, 2019 कोलोक सभा में पुन:स्थापित किया गया । इसबिल कीमुख्य विशेषताएं मैं आपको बताता हूं ।
पहले जिला स्तर पर,राज्य स्तर परऔर नेशनल लेवल परउपभोक्ता न्यायालय था,लेकिन उपभोक्ताओं कोन्याय मिलने केलिए तीन से पाँच महीने समय कीपाबंदी थी । उससमय में उपभोक्ताओं कीसमस्याओं कासमाधान नहीं होरहा था । इसलिए इनआयोगों केअतिरिक्त एककेन्द्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण (सीसीपीए) कीस्थापना काप्रस्ताव किया गया है ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, सरलीकृत विवाद निपटान प्रक्रिया, मध्यस्थता काप्रावधान, उत्पादों कीलाइबिलिटी, उत्पादों केभ्रामक विज्ञापन औरअपमिश्रण केलिए दण्ड कीव्यवस्था, उपभोक्ता आयोग कीजांच कोसरल बनाने तथा अधिनिर्णय कीप्रक्रिया कोसरल बनाना इसबिल में हमने शामिल किया है । मध्यस्थता केद्वारा मामलों काशीघ्र निपटान, ई-कॉमर्स तथा प्रत्यक्ष बिक्री, डायरेक्ट सेलिंग, नएयुग केउपभोक्ताओं केमुद्दों केलिए नएनियम बनाकर इसबिल में शामिल किए गएहैं ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, इसकी ढांचागत स्थिति ऐसी हैकि केन्द्रीय प्राधिकरण में एकमुख्य आयुक्त होगा औरअन्य आयुक्त भीहोंगे । क्षेत्रीय प्राधिकरण में एकआयुक्त होगा । केन्द्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण में मुख्य आयुक्त एवं अन्य आयुक्त आदि रहेंगे, तथापि इसका विस्तृत संगठन एवं संरचना बिल केपास होने केउपरान्त राज्यों एवं संघों सेपरामर्श करके निश्चित किया जाएगा ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, सीसीपीए श्रेणीगत उपभोक्ताओं कोराहत प्रदान करने वाली कार्यकारी एजेंसी है । इसे निम्नलिखित कार्य कोकरने केलिए अधिकार प्राप्त होंगे ।
उपभोक्ता अधिकारों केउल्लंघन, शिकायत औरअभियोजन शुरू करने केलिए संशोधन करना, असुरक्षित उत्पादों औरसेवाओं कोवापस लेने काआदेश दिया जाना, अनुचित व्यापार प्रथाओं औरभ्रामक विज्ञापनों कोजारी नकरने काआदेश देना, भ्रामक विज्ञापनों केविनिर्माताओं/समर्थकों/प्रकाशन परजुर्माना लगाना, इसबिल केनए प्रावधान में हमने इनको शामिल किया है ।
इससे उपभोक्ताओं कोलाभ मिलने वाला है । वर्तमान में उपभोक्ताओं केपास न्याय सुलभता केलिए केवल एकमात्र बिंदु है,जिसमें समय लगता है । केन्द्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण केमाध्यम सेविधेयक में अतिरिक्त द्रुतगामी कार्यकारी सुधार प्रस्तावित किए गएहैं ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, उत्पादों केभ्रामक विज्ञापनों औरअपमिश्रण कोरोकने केलिए यहां दंड कीसिफारिश कीगई है । निर्माताओं तथा सेवा प्रदाताओं कोसदोष उत्पादों अथवा त्रुटिपूर्ण सेवाओं कीप्रदायगी सेरोकने केलिए भीउत्पाद-देयता काप्रावधान किया है ।
उपभोक्ता आयोग में पहुंच कोसरल बनाना तथा अधिनिर्णयन कीप्रक्रिया कोसरल बनाना है । मध्यस्थता केमाध्यम सेमामलों केशीघ्र निपटान करने काप्रावधान भीइस बिल में किया गया है । युवा उपभोक्ता मुद्दों केलिए नियमों काप्रावधान, ई-कॉमर्स तथा प्रत्यक्ष बिक्री काप्रावधान भीइसमें किया गया है ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, जोपहला बिल था,वह वर्ष 1986 में बना था । इसमें जिला, राज्य औरराष्ट्रीय स्तर परउपभोक्ता आयोगों कीस्थापना काप्रावधान था,जो किएक क्वेसी जुडीशियल प्रक्रिया थी । अब इस विधेयक में हमने इनउपभोक्ता आयोगों केअतिरिक्त एककेन्द्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण कीस्थापना काप्रावधान किया है ।
अध्यक्ष महोदय, पहले जिला आयोग में 20 लाख रुपये तकके लिए प्रावधान था । अबहमने जिला आयोग केलिए 1 करोड़ रुपये तकका प्रावधान किया है । पहले राज्य आयोग केलिए 20 लाख रुपये तकका प्रावधान था,हमने इसके लिए 1 करोड़ रुपये सेअधिक काप्रावधान किया है । राष्ट्रीय आयोग में केवल 1 करोड़ रुपये काप्रावधान था,अब इसनए बिल में हमने 10 करोड़ रुपये सेअधिक काप्रावधान किया है ।
उपभोक्ताओं कोपहले तुरंत राहत नहीं मिल पाती थीएवं न्याय मिलने केलिए काफी शिकायतें दर्ज करनी पड़ती थीं । इसविधेयक केद्वारा विवाद समाधान कीप्रक्रिया कोत्वरित एवं सरल बनाया गया है ।
महोदय, इसविधेयक में जोपुराना बिल था,जब उपभोक्ता शिकायत करने जाता थातब 21 दिन केअंदर आयोग कीतरफ सेउसकी स्वीकृति मिलनी अनिवार्य थी …(व्यवधान) लेकिन 2019 के इसबिल में जबउपभोक्ता शिकायत करने जाएगा तो 21 दिन में आयोग कीतरफ सेडीम्ड एडमिसिबिलिटी मानी जाएगी । अगर उपभोक्ता आयोग केनिर्णय सेसंतुष्ट नहीं है, …(व्यवधान) राज्य आयोग औरराष्ट्रीय आयोग केपास जासकता है । …(व्यवधान) इसविधेयक में अपील कीव्यवस्था केवल एकस्तर परहोती है । …(व्यवधान) उदाहरण केलिए अगर उपभोक्ता निर्णय सेसंतुष्ट नहीं हैतो केवल राज्य आयोग तकजाता है, …(व्यवधान) केवल दोही स्तर इसबिल में रखे गये हैं । मैं आपसे विनती करता हूं किइस बिल कोपारित किया जाए ।
श्री राजेन्द्र अग्रवाल (मेरठ): अध्यक्षमहोदय, मैंआपकाधन्यवादकरताहूं किआपनेमुझेउपभोक्तसंरक्षणविधेयक, 2019 परबोलनेके लिएअवसरदिया ।यह आमउपभोक्तासे जुड़ाहुआ बिलहै, बड़ामहत्वपूर्णबिल है । मुझेआशा हैकि हमारेविपक्षीदल केसम्माननीयसांसदइसमेंअपनीभागीदारीकरेंगेतथा हमसब कीबात भीसुनेंगेऔर अपनीबात भीकहेंगे ।…(व्यवधान) लंबे विचार-विमर्श केपश्चात् एकप्रकार से यहसंपूर्ण बिल है,कम्प्रेहेन्सिव बिल है । इसबिल कोलाने केलिए मैं सम्मानीय प्रधान मंत्री जीतथा अत्यंत संवेदनशील माननीय मंत्री राम विलास पासवान जीका अभिनंदन करता हूं । यहबिल 1886 केअधिनियम कास्थान लेगा ।
अध्यक्ष जी,इस बीच व्यापार केतरीके बदल गएहैं, वस्तुएं बदल गईहैं जिनका व्यापार होता है । नएप्रकार की ई-कॉमर्स पद्धति शुरू होगई है । लोग बढ़ी हुई जानकारियों कासामान्य व्यक्तियों कोठगने में उपयोग करते हैं । …(व्यवधान) हमारे पास 1986 का एक्ट थाउसके माध्यम सेउपभोक्ता कोसंरक्षण देना कठिन होगया था । आजकल जैसा मैंने कहा,ई-कामर्स काजमाना है, अमेजन औरफ्लिपकार्ट अंतर्राष्ट्रीय लैवल परइतनी बड़ी कंपनियां बनगई हैं,इसके मालिकों कीगिनती सर्वाधिक रईस लोगों में होने लगी है । …(व्यवधान) ऐसे में ग्राहक बड़ा छोटा होजाता है । ऐसा लगता हैकि उसका साइज बहुत छोटा होगया हैऔर उसके शोषण कीसंभावनाएं बढ़जाती हैं ।
मेरेसाथ घटी एकघटना कोमैं संसद केसाथ शेयर करना चाहूंगा । वर्ष 2016 कीबात है । मैं कंपनी कानाम नहीं बताऊंगा औरउत्पाद कानाम भीनहीं बताऊंगा । मैंने एकमोबाइल काआदेश किया । मेरे बेटे नेकहा किई-कार्मस केमाध्यम सेऑनलाइन आदेश देते हैं,उसने आदेश दिया । एकबहुत खूबसूरत सापैकेट मेरे पास आया,पैकेट खोलने केबाद मोबाइल कीजगह एकपत्थर काटुकड़ा मिला, यहमेरे साथ हुआ है । मैं सांसद हूं,इसकी मैंने तुरंत शिकायत कीऔर रेमेडी होगई । कंपनी केलोगों नेतुरंत क्षमा भीमांग ली,मुझे मेरा मोबाइल उपलब्ध करा दिया गया । यहकहा गया किपैकिंग में गलती होगई हो । …(व्यवधान) इतने बड़े साम्राज्य कानिर्माण हुआ है । इतने तरीके निर्माण होगए, बहुत बार छोटा उपभोक्ता शोषण काशिकार होजाता है । उसके साथ गलतियां होजाती हैं,इसलिए उसका संरक्षण किया जाना बहुत जरूरी है । …(व्यवधान) इसलिए इसनए बिल कानिर्माण किया गया है । पुराने बिल 1986 के एक्ट में भीव्यवस्थाएं थीं । उसके अंदर जिला स्तर, प्रदेश औरकेन्द्रीय स्तर परविवादों केनिस्तारण कीत्रिस्तरीय व्यवस्थाएं थीं । उसके द्वारा भीकाम हुआ है । ऐसा नहीं हैकि वहकानून बिल्कुल निरुपयोगी था,लेकिन उसमें 90 परसेंट कानिस्तारण अच्छा परसेंटेज कहा जासकता है । उसके न्याय कीडिलीवरी में समय बहुत लगता था । छहमहीने या साल भरलग जाते थे । औसत समय एककेस काबारह महीने निकल करआया है ।
आजअगर हमपेनडेंसी देखें, पुराने कानून कीएक सीमा केकारण मैं एकडाटा देरहा हूं,इसे एनसीडीआरसी द्वारा उपलब्ध कराया गया है । यह 13 जून, 2019 काआंकड़ा है । आजजो जिस प्रकार सेउपभोक्ता केमामले कंज्यूमर कोर्ट्स में पड़े हुए हैं, …(व्यवधान) उनकी नेशनल कमीशन में पेनडेंसी 20,304 है,स्टेट कमीशन में पेनडेंसी 1,18,319 है औरडिस्ट्रिक्ट फोरम में 3,23,163 है, कुल मिलाकर 4,61,786 अभी पेन्नडेंसी बनी हुई है,यह दूर हो । उपभोक्ता केसाथ जहां कहीं भीअन्याय होता हैउसके खिलाफ खड़े होसकें, उनको प्रोटेक्शन दिया जासके । त्वरित न्याय प्रदान करने केलिए नएउपभोक्ता संरक्षण कानून कीआवश्यकता थी,इसलिए इसे बनाने कीप्रक्रिया प्रारंभ हुई । …(व्यवधान)
बहुतबड़ी संख्या में नएमाननीय सदस्य सदन में आएहैं । माननीय मंत्री जीने जबइस बिल परविचार किए जाने काप्रस्ताव किया है,मैं भीसदन कोबताना चाहता हूं किनया बिल वर्ष 1986 केबिल कोरीप्लेस करने केलिए लाया गया था । 10 अगस्त, 2015 कोएक विधेयक लोक सभा में प्रस्तुत किया गया,लोक सभा केअंदर मांग हुई,सभी सदस्यों नेकहा किइस बिल परविचार विमर्श केलिए स्थायी समिति कोभेजा जाए,इस परऔर अधिक विचार किए जाने कीजरूरत है । इसलिए इसे खाद्य उपभोक्ता औरसार्वजनिक वितरण संबंधी समिति कोभेज दिया गया । समिति नेअप्रैल, 2017 में अपनी रिपोर्ट दी । इसरिपोर्ट में कुल 37 सिफारिशें दीं,ये सिफारिशें अधिकांशतः भ्रामक विज्ञापनों सेकैसे निपटा जाए,उत्पादों में मिलावट सेकैसे निपटा जाए,केन्द्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण बनाया जाना था …(व्यवधान) उसकी शक्तियां क्या हों,उसका कार्यकरण क्या हो,इस संबंध में थी । इनसभी सिफारिशों में छोटा-मोटा परिवर्तन करके स्वीकार किया गया । इसकेबाद भीऔर अधिक विचार करने केलिए तयकिया गया,इसे मंत्रिमंडलीय समूह में प्रस्तुत करने सेपहले वित्त मंत्री जीकी अध्यक्षता में ग्रुप ऑफमिनिस्टर्स (जीओएम) केपास विचार केलिए भेजा गया । उन्होंने इसपर विचार किया, …(व्यवधान) इसकी समीक्षा की,उसके बाद पांच सिफारिशें जीओएम केद्वारा इसबिल केसंबंध में दीगईं । वहसिफारिशें बड़ी महत्वपूर्ण हैं । एकप्रकार सेइस नएबिल काआधार बनती है । आपकी अनुमति सेएक बार उसे पढ़ना चाहूंगा । पांचसिफारिशों में सेपहली सिफारिश है with regard to misleading advertisements, imposition of monetary penalty by the central authority on endorsers, publishers and persons party to a publication and ban on making further endorsements and in the case of manufacturers, imprisonment and fine. दूसरी रिकॉमेन्डेशन है inclusion of product-neutral offence with graded punishment in the case of adulteration of any product containing adulterant that will cause injury to the consumer. तीसरी सिफारिश बड़ी महत्वपूर्ण है removal of overlap of powers between the Central Consumer Protection Authority and the consumer disputes redressal agencies under the Bill, by modifying the powers of the central authority. चौथी सिफारिश है National Commission to be the appellate authority against any order of the commissioner or the chief commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. अंतिम पांचवीं सिफारिश है establishment of regional benches of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by the Central Government at such other places as may be necessary. इसप्रकार सारी सिफारिशों कोसम्मिलित करते हुए औरप्रत्येक स्तर परविचार करते हुए एकनया बिल तैयार किया गया । इसे 5 जनवरी, 2018 कोपार्लियामेंट में प्रस्तुत किया गया । दिसम्बर में इसके ऊपर विचार-विमर्श हुआ, 20 दिसम्बर, 2018 कोउसे पारित करदिया गया । परन्तु जैसा अन्य बिलों केसाथ हुआ,राज्य सभा में यहबिल पास नहीं होसका । इसबीच सोलहवीं लोक सभा काकार्यकाल समाप्त होगया । यहबिल लैप्स होगया, इसकारण आजफिर इससत्र में इसबिल कोलाया गया । 8 जुलाई, 2019 कोइसे पुर:स्थापित किया गया थाऔर आजयह विचार केलिए प्रस्तुत है । …(व्यवधान) मुझे पूरा विश्वास हैकि इसबार यहबिल किसी भीप्रकार कीराजनीतिक संकीर्णता काशिकार नहीं होगा औरलोक सभा तथा राज्य सभा केअंदर यहबिल पास होजाएगा, जिससे जोसामान्य उपभोक्ता हैं,उनको न्याय मिल सके ।…(व्यवधान)
इस बिल में कुछ पुरानी व्यवस्थाओं कोभी जारी रखा गया है,उनमें कुछ संशोधन भीकिए गएहैं तथा कुछ नएप्रोविजन्स रखे गएहैं । …(व्यवधान) सबसे पहले, उपभोक्ता संरक्षण परिषद्, यहपहले भीथी, जोतीन स्तरों में थी,जिसका गठन इसबिल केअंदर किया जाएगा । प्रदेश औरकेंद्र स्तर परइसके अध्यक्ष मंत्री महोदय होंगे औरजिला स्तर परजिलाधिकारी होंगे । इसके अलावा जोबहुत महत्वपूर्ण विषय है,कंज्यूमर डिस्प्यूट रिड्रेशल कमीशन, जिसको पहले हमलोग कंज्यूमर फोरम कहते थे,जिला फोरम कहते थे,उनको अबकोर्ट्स केरूप में अधिक अधिकार देते हुए इनका गठन किया जाएगा ।…(व्यवधान) जो कंज्यूमर कमीशन्स हैं,इनको जिला स्तर पर,प्रदेश केस्तर परऔर केंद्र केस्तर परगठन किया जाएगा । इसके बारे में सारा विवरण बड़े विस्तार सेबिल केअंदर है । येजो कमीशन्स बनेंगे, इनको अबहम प्रचलित भाषा में कंज्यूमर कोर्ट्स कहसकते हैं । इनके अधिकारों औरन्याय अधिकार कोऔर अधिक बढ़ाया गया है । जैसेजिले में जोकंज्यूमर कोर्ट है,उसको पहले 20 लाख रुपये तककी सीमा थीअब वहएक करोड़ रुपये तकके मसले कीसुनवाई करसकता है । प्रदेश काजो कोर्ट है,उसको पहले एककरोड़ रुपये कीसीमा थी,अब वह 10 करोड़ रुपये तकके मुकदमे कीसुनवाई करसकता है । जोराष्ट्रीय कमीशन है,वह 10 करोड़ रुपये याउससे ऊपर केमुकदमे कीसुनवाई करसकता है । इसप्रकार सेएक बढ़े हुए अधिकारों केसाथ, बढ़े हुए न्याय क्षेत्र केसाथ इसकमीशन कानिर्माण होगा, जिससे सामान्य ग्राहकों कोबहुत राहत मिलेगी ।…(व्यवधान)
इसीप्रकार सेइसमें एकनई चीज जोड़ी गईहै, वहकेंद्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण है । इसके अध्यक्ष मुख्य आयुक्त होंगे, उनकी सहायता केलिए अन्य आयुक्तों काभी चयन होगा । इसके इन्वेस्टिगेशन केपार्ट कोदेखने केलिए एकडायरेक्टर जनरल कीनियुक्ति होगी । …(व्यवधान) जोसीसीपीए है,इसके माध्यम सेउपभोक्ता केखिलाफ किसी भीप्रकार कीयदि शरारत होती है,चाहे वहवस्तु विनिमय में हो,नकली माल हो,चाहे विज्ञापन सेसंबंधित होया व्यापार व्यवहार केअंदर कोई बेईमानी कीगई है,उन सबके खिलाफ सीसीपीए संरक्षण प्रदान करेगा तथा एकबहुत बड़ा उपकरण हमारे सामान्य उपभोक्ताओं कोसंरक्षण प्रदान करने केलिए इसबिल केअंदर बनाया गया है ।…(व्यवधान)
11.33 hrs (Shrimati Meenakashi Lekhi in the Chair) इसीप्रकार सेइसमें एकऔर नईचीज जोड़ी गईहै, वहहै प्रोडक्ट लाइबिलिटी, चाहे वहसेवा सेया वस्तु सेसंबंधित हो,इसमें किसकी लाइबिलिटी है,उसके बारे में कोई दंड विधान नहीं था । इसबार प्रोडक्ट लाइबिलिटी केसंबंध में यदि कोई कस्टमर शिकायत करता हैतो उसकी पहचान कीजाएगी औरफिर उसके खिलाफ कार्रवाई होगी । …(व्यवधान) जैसे मैंने शुरू में कहा किमैंने मोबाईल मंगवाया था,लेकिन मुझे पत्थर भेज दिया गया । इसप्रकार कीबहुत सारी चीजें होसकती हैं । इसमें औरभी प्रोविजन्स किए गएहैं । जैसे पेनल्टीज, पेनल्टीज केबारे में किसी कोभी जोगलती करता है,उसको छोड़ा नहीं गया है । …(व्यवधान) मान लीजिए यदि कोई अन्याय होता है,तो प्रारंभ में हीजो डिस्ट्रिक्ट, स्टेट यानेशनल कमीशन्स हैं,ये उसको जोअपराधी है,जिसके खिलाफ अपराध सिद्ध होगया है,उसको तीन साल कीसजा या 25 हजार रुपये काजुर्माना, यहजुर्माना एकलाख रुपये तकभी बढ़सकता है । यदि विज्ञापन केअंदर कोई शरारत होती है,हम जानते हैं किविज्ञापन केअंदर बहुत शरारत होती है । उत्पाद कुछ है,उसका वर्णन कुछ औरकिया जाता है । येमजाक बहुत चला करता था,आपने भीसुना होगा ।…(व्यवधान) मैं उत्पाद कानाम नहीं लेना चाहता । एकसाबुन काविज्ञापन चलता थाकि उसको किसी केऊपर मलदो तोवह बिल्कुल गोरा होजाएगा । किसी नेकहा किहमने भीभैंस केऊपर उसका उपयोग किया तोवह एकदम सेगोरी होगई । इसप्रकार सेलोग मजाक किया करते थे । उत्पाद कीजो गुणवत्ता है,उत्पाद कीजो सीमाएं हैं,उसके बारे में किसी प्रकार कीजानकारी नहीं देते थे । बड़े-बड़े जोसेलिब्रिटीज हैं,जिनमें अभिनेता, स्पोर्ट्स पर्सन्स होते हैं,कई बार उनके मैनेजर्स द्वारा बिना उनके कंसेंट केउनको शामिल करदिया जाता था । …(व्यवधान)
समाज केअंदर उनका सम्मान है,इसलिए लोग उनका अनुसरण करते हैं । बहुत सारी फेस क्रीम्स हैं,बहुत सारे ऐसउत्पाद हैं । इसमें उसके खिलाफ प्रोटेक्शन दिया जाएगा । इसमें इन्डोर्सर कोभी इसदंड कीसीमा केअंदर रखा गया है । …(व्यवधान) यहइसमें एकबहुत महत्वपूर्ण बात है । कईबार कुछ फंड्स केविषय में,जैसे म्यूचुअल फंड्स हैं याअन्य प्रकार केफंड्स हैं,जिसके लिए विज्ञापन होते थे,चाहे वेरेडियो परआ रहे हों याकिसी इलेक्ट्रॉनिक चैनल परआ रहे हों,तो उसके लाभ केबारे में तोबताया जाता है,लेकिन उनकी शर्तों कोबहुत तेजी सेहाई स्पीड में सुनाया जाता था,जो किसी कोसमझ में नहीं आती थीं । …(व्यवधान) इसप्रकार केजो छलहोते थेउन छलों केप्रति एकसंपूर्ण सुरक्षा इसबिल केमाध्यम सेदी जाएगी ।
इसकेअंदर एकऔर भीव्यवस्था कीगई है । अभी हमलोगों ने मध्यस्थता काबिल भीपास किया था । मध्यस्थता केमाध्यम सेइन मसलों कोनिपटाने काप्रावधान इसके अंदर किया गया है । यदि कोई झगड़ा हैतो आपस में बैठकर, मध्यस्थता केकोर्ट किस प्रकार सेकाम करते हैं,मैं उसके विषय में कहने कीजरूरत नहीं समझता हूं,मध्यस्थता केमाध्यम सेइसको सुलझाया जाएगा । …(व्यवधान) इसप्रकार केफैसले पूरे तरीके सेमान्य होंगे । कईबार यहभी होसकता हैकि मध्यस्थता हुई,लोग बैठे, सबने विचार-विमर्श किया, तयभी हुआ,लेकिन दुर्भावना सेसहमति बताकर वहकोर्ट में जाए,वह रास्ता इसमें बंद किया गया हैताकि इनकोर्ट्स कामहत्व, सम्मान बढ़े औरइन कोर्ट्स कोकोई हल्के में नले । …(व्यवधान) साथ-साथ इससे कंज्यूमर कोर्ट्स केऊपर लोड भीकम होजाएगा ।
माननीय सभापति जी,प्रत्येक व्यक्ति चाहे वहबच्चा हो,शिशु हो,नौजवान हो,प्रौढ़ हो,स्त्री हो,पुरुष हो,छात्र होया समाज केकिसी भीहिस्से कारहने वाला होतथा किसी भीआयु वर्ग काहो, उसकी उसनाते अलग पहचान होसकती है,परन्तु उपभोक्ता सभी हैं । प्रत्येक व्यक्ति कहीं नकहीं उपभोक्ता है । इसलिए यदि उपभोक्ता कोसंरक्षण नहीं मिलता हैतो समाज केअंदर नाराजगी औरनिराशा कानिर्माण होता है । हमारी सरकार इनविषयों कोलेकर हमेशा सेसंवेदनशील रही है ।…(व्यवधान) हमने रेरा काजो कानून बनाया हैया अनलॉफुल डिपोजिट्स स्कीम्स सेसंबंधित बिल,जिसको हमने पिछले सप्ताह पास किया है,ये भीइसी प्रकार केप्रयास हैं जोउपभोक्ता कोराहत प्रदान करते हैं । मुझे कईबार लगता हैकि हमारे कांग्रेस केमित्र वैल में हैं,हिन्दी में उसको कुआं कहते हैं,कुएं में हैं,मैं इनके विषय में क्या टिप्पणी करूं । …(व्यवधान) कईबार मुझे ऐसा लगता हैकि चुनाव केसमय में जोनकली वायदे किए जाते हैं,जिनका कोई हिसाब नहीं बनाया जाता है । कल ही हमारे एकमाननीय सदस्य मध्य प्रदेश काजिक्र कररहे थे । 30 हजार करोड़ रुपये कीजरूरत है,उसमें से 4 या 5 हजार करोड़ रुपये निकाले हैं । राजस्थान में मुझे पता चला हैकि 96 हजार करोड रुपये केवायदे किए गएहैं, उसका अता-पता नहीं है । कांग्रेस केएक बड़े नेता ने 24 लाख नौकरियों कीबात कही । सरकार नौकरियां देरही है,नौकरियां मिल रही हैं । यदि इसका वार्षिक तौर परहिसाब लगाएं तोये नौकरियां करोड़ों में हैं । 9 लाख 44 हजार करोड़ वार्षिक का खर्च है यदि एक व्यक्ति पर 50 हजार औसत खर्च माना जाए ।…(व्यवधान) इन्होंने कोई हिसाब नहीं लगाया है । येजीएसटी काविरोध करेंगे, नोटबंदी काविरोध करेंगे । आजदेश कीअर्थव्यवस्था में विस्तार हुआ है,कलेक्शन बढ़ी है,उसका एकमात्र कारण यहहै किहम सारे सैक्टर्स में ट्रांसपरेंसी लाए हैं । जोनकली वायदे किए जाते थे,अल्टीमेटली मतदाता हीउपभोक्ता होते हैं,उनका शोषण होता है । उपभोक्ताओं केलिए बहुत कुछ किए जाने कीजरूरत है । आदरणीय पासवान जीयदि कुछ करसकते हैं,तो इसदिशा में जरूर करें । उपभोक्ता कोपूर्ण संरक्षण प्रदान करना हमारी सरकार काप्रारम्भ सेलक्ष्य हैऔर हमनिरंतर ट्रांसपरेंसी केसाथ उसकी तरफ बढ़रहे हैं ।…(व्यवधान) मुझे पूरा विश्वास हैकि जोविधेयक प्रस्तुत किया गया है,यह उपभोक्ता संरक्षण केक्रम में माइलस्टोन सिद्ध होगा औरइससे सामान्य उपभोक्ता कोएक कवच प्राप्त होगा । मैं माननीय प्रधान मंत्री काऔर माननीय मंत्री काबहुत-बहुत अभिवादन करते हुए इसबिल कासमर्थन करता हूं ।…(व्यवधान)
SHRI BALLI DURGA PRASAD RAO (TIRUPATI): Hon. Chairperson, Madam, at the outset, I would like to thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to express my views and suggestions on ‘The Consumer Protection Bill, 2019’.
The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 was enacted to provide better protection of the consumer and establishment of a Consumer Protection Council to settle consumer disputes, etc. Though these agencies have served the purpose to some extent, the disposal of the cases has not been so fast due to various constraints in reality …(Interruptions).
As time is passing fast, the trend of the market products of the companies has changed like rise in the international market, emergence of global supply chains and rapid development of e-commerce which have led to a new delivery system of goods and services and provided new options and opportunities to consumer …(Interruptions).
…( व्यवधान)
11.48 hrs At this stage, Shri Adhir Ranjan Chowdhary, Shrimati Kanimozhi and some other hon. Members left the House.
SHRI BALLI DURGA PRASAD RAO : Though the agencies have served the purpose to some extent, the disposal of cases has not been so fast due to various constraints in reality …(Interruptions)
As the time is passing fast, the trend of marketing products of companies has changed like rise in the international market, emergence of global supply chains and the rapid development of e-commerce have led to new delivery systems for goods and services and provided new options and opportunities to consumer, e-commerce, tele-marketing, multi-level marketing etc. are posing new challenges to consumer protection.
The Government is bringing this Bill to establish CCPA to look into the grievances of the consumer and to promote, protect and enforce the rights of the consumers and initiate action, including enforcing recall, refund and return of products etc. Sir, further, “mediation” as an Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism has been provided for in the Bill. I would like to know from the hon. Minister the definition of `Mediation’. It is not defined in the Bill. The Bill aims at simplifying the consumer dispute process and provide provisions for filling complaints electronically etc. CCPA will have an investigation wing headed by the Director-General which will conduct an inquiry or investigation into such violations. I would like to know from the hon. Minister about the organisational structure of CCPA. Has any fund been allocated for this? Will CCPA have State and district level investigation wings to look into the violations?
I would like to appreciate the Government for carrying out multi-media campaign, namely `Jago Grahak Jago’ on pan-India basis covering both urban and rural areas through print, electronic and outdoor media.
The Central Government releases funds to the States and UTs for creating awareness among consumers and ensures that campaign reaches the rural areas of the country. How much funds have the Central Government released in this regard particularly to my State of Andhra Pradesh?
We often chant that customer is the king. On this occasion, I would like to quote what the Father of the Nation, Mahatma Gandhiji, said:
“A customer is the most important visitor in our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him.” The Bill does not address the fundamental problem of protracted and complicated litigation, the bane of consumers, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The lawmakers promised that it would redress consumers’ disputes in a simple and quick manner without the help of lawyers. This Bill does not simplify procedures and prohibit lawyers or even restrict their presence to complaints of high value.
Health is wealth and it is a service extended to patients. In this terminology, the patient is called a consumer. Earlier, healthcare was not included in the service list of the Bill. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs came across the Supreme Court judgement of 1995 which said that medical services to patients involves charging of some fees and hence, it comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. I appreciate the Government for including healthcare in the list.
There is a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs and up to two years imprisonment, if any manufacturer or an endorser gives false or misleading advertisement. In case of a subsequent offence, penalty will be levied up to Rs. 50 lakhs and imprisonment of up to 5 years. I would request the hon. Minister to increase the penalty amount to Rs. 25 lakhs for initial false or misleading advertisement. For the subsequent offence, the penalty imposed may be up to Rs. 1 crore.
CCPA can also prohibit the endorser or manufacturer for misleading advertisement from endorsing particular product or service for a period of up to one year. For the subsequent offence, this period may be extended to three years. However, in this Bill, there are certain exceptions mentioned when endorser will not be held liable for such a penalty. I want to know from the hon. Minister as to what those exceptions are. Those exceptions should be understood by the consumers easily. They should be aware of the exceptions under which an endorser will not be held responsible for such a penalty.
There is no time frame for disposal of cases. Consumer complaints should be disposed of in less than 90 days with a minimum number of adjournments but in reality, very few cases meet the benchmark and most cases take more than a year to two years.
As per the Deccan Herald news report dated 4.4.2019, a total of 1.5 lakh cases are pending in the consumer courts. One of the reasons for poor implementation of CPA is the absence of a strong and vibrant consumer movement in India.
With these observations, I want to conclude my speech and support this Bill.… (Interruptions)
माननीयअध्यक्ष : सौगत राय जी,आप क्या बोलना चाहते हैं?
प्रो.सौगत राय (दमदम):सर, मैं इतना हीबोलना चाहता हूं किउन्नाव रेप विक्टिम परजो जानलेवा हमला हुआ,हम इसका प्रतिवाद करते हैं ।…(व्यवधान) हमें सीबीआई इनक्वायरी में यकीन नहीं है ।…(व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : चलिए, उन्नावका मामलाहो गया ।
…(व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : चन्देश्वर प्रसाद जी – उपस्थित नहीं ।
श्री रमेश चंद्र माझी – उपस्थित नहीं ।
श्री रणजीत रेड्डी ।
…( व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री रणजीतरेड्डीजी कीबात अंकितहो औरकिसीकी बातअंकि तनहींहो ।
…( व्यवधान)… * माननीय अध्यक्ष : माननीयसदस्यआपस मेंचर्चान करें ।
श्रीरणजीतरेड्डीजी, आपबोलिए ।
…( व्यवधान)
DR. G. RANJITH REDDY (CHEVELLA): Hon. Speaker Sir, I thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to talk on the rights of the consumer.
If you look into the rights, what exactly are the rights of the consumer regarding the consumer products? They have the right to know about the quality of the product, quantity of the product, pricing and purity of the product, potency of the product, and the standard of goods and services. Has the Bill really taken care of all these rights? I would say that it is partially right because all the rights have not been considered in this Bill. So, through you, I would request the hon. Minister to look into these things.
As such, the consumer is facing umpteen problems as far as the quality and quantity of the product is concerned. After the advent of e-commerce, the problems have been doubled, be it relating to quality of the products or getting the damaged goods. I was reading Clause 2 (16) in which ‘e-commerce’ has been defined. It says:
“‘e-commerce’ means buying or selling of goods or services including digital products over digital or electronic network” I heartily welcome this. If you look at Clause 94, it simply says:
“…the Central Government may take such measures in the manner as may be prescribed.” Through you, I would request the hon. Minister to look into exactly what action the Government is going to take regarding these damaged goods instead of merrily saying that the bureaucracy will answer it.
The second point I wish to make is relating to recognition of consumer rights. The rights are amply defined in the Bill but when it comes to defective goods or bad services, the Bill does not clearly say about the action to be taken against this. The Bill only proposes the product liability from Clause 82 to Clause 87, and penalties from Clause 88 to Clause 93. I was looking whether the agreement can be terminated in case the damaged goods are being supplied to the consumers. Sometimes, even bricks are supplied instead of regular products. So, through you, I request the hon. Minister to look into this matter. My only request to you is to consider implementing some penalty clauses whenever damaged goods are supplied to the consumer.
The third point is relating to MRP. Whatever MRP is mentioned on the product, the retailer is bound to sell it only at that price. But sometimes, they charge above MRP depending upon the season. Suppose, the cold drinks are to be sold at Rs. 30. In summer season, additional Rs. 2 are being charged by the retailer saying that these are the refrigerator charges. The Bill does not clearly say about the punishment for retailer if he is selling the product above MRP. So, I request the hon. Minister to look into this.
The next point is relating to false or misleading advertisements. I welcome Clause 89 of the Bill which deals with false or misleading advertisements. But the Bill deals only with the manufacturer or the service provider, and is silent about what is going to be done against the celebrities. The celebrities who are playing a very big role in advertisements are being excluded from the Act. I request the hon. Minister that along with the manufacturer and the service provider, even the celebrities have to be charged because they have a big impact on the consumers.
The next point is relating to Clause 2 (1) which defines about what constitutes an advertisement. But it is silent on passive or indirect advertisements, for example, advertisements relating to liquor, pan masala, or cigarettes. These are totally banned in the print and electronic media. But the companies promote their brands indirectly through passive advertisements. I was going through the Bill and looking whether there is any clause which deals with such advertisements but I found that there was no mention of it in the Bill. Through you, I suggest the hon. Minister to also consider including proxy or passive advertisements in the Bill.
The next point is relating to Clause 2 (42) of the Bill which deals with ‘service’. When we look into the definition of service, it means service of any description made available to users by various service providers, including banks. But I was really astonished when the RBI said that banks are not responsible for the loss of valuables kept in lockers. So, through you, I would like to know from the hon. Minister that why the items we deposit in the bank lockers are being exempted. I would also like to know from the hon. Minister as to how is he going to address this serious problem.
Finally, after passing this Act in 1986, we had three amendments. One was in 1991, second in 1995, and the third one in 2002. But the problems still remain unsolved, and new problems are mushrooming.
12.00 hrs I do not know how this new regulation will stand up to the market dynamics, multilevel delivery chain, and innovative misleading approach of companies and service providers.
I hope that with the proposals of the Bill if the suggestions given by all the hon. Members in the House are included in the Bill, it would definitely improve the state of affairs between the consumer, the manufacturer, and the service provider. Otherwise, I have no hesitation to say that the initiatives will be again like watering a dead plant.
With these observations, I am anticipating that the hon. Minister will give a serious thought to all the suggestions being made by the House.
Thank you very much, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. With these words, I conclude my speech.
DR. M.K. VISHNU PRASAD (ARANI): Hon. Speaker, Sir, I am thankful to you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this important Bill.
Every time this Government brings a Bill, it gives us a moral will. The people of India are feeling ill. At the end of the day, this Government is going to do nil.
All the time, the Minister says, this Bill has some modifications. But out there, public says: “Is it modification or ‘Modi’fication?…(Interruptions) it is because there are some small changes. One of the hon. Members said, ‘This Government is full of light, it has an era of hope and an era of brightness’. But I would rather say that this Government is an era of opaqueness, an era of highhandedness, an era of zero democracy, and at the end of the day, the people are going to give them a very big result, which they are going to see in the near future. It is because these Bills are only centralised in their powers. They are not trusting their own States. They are not trusting their own Chief Ministers. They are only taking all the powers in their hands. It is a one line agenda –‘centralisation of all the powers’. That is happening in this current Parliament.
Then, what is the point in having so many clauses in a Bill, when they are going to club all the clauses in one clause and say, ‘at the end of the day, the Central Government will decide; at the end of the day, the Central Government will rule.’? They say: ‘You do not have the right to go to the court. You cannot go for a suit.” This is the sad Government. This is the Government that we are facing and people are suffering.
THE MINISTER OF STATE IN THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT (SHRI RA MDAS ATHAWALE): People are not suffering; you are only suffering …(Interruptions)
DR. M.K. VISHNU PRASAD: Absolutely, Mr. Minister, people are suffering …(Interruptions)
Sir, we can say with pride that it was we who brought Aadhaar card.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : माननीयसदस्य, माननीयमंत्रीजी कोबोलनेकी विशेषअनुमतिहै ।
…( व्यवधान)
DR. M.K. VISHNU PRASAD : Mr. Speaker, with pride we can say that the UPA Government brought the Aadhaar card. But this Government made it as a ‘Bother’ card. For everything, Aadhaar is becoming ‘botheration’. People are suffering day by day because of the Bills that they are bringing day by day.
Now, let us talk about the Consumer Protection Bill. Who is the consumer? It is he who consumes, who buys and sells. See, where it all started? In a small manner, in the olden days, the small theft started by changing the weights, by changing the measuring tapes. The consumer did not know what happened then. This is how the consumer was suffering.
In order to protect the interests of the consumer, the Government with motherly heart thought that these consumers should be protected. That is why in 1986, the Consumer Protection Act came. The idea is that if a farmer, a poor person who even buys a thing for 10 paisa, his product should be validated; it should be justified. But is it happening here? The maximum number of consumers in India are basically the PDS, Public Distribution System beneficiaries. They use ration cards. Whoever is availing ration cards, are also consumers. A small poor farmer is not buying a big car, he is not buying a big cell phone, but he is buying from the ration shop, the pulses, chawal and cheeni, वे खरीदते हैं तो वे भी कंज्यूमर में आते हैं, मगर उसके लिए क्या निधि मिलती है? Is the consumer protected there? Can a poor farmer go and fight against the Government? Where is the law that is enabling a consumer to protect his interest? This is my humble question.
As far as BSNL is concerned, we are all getting telephones. Is it working properly? When we keep on talking, there is a drop in the signal. Hon. Speaker, Sir, I am hundred per cent sure, you have been a biggest sufferer as a consumer. What steps can we take? The real Consumer Protection Act should come in such a manner that immediately consumer voices can be heard. What is happening in this House? The voice of minority is being suppressed by the noise of majority. This is what is happening. The real poor farmer or a consumer should go and appeal to the concerned authority and say: “This is what I bought and this is what I got.” What is the Government going to do? Are we in such a position? I am not against all the clauses in your Bill. At the end of the day, we also want this Government to be safe. We also want the consumers to be really protected. Are they being protected?
As far as civil aviation sector is concerned, the moment you go for an online booking through your mobile, it will show you one price and if you again go for the same booking after ten minutes, it will show you another price. We are all suffering. Are we not suffering? What can we immediately do? Whom can we contact? What is the number? Do we know all these things? We do not know. It is all happening. You can complain in e-mobile. You can complain on a website. The interest shown by the manufacturers or the companies in selling the product is not reflected in solving the problems of the consumers. This is the reality. In this connection, I would again want to say that it is not at all time-bound because whatever the manufacturer decides, he will do. The consumer can only register his concern but, at the end of the day, he will not get his nidhi.
As far as insurance companies are concerned, they are charging premium. When some accident takes place, we go to the insurance company to get our money back but there is no immediate claim bonus. It is gone. They are charging double. As a consumer, I want to know how to address and whom to address. This is the voice of ordinary people. What mechanism has been devised by this Government to solve such problems?
Then, I am coming to the electricity boards. As a consumer, I asked the Electricity Board: “How many deaths have taken place because of short-circuits and mismanagement of the Electricity Board? Where will all these people go and ask for justice?” These are common-man’s problems. The protection of consumer is a very big subject. It has to be dealt in a very detailed manner so that the problems of even the last consumer of India can be solved. This is not happening.
What is happening with the Metro Water Board? Are we getting proper connection in time? I am paying the water tax as a consumer. I am paying drainage tax. At the end of the day, if there is any problem, where will these consumers go? As a consumer, I am entitled to use this law. How friendly and clean is this law going to be? This is what matters. That should be the idea of every Government, either this Government or that Government. A consumer has to be hundred per cent satisfied. Is it happening in this Government? It is the biggest question mark that we all have to re-think.
As far as toll roads are concerned, they are another big subject. As a citizen of India, when I buy a vehicle, I pay the road tax from Kashmir to Kanyakumari. Suppose, I am a patient, I am not in a hurry to go anywhere. In a normal manner, when I want to go in an ambassador car, provide me a normal road. I do not want a toll road. I do not want to go fast. If you give me a normal road and then if you provide me another toll road where you are charging toll, it is understandable and justifiable. You are forcing the people only to go on a toll road. Even the Supreme Court has given a judgement that if you are waiting for more than three minutes at a toll gate, you are not bound to pay the toll. In spite of that, they are collecting the toll. Why is the Government mute on this? This is everybody’s voice.
Are we not suffering due to this hazard? So, the Consumer Protection Bill should be brought in such a manner that real feelings of the people are heard. It has to be answered in the right manner to the people as per their demand.
Expiry date is a very important subject, again. First of all, regarding toll also, we have already paid tax to travel anywhere in India. Again and again, they are taking toll. In order to get toll, they should have an ambulance, a telephone and water facility. All these things are there, mandatorily. But when we ask them, they will not give any answer. Instead, they will use thugs to exploit us and extract money from us. This is the reality that we are facing. Let us not go and hide ourselves.
Regarding expiry date and MRP of the Indian products, they are very important. But they are printed in such a manner, in tiny letters which we cannot see with glasses or without glasses. Either way you try – I am challenging you – you cannot see the expiry date, the manufacture date and MRP also. What is the justice we are giving to our people who are paying so much? Is it not our responsibility? As a very rightful Opposition party, we are proud to raise all these issues, to bring them to the notice of the hon. Minister, through our hon. Speaker, to rectify all these things. They should bring a comprehensive Bill that will enable the citizens of India to use the Bill in a nice manner.
We are buying imported products. You have control over the manufacturers who are located within India. But most of the products we are using – we are using cell phones and tabs – are made outside India. What control do we have over these manufacturers? It is again the biggest question.
We are from Tamil Nadu. In my friend, Shri Manickam Tagore’s constituency, there is a town called Sivakasi. Sivakasi is basically famous for crackers. But a lot of Chinese products are coming from abroad to replace this homogenous domestic product, that is, crackers. If any problem comes, where will we go? This is a million-dollar question. So many products are imported and if anything goes wrong, they will never come into the picture at all. The money lost is lost for ever. This is the saddest condition that the Indian consumers are facing.
E-commerce is another bigger issue which I want to address. Shishir Vayttaden, a partner in Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas law firm pointed out that the 2019 Bill does not attribute liability to e-commerce marketplaces for goods sold on their platforms and they are recognised as electronic service providers. The obligations of e-commerce marketplaces are limited to sharing information with the relevant authority in an investigation and designated nodal officer to accept notices.
They say, service providers are not responsible in case there is any flaw in the products that they purchase. Then, where will the consumer go? गांव में कोई व्यक्ति लैपटॉप सेफोन ऑर्डर करता है । E-commerce is penetrated so deeply into each and every village. Everybody is ordering goods through mobile phones. In case, there is any problem with the product, where will they go? Will they go to the service provider or to some manufacturer in Thailand or to some manufacturer in Bangladesh? This is the problem that the consumers are facing. But it has not been addressed in this Bill. Only one thing they have addressed is: ‘I will have all the power within my pockets and lead the country and you have no right as a consumer to even think of questioning’. This is the state of affairs that is happening in India right now.
The Bill provides that no person shall take part in publication of any advertisement which is false or misleading. The vagueness of the term ‘false’ subjects to the prospect of misuse and subjectivity by those in power. Thus, this could infringe upon the Right to Freedom, to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation or trade or business. Where is the right to freedom of practising any profession? When they say ‘false’, it is up to the hands of the discretionary authority which obviously lies in the Centre.
You have so many Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions at the district level, at the State level and at the national level. As a consumer, I am sitting in some village, if there is any problem with the service or the product, I go to the district. But the district authority has an upper hand. They can always dismiss it. Even if I win, the district people will go to the State.
Does the poor farmer in the village has the ability to go again to the State and appeal? If he has that much dhum, he goes and fights in the State and wins his case. Then also, the Commission can go to the National Level, that is the Supreme level. Will any poor person have an ability to fight against this at the Central level?
Hon. Speaker, Sir, it is a very valid question. A farmer cannot go up to the Central level to address his problem. In that case, what is the point? Everything will come to the Centre finally and the poor farmer has no role to play. As a consumer, his freedom his curbed. He is crippled. He is malfunctioned and at the end of the day, the consumer is in the death-bed. You please send back to the Standing Committee which is not yet formed. It is very convenient for you. Without forming a Standing Committee, all the Bills are being passed. We are coming to the well not out of our interest. For the well-being of the nation, we are coming to the well. It is not out of interest or to disturb the proceedings of the House. It is for the well-being of the nation, we are coming to the well and, asking sorry, praying you. Please answer. Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to tell the hon. Minister to please consider all these points. The Bills are okay. Only when the common man feels that only he can address this problem. Time-bound solutions should come. It cannot go on and we do not have all the strength. The consumer does not have all the strength to fight till the Government can fight. So, thanks for giving me an opportunity hon. Speaker, thank you very much.
DR. KALANIDHI VEERASWAMY (CHENNAI NORTH): Hon. Speaker Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 brought by this Government.
Sir, we oppose the Bill on certain aspects. No doubt, the Consumer Protection Act which was there earlier is useful. We have to definitely take care of the consumers to make sure that they are not cheated of for whatever their rights are. But here we are talking about a Bill about which we have made some fundamental changes in the already existing Act. What is the need for those changes? If you go through the Bill, we find that the need for this Bill has arisen only because of the time taken for the disputes to be addressed. There are instances where some cases have gone for a very long time. So, if you are going to address only about the duration taken for a consumer to get justice, that is acceptable. But here, we have made some fundamental changes in the composition of the Commission at the District level, State level and National level. The changes are these.
Earlier, the National level Commissioner was to be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India and the State level Commissioner was to be appointed by the Chief Justice of High Court and the District level could have been by a person who is not of judiciary nature. This Bill is also like every other Bill which this Government has brought. You have made sure that these are the people who are going to be nominated or appointed by the Central Government and nobody has a right to question about the validity or their educational qualifications because you have not specified the qualifications for these Commissioners who are to be appointed.
12.18 hrs (Shri Rajendra Agrawal in the Chair) Sir, this is a very sad state of affairs because you are taking the rights out of the judicial system and giving these rights to the Central Government. You have already taken so many powers from so many bodies. Do you want to take it away from the consumers? Should the consumer also suffer because of this Government’s feudal attitude? This Government has made sure that there is no opposition.
On the other day, Dr. Shashi Tharoor said that even some amendments which are of a good nature are not being accepted. You are not treating the opposition Parties as Opposition parties. You are treating them like enemy parties. What is the harm in accepting some of the fundamental changes in certain Bills which is not going to be of any great concern and which is going to be a good thing for the common man? So, you have not considered all these factors while drafting this Bill. You are saying that the Central Government is going to be supreme. There is not going to be any autonomy where the State has a say in any of the matters and you are trying to bring all powers to Delhi. You do not want the powers to be vested with the States.
Sir, if you look at Clause (2) section 6 and sub-section 5, it says, “goods, which are hazardous to life and safety, when used.” If people sell these products, they will be taken to task. Not only this Government but all the Governments across the world are very, very hypocritic when it comes to treating their civilians because we are allowing people to sell cigarettes and alcohol knowing very well that they cause a grave health hazard to the population at large. Being a doctor, I have seen umpteen number of people who smoke end up with heart attacks, cancers, bladder diseases, lung related diseases, COPD and all these things. We know all these things well. What do we do? We just put a sticker on the cigarette packet saying that this is hazardous to health. It is doing like this. You give poison and say, if you drink this, you will die. You allow the public to drink that. This is what we are doing as a Government. The Government is never bothered about the civilians or the consumers. We are only bothered about the revenue that we can generate even if it is at the cost of their health. So, this is the kind of Government we are running. I do not know whether we can make any changes in that.
Recently, there was a newspaper article saying that a person bought two bananas for Rs.450 in a hotel. That person is a celebrity. He just tweeted it and suo motu somebody has taken cognizance of this and they have addressed this issue. But think about the common man. Even our Pradhan Mantri is seeing only the celebrities with his eyes. He does not see the common man. When an agriculturist from Tamil Nadu wanting to raise his concerns, comes and strikes for 100 days, the Prime Minister is not interested in meeting him at all. But at the same time, when celebrities come, they get an appointment within half-an-hour and they get to see him and talk about whatever they want to talk. He is more of a person who looks at media attention rather than the health of the people and the concerns of the people.
The other thing which I want to point out in this Bill is this. We are talking about consumer protection. For any consumer protection, I think there is something called an ombudsman. An ombudsman is a person who is appointed by the respective companies where you can raise grievances before coming to these Commissions. You can talk to the company, find out what is wrong and then you can address these issues. But most of the times, people are not aware of who the ombudsman is and how he can be contacted. Even if they have an ombudsman, he can be contacted only through an e-mail. When they send an e-mail, there is no response to it or there is a very dubious reply where they will have no answer to their issues. So, we are left with no choice but to go to a consumer court.
But again, like my friend over here said, when we go to the consumer court, how many people are aware of this? I think most of the people over here will not be aware of this. We are all educated Members of Parliament. We will not be aware of how to address the grievance; how to go about getting a solution for our problems. So, when this is the case, how do you expect a common man, an illiterate, to get justice when he is being cheated?
In the same way, we are talking about MRPs. On MRPs, we say that the products should not be sold above the price. We are talking about instances where the product has been sold, probably, for Rs.10 above the price. Even when we are going by Government buses or private buses, people claim they do not get the change. If you look at the volume, when thousands and lakhs of people are travelling, this amount comes to a huge amount. So, these kinds of issues are there. For Rs.2, I will not want to take the pain to go and complain to somebody. There should be some kind of an e-mail system through which he can raise the issue; and action should be taken. Sending an e-mail alone is not enough. If we send an e-mail, there should be a proper response, and action should be taken. The person, who has complained, should be given a detailed reply about what action has been taken.
When talking about unfair contract and restrictive trade practices, we are talking about companies which are giving false promises while selling a product. We have to be happy that political parties do not fall in this ambit. In 2014, false promises were made by this Government by saying that they will deposit Rs.15 lakh into every person’s account; they will create 10 crore jobs for the people; and they will bring back black money into the country from all over the world and make our country one of the richest nations. They were not materialised. It is funny to note that the Government, which came to power with such false promises, is taking action against companies which are not keeping their promises. Is it not funny to see something like that happening?
Now, I want to talk something about medical profession. As medical professionals, we all are suffering. The number of crimes which are committed against doctors are increasing. It is not only the crimes that are increasing but frivolous cases are also being filed against medical professionals. Some lawyers instigate the patients saying even if there is no negligence case, they will sue the medical professional and if they win, they would take 70 per cent of whatever is offered and the remaining 30 per cent would go to the patient. In this regard, I would suggest the Government to come up with a policy where any medical negligence case first should be sent to the State Medical Commission and if they approve that there is some validity in having a case over here, then only the case should be filed against a medical professional. I am saying it because umpteen number of cases have been filed against doctors. I think the doctors have to be given some respect. If this malpractice is continued, they would not be able to practice their profession in peace.
Now, I would also like to say something about insurance companies. Being a doctor, I have seen a number of cases where the medical insurance companies do not sanction full insured amount to their clients when they are treated in hospitals. They sanction only a partial amount and ask the clients to pay on their own the rest of the expenses charged by the hospital. These are some of the issues which patients often do not raise in public forums. I hope the Government will do something about it. Thank you, Sir.
SHRI P. RAVEENDRANATH KUMAR (THENI): Hon. Chairperson, Sir, I request you to expunge what Shri Veeraswamy has spoken against the hon. Prime Minister.
माननीयसभापति : मैंदेख लूंगा । इसेहम देखलेंगे ।
…( व्यवधान)
SHRI DAYANIDHI MARAN (CHENNAI CENTRAL): The hon. Member should stick to his party stand. He is not in alliance with BJP.
माननीयसभापति : ओके, ओके, हमदेख लेंगे ।
…( व्यवधान)
माननीयसभापति : संसदके नियमहैं ।आप किसीको चिंताकरनेकी आवश्यकतानहींहै ।
…( व्यवधान)
माननीयसभापति : मारनसाहब, प्लीज़आप बैठिए ।
…( व्यवधान)
माननीयसभापति : कनिमोझी जी, प्लीज़ आप भी बैठिए ।
…( व्यवधान)
माननीय सभापति : मैंकह रहा हॅूंकि अगर ठीकहोगातो रहेगा, अगरगलत होगातो चलाजाएगा ।यह एकदमसिंपलहै ।
…( व्यवधान)
माननीयसभापति : प्रतिमाजी, आपबोलिए ।
…( व्यवधान)
SHRIMATI PRATIMA MONDAL (JAYNAGAR): Sir, I rise to speak on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 with a heavy heart since a girl child who was a rape victim has been murdered. It is a black day in India.
Sir, the Consumer Protection Bill seeks to establish a strong mechanism to shield the consumers in a globalised world. It is indeed a time to replace the rudimentary Act of 1986 because the world has witnessed a great transformation in the last three decades with the emergence of global supply chain, rise in international trade, rapid development of technology as a medium of transaction, etc. Though this transformation provides innumerable benefits, it has made the consumer vulnerable to new forms of malpractices through features like telemarketing, multi-level marketing, e-commerce etc. The Bill attempts to intervene and protect the consumer, make better environment, and give directives. Bringing e-commerce in the ambit of the Bill is a big step forward. The basic purpose of the proposed Bill is to protect the consumers from misleading advertisements.
Chapter-I, Clause 28 enumerates its scope. It includes false description, false guarantee, unfair trade practices, and concealing important information from customers in the definition of misleading advertisement. But here we are missing out on a very important aspect, that is, depiction. We come across numerous advertisements which use derogatory language and depict women in an unacceptable manner. So, the Government should take it into serious consideration.
Somebody’s skin complexion would not get him a job but his potential and capability. Also, a certain scent would not literally fetch him a girl but his sense of humanity. So, the advertisements not only make false promises but also rot the minds of the people in society.
This has been a serious issue and came up only after the second wave of feminism. It is absolutely necessary to look into the matter and make depiction of women on media to an acceptable standard.
It has the provision to set up a Consumer Protection Council which will be an advisory body set up at national, State and district levels. Clause 3(2)(b) states “such number of other official or non-official members representing such interests as prescribed”. I have a couple of questions which I would like to seek answers to from the hon. Minister. Whom will the Council render its advice? Why are we not fixing the number of members that will constitute the body?
At the end of the day, each and every important decision is being left to the Central Government. The Government is legalising and increasing its power with every Bill it introduces. Again, clause 6(2)(c) speaks about the Central Government’s nomination of members in the State Council. Now, what is the need for that? Why should it encroach in the matters of State? Does it doubt the capabilities of State Governments or have the intention to overpower it and have control even in the advisory role? These repetitive actions display the controlling nature. It limits the nomination number to ten, but does not specify the actual strength of the council in terms of number of members.
Central Consumer Protection Authority will also be set up and it aims at protecting six rights of consumers, namely, right to be protected against marketing, be informed of quality, be informed of quantity and its potency, to be assured variety of products, to be heard, consumer awareness and redressal of grievance. Previously only the last point was given importance, but the bone of contention is, again, the same that the Central Government takes upon its own shoulders the task of setting qualification standards, number of members etc. Why are we not empowering the Act itself? I would like to know this from the hon. Minister.
The Bill also provides for setting up of a quasi-judicial body, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions at district, State and national level, but it does not make the presence of a judicial member mandatory. A quasi-judicial body cannot discharge its function in the absence of a judicial member. Giving this unlimited power to the Executive will turn out to be a big mistake. Thus, I request the Government to make a provision to ensure the participation of a judicial member and also enumerate the qualifications of its members in the Bill itself. Also, I object to the fact that all the members, whether in the Central or State Courts, will be appointed by the Central Government. This is an absolute infringement on the rights of the States, disrupting the federal structure altogether.
‘Consumer protection’ falls under the Concurrent List and is enforced by both, the Centre and the State. The provisions related to information technology are exclusive to Central laws and surprisingly, those are two decades old. Thus, simultaneous changes in the IT Acts are also required. It is also necessary to add a sunset clause in the Bill which will ensure regular modernisation of laws because it is necessary to maintain pace with the ever-growing and long strides of technology.
Sir, I would like to know from the hon. Minister as to how the Government intends to control advertisements on the internet. Also, how will it control the foreign companies that do not fall under our jurisdiction, if they put up misleading advertisements?
The Act of 1986 provided for settling the disputes within a stipulated period, but even then, around 4,60,000 cases are pending. How will the Government make sure that this problem is solved? We should impose a penalty on the adjudicator for non-compliance of the given time period.
The Bill contains a provision which imposes a penalty, on the manufacturer or service provider for false and misleading advertisements, of up to Rs. 50 lakh and a term of five years. The Bill imposes a penalty on the endorser as well, but does not provide imprisonment as a form of penalty.
It is known to all that celebrities leave a deep impression on the minds of the viewers and, so they have a responsibility on their shoulders. Just for their professional and economical benefit, they should not promote every other product. It is known to us that these celebrities are one of the richest class of citizens of our country and mere payment of a fine is not a big deal for them. This should be handled in a more stringent manner. Again, the Bill itself creates a loophole and provides an escape route by stating that the endorsers will not be liable to any punishment if he or she exercises due diligence without properly explaining what does it actually stand for. The Minister also needs to specify the channel through which a consumer can clarify their queries.
I would like to draw the attention of the Minister towards the case of C2C Business Model in which consumers sell their used products to other consumers through sites like the OLX, Quikr, etc. My question here is this: How will the provisions in this Bill ensure the rights of customers in this business model? Will they be dealt in a similar manner? It will be immensely helpful if the Minister could please explain it.
Chapter VI, section 87 provides that prior warning from the manufacturers’ end will protect them from violation case. Now, in the said business model there is no scope of concrete evidence whether warning was given or not. At the time of dispute, both parties will claim in their own favour. So, what will be the solution for that?
Finally, section 94 aims to protect the interests and rights of consumers and the Central Government will take measures in a manner ‘as prescribed’. The Bill itself provides for the ‘proper manner’ and sets up bodies to ensure the same. Then, what will be the other measures that will be taken up specially by the Central Government? Seeking details also on the manner ‘as may be prescribed’, why is the Bill itself not providing those?
Now to end, I would like to put forward a true example where a woman tried to sue a butter company that had printed the word ‘LITE’ on its product’s packaging. She claimed to have gained so much weight from eating that butter, even though it was labelled as being ‘LITE’. In the court, the lawyer representing the butter company simply held up the container of butter and said to the judge, “My client did not lie. The container is indeed light in weight”. The woman lost the case. From this, it is evident that consumer protection is a crucial and sensitive matter which is to be dealt with proper caution. I hope this Bill will make concerned changes to make itself more promising.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity.
श्री राहुल रमेश शेवले (मुम्बई दक्षिण-मध्य): महोदय, आपने मुझे उपभोक्ता संरक्षण विधेयक, 2019 परबोलने काअवसर दिया, इसके लिए आपका धन्यवाद ।
हमारी एनडीए सरकार विभिन्न बिलों केद्वारा निरंतर ऐसे कानून बनाने काप्रयास कररही हैऔर देशवासियों कोसुविधाओं केसाथ-साथ सरकार में भागीदारी भीप्रदान कररही है ।
आदरणीय मोदी जीने देशवासियों सेजो वादा किया, उसको पूर्ण करने में यहबिल पारित होने केबाद कारगर होगा, ऐसा मेरा विश्वास है । यहएक बहुत आवश्यक कानून है,जो उपभोक्ता अधिकारों कीसुरक्षा सुनिश्चित करने औरउचित व्यापारिक प्रथाओं कोस्थापित करने कीदिशा में काम करेगा ।
सबसेपहले मैं उपभोक्ताओं केअधिकारों कोबढ़ावा देने, उनकी रक्षा करने औरउन्हें लागू करने केलिए केंद्रीय उपभोक्ता संरक्षण प्राधिकरण कीस्थापना केप्रस्ताव केलिए सरकार कोबधाई देना चाहूँगा । यहसही दिशा में एकमहत्वपूर्ण कदम है । अधिकांश अन्य प्राधिकरणों केविपरीत, जिनका जनादेश शिकायतकर्ताओं कोनिवारण प्रदान करने तकसीमित है,सीसीपीए कीइस तरह सेपरिकल्पना कीगई है,जिससे व्यापारिक निकायों केअनुचित व्यवहारों केखिलाफ स्वत: संज्ञान लेसके औरइस प्रकार सेउपभोक्ता कीसुचारू रूप सेसुरक्षा सुनिश्चित होती है ।
सर, स्थायी समिति कीसिफारिशों केअनुरूप बिल काउद्देश्य उपभोक्ता कोठगने परकेंद्रित भ्रामक समर्थन में भाग लेने केलिए जिम्मेदार उनसेलिब्रिटीज याएड करने वाले एंडोरसर्स कोपकड़ना हैऔर यहसही दिशा में एकमहत्वपूर्ण कदम है । जैसा किनिर्माताओं औरसेवा प्रदाताओं केसाथ होता है,इस तरह केभ्रामक विज्ञापन केमाध्यम सेउत्पाद कासमर्थन करने वाले लोगों औरधन कोलूटने वाले लोगों कोउन उत्पादों केलिए जवाबदेह ठहराया जाना चाहिए, जोवे विज्ञापन कररहे हैं । दंड केसाथ इसतरह कीजवाबदेही एंडोसर्स केबीच परिश्रम कोसुनिश्चित करेगी किवे जिन उत्पादों केलिए समर्थन कररहे हैं,वे प्रामाणिक हैं । पिछले कुछ वर्षों में हमने देखा हैकि रियल एस्टेट में बड़े शहरों में फ्लैट्स आवंटन हेतु बिल्डरों नेबड़े सेलिब्रिटीज केमाध्यम सेबहुत बड़ा प्रचार किया, लेकिन हुआ क्या?
अधिकांश स्कीम्स परकाम नहीं हुआ औरअन्त में निवेशकों कोआश्वासन केअलावा कुछ नहीं मिला । क्या उनसेलिब्रिटीज़ औरविज्ञापनकर्ताओं कोजिम्मेदार नहीं ठहराया जाना चाहिए? इसतरह काप्रावधान भीइस बिल में होना चाहिए किनिवेशकों काधन उनसे भीवसूल किया जासके ।
सभापति जी,इस बिल काउद्देश्य निर्माता औरविक्रेता केउत्पाद दायित्व कोस्थापित करना है,जिसका उद्देश्य उन्हें उत्पाद औरसेवाओं कोबेचने केलिए जिम्मेदार ठहराना है । उपभोक्ताओं कोहोने वाली असुविधा केलिए मुआवजा प्रदान करने केलिए उन्हें उत्तरदायी बनाना भीआवश्यक है । आजकल देश में सैकड़ों कम्पनियां ऑनलाइन सामान सप्लाई करने काकार्य कररही हैं । समय कीकमी औरजीवन कीआपाधापी केकारण अधिकांश लोग ऑनलाइन सामान बेचने वाली कम्पनियों केलोकलुभावन प्रचार में फंस करजरूरत कासामान ऑर्डर करते हैं औरजब वेसबस्टैण्डर्ड औरगलत सामान प्राप्त करते हैं तोसप्लायर बहाना बनाकर उसकी कोई सुनवाई नहीं करते हैं । आपको भीउसका अनुभव होगा । यहां तककि जोफोन नम्बर उसइनवॉयस परप्रिंटेड रहता है,वह एग्जिस्ट हीनहीं करता है । सामान वापस करने कीसमय सीमा कोभी वेफॉलो नहीं करते हैं । अंतत: नुकसान उपभोक्ताओं कोही उठाना पड़ता है । इसके लिए सप्लायर कोजिम्मेदार ठहराने काप्रावधान होना चाहिए ।
सभापति जी,हालांकि, सी.सी.पी.ए. कीस्थापना सरकार काएक सराहनीय कदम है,परन्तु बिल में कुल आयुक्तों कीगणना नहीं कीगई है,जो प्राधिकरण कानेतृत्व करेंगे । यहकेन्द्र सरकार द्वारा बाद में तयकिया जाना चाहिए । पारदर्शिता औरजवाबदेही केहित में सरकार कोसी.सी.पी.ए. में नियुक्ति करने केलिए आयुक्तों कीकुल संख्या कोभी परिभाषित करना चाहिए ।
सर, विधेयक काउद्देश्य पहले सेही दबे हुए न्यायालयों केबोझ कोजोड़े बिना पीड़ित उपभोक्ताओं कोसमय परनिवारण प्रदान करने केउद्देश्य सेएक नागरिक अदालत कीशक्ति प्रदान करना है । हालांकि, बिल इनमंचों में न्यायिक प्रतिनिधित्व कीअनिवार्य आवश्यकता नहीं रखता है । न्यायिक प्रतिनिधित्व किसी भीअदालत केलिए सुचारू औरकुशल होना चाहिए ।
निवारण मंचों केसदस्यों कोनियुक्त करने काअधिकार केवल केन्द्र सरकार केपास नहीं होना चाहिए, बल्कि यहन्यायपालिका केप्रतिनिधित्व केसाथ एकस्वतंत्र चयन समिति केनिर्णयों केअधीन होना चाहिए । इसदिशा में राज्य सरकारों कोभी आवश्यकता केअनुसार शक्ति प्रदान करनी चाहिए । राज्य सरकारों कोभी अपने राज्य में निवारण मंचों केसदस्यों कोनियुक्त करने काअधिकार होना चाहिए ।
उदाहरण केतौर परमैं जॉनसन एण्ड जॉनसन सेसंबंधित एकमामले काउल्लेख करना चाहता हूं,जहां कम्पनी कोदोषपूर्ण हिप प्रत्यारोपण कीआपूर्ति केलिए जवाबदेह ठहराया जारहा है । कम्पनी नेगलत सामान सप्लाई किया, जिसके इम्प्लांट केबाद रोगी औरअधिक समस्याओं सेजूझ रहे हैं । कम्पनी अपनी गलती कोस्वीकार करअमेरिका में कम्पेनसेशन देरही है,परन्तु वहभारत में इसके लिए आनाकानी कररही हैतो क्या सरकार कादायित्व नहीं बनता किवह कम्पनी केविरुद्ध मामला बना करउस परकेस करे?उन मामलों कासमय परनिवारण सुनिश्चित करने केलिए एकनियामक ढांचा तैयार करना होगा, जहां परउपभोक्ताओं कोठगने केलिए बहुराष्ट्रीय निगम जिम्मेदार हैं ।
महोदय,इस आशा केसाथ किमेरे द्वारा दिए गएसुझावों परसरकार विचार करेगी, इसबिल कामैं समर्थन करता हूं ।
धन्यवाद ।
श्री चन्देश्वर प्रसाद (जहानाबाद): माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं उपभोक्ता संरक्षण विधेयक, 2019 केसमर्थन में बोलने केलिए खड़ा हुआ हूं । यहबिल काफी महत्वपूर्ण है ।
सभापति महोदय, मैं सर्वप्रथम जहानाबाद, अरवल, गया जिले सहित समूचे बिहार प्रदेश कीतरफ सेउपभोक्ता संरक्षण बिल केलिए आभार व्यक्त करता हूं । हमारे प्रदेश केमुख्य मंत्री जीभी इसविषय परसमय-समय परअपनी चिंता व्यक्त करते रहे हैं ।
सभापति महोदय, देश में 130 करोड़ उपभोक्ता हैं । देश केउपभोक्ताओं में जागरूकता आरही है,लेकिन हमारा बिल 33 वर्ष पुराना हीचल रहा है । अबबाजार उन्नत होचुका है । वैश्विक बाजार, चाहे वहराष्ट्रीय स्तर परहो याअंतर्राष्ट्रीय स्तर परहो, चाहे ई-कॉमर्स काबाजार हो,इनमें सभी प्रकार कीअच्छाइयों केसाथ-साथ कुरीतियां भीआ गईहैं । नयी बाजार व्यवस्था काकोई संचालन नियमन नहीं है । अभी हाल-फिलहाल हाई कोर्ट नेई-कॉमर्स केद्वारा दवा बिक्री पररोक लगाई हैऔर सही नियमन बनाने कीसिफारिश कीहै । इन्हीं कारणों सेयह विधेयक काफी महत्वपूर्ण है । इससे उपभोक्ताओं केअधिकारों कोसुरक्षित करने काप्रावधान होगा । आजबाजार भ्रामक विज्ञापन, टेलिमार्केटिंग, डायरेक्ट बिक्री औरई-कॉमर्स कीओर अग्रसर है ।
इसी कारण उपभोक्ता कभी-कभी ठगे भीजाते हैं । वजन एवं तोल सही नहीं मिलता है । नकली औरखराब सामान कीसप्लाई कीजाती है । मिलावट आजआम बात होगई है । शुद्धता परप्रश्न चिह्न लगचुका है । पहले कोई व्यक्ति कहता थाकि सामान ठीक नहीं है,अच्छा नहीं है,तो वहखरीदने केबाद कम्प्लेंट करता था । उसके बाद कंज्यूमर फोरम केमाध्यम सेकार्रवाई कीजाती थी । इसबिल में सेन्ट्रल कंज्यूमर प्रोटेक्शन अथॉरिटी (सी.सी.पी.ए.) कीव्यवस्था कीगई है । अगर कंज्यूमर कोर्ट में आपस में कहीं कंट्रोवर्सी होती है,तो हमकह सकते हैं किजूडिशियल मामले कोसॉर्ट आउट करलिया गया है । क्लॉसिज़ एक्शन केतहत कोई चीज खरीदने सेपहले, खरीदने केसमय याखरीदने केबाद तीनों हीस्थिति में अथॉरिटी कोअधिकार होगा । यहबिल नॉन कन्ट्रोवर्शियल हैऔर देश केकंज्यूमर्स केहित में है । कंज्यूमर कमीशन तीन लेवल परहै, एकडिस्ट्रिक्ट लेवल परहै, दूसरा स्टेट लेवल परहै औरतीसरा, एकनेशनल लेवल परहै । पहले 20 लाख परडिस्ट्रिक्ट लेवल था,अब इसे बढ़ाकर एककरोड़ करदिया गया है । पहले कोई आदमी जहां सामान खरीदता था,वहीं परही कम्प्लेंट करसकता था । अबवह अपने घरसे हीकम्प्लेंट करसकता है । इसमें वकील कीकोई जरुरत नहीं होगी । मेडिएशन काप्रावधान भीरखा गया हैऔर आपस में समझौता भीकर सकते हैं ।
कंज्यूमर केपक्ष में यदि हाई कोर्ट यालोअर कोर्ट सेफैसला होगया, तबविरोधी कोनेशनल कोर्ट या कमीशन में जाने काअधिकार नहीं रहेगा । यहबहुत हीअच्छा विधेयक आरहा है । इससे उपभोक्ताओं कोकाफी सहूलियतें होंगी । इसमें ई-फाइलिंग कीभी व्यवस्था कीगई है । 21 दिन केअंदर यदि सुनवाई नहीं होती है,तो ऑटोमेटिक कम्प्लेंट एडमिट करली जाएगी । इसमें मिसलीडिंग एडवर्टाइजमेंट कीबात भीआ गईहै । अबयदि कोई आदमी एडवर्टाइजमेंट देता हैऔर वहचीज गलत है,तो वहदोषी है । दूसरा, यदि कोई एडवर्टाइजमेंट कोगलत ढंग सेछापता है,तो वहभी दोषी है । तीसरा, यदि कोई सेलेब्रेटी, जोचीज नहीं लिखी है,उसे बोलता है,तो वहभी दोषी है । यहबहुत हीकारगर कदम होगा । इसके अलावा, वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग केमाध्यम सेसुनवाई होसकती है । बहुत-सीसुविधाएं इसविधेयक में दीगई हैं । डायरेक्ट सेलिंग कीव्यवस्था कीगई है । जहां सेसामान खरीदें, वहां बिल देना अनिवार्य होगा औरएक महीने केअंदर सामान कोवापस भीकिया जासकता है । यहप्रोडक्ट लाएबिलिटीज़ कामामला है,मिलावट कामामला है । इनसब चीजों कोदेख करही यहबिल लाया गया है । इसतरह सेबहुत सरल प्रक्रिया करदी गईहै ।
मैंइस बात केलिए सरकार तथा मानननीय मंत्री जीको धन्यवाद देता हूं । मैं माननीय मंत्री जीनिवेदन सेकरना चाहता हूं किजितनी बाजार समितियां हैं,जितने भीसरकारी गोदाम हैं,वहां इलेक्ट्रॉनिक कांटे कीव्यवस्था होनी चाहिए, जिससे किसानों कोराहत मिलेगी ।
महोदय,कुल मिलाकर यहबहुत हीमहत्वपूर्ण बिल है । इन्हीं शब्दों केसाथ मैं आपको बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद देता हूं । धन्यवाद ।
माननीय सभापति: आपकोभी धन्यवादहै, क्योंकिआपनेसमय-सीमामें अपनाविषयपूराकिया ।
श्री रमेशचन्द्र माझी (नबरंगपुर): चेयरमैनसर, आजकंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनबिल 2019 केऊपर चर्चाहो रहीहै । मैंकंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनबिल 2019 कासपोर्टकर रहाहूं ।इसमेंदो-तीनचीजेंअच्छीहैं ।इसमेंकंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनकाउंसिल, सेन्ट्रलकंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनअथॉरिटीऔर कंज्यूमरडिस्प्यूटरिड्रेसलकमीशनकी व्यवस्थाहै । अगरहम सेन्ट्रलकंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनअथॉरिटीकी व्यवस्थाको देखतेहैं, तोमुझेलगताहै कियह एकअच्छास्टेपहै । उसमेंएक नईचीज क्लासएक्शनसूट है । यहभी एकगुड स्टेपहै । इसमेंमेडिएशनके बारेमें बतायागया है । अगरदोनोंके बीचकोई प्रॉब्लमहोतीहै, तोवह आउटऑफ कोर्टही सेटलहो सकताहै । यहअच्छीचीज है ।
मान्यवर, मैंमाननीयमंत्रीजी सेएक-दोचीजोंके बारेमें क्लैरिफिकेशनचाहताहूं ।इसमेंजो ई-कॉमर्सपॉलिसीऔर कंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनबिल है, इनदोनोंमें कान्फ्लिक्टहै । माननीयमंत्रीजी इसकोथोड़ाक्लैरिफाईकरें ।अगर कोईप्रोडक्टका पैसारिफंडकरकेलौटाताहै, तोउसकोवेबसाइटसे हीहटा दियाजाताहै । अबकंज्यूमरप्रोटेक्शनमें क्याहै? यहप्रोडक्टलाएबिलिटीज़के केसमें आसकताहै । अगरहम क्वांटमऑफ पनिशमेन्टके बारेमें बोलें, तोई-कॉमर्सपॉलिसीऔर ड्राफ्टई-कॉमर्सपॉलिसीअभी तकफाइनलनहींहुई है । जोपहलाऑफेन्सकरताथा, उसका10 लाखरुपयेका फाइनहोताथा औरदो सालकी जेलभी होतीथी ।
अगर कोई सेकेंड टाइम आफेंस करेगा, तोउसको पांच साल सजा होगी और 50 लाख रुपये फाइन होगा । इनदोनों चीजों में मैक्सिमम लिमिट क्या है?मान्यवर मंत्री जीइसे क्लेरिफाई करेंगे ।
वर्ष 2011 में यूएस फेडरल ट्रेड कमीशन में रीबॉक कोफाइन हुआ था । उसमें उसको 25 मिलियन डॉलर्स काफाइन हुआ था । 50 लाख रुपये इसके लिए काफी हैं यानहीं, इसे माननीय मंत्री जीक्लेरिफाई करेंगे । अगर कोई सिलेब्रिटी है,उसको भीफाइन करसकते हैं । इसमें एकचीज ड्यू डिलीजेंस है,इसके बारे में मंत्री महोदय क्लेरिफाई करेंगे किड्यू डिलीजेंस क्या है?
उसका जोजज होता है,जो कंज्यूमर रिड्रेसल कमीशन होता है,उसमें एकजज बैठते थे । अबइसमें जुडीशियल लोग बैठेंगे याब्यूरोक्रेट बैठेगा, इसबिल में क्या प्रावधान किया है?इसे क्लेरिफाई करना चाहिए । पहले इसमें जजका एप्वाइंटमेंट किया जाता था,अब उसमें कौन बैठेगा, इसका रूल क्या होगा? मंत्री जी,आप इसको क्लेरिफाई कीजिए ।
अगर पेंडेंसी देखी जाए,तो 3,23,163 केसेज डिस्ट्रिक्ट फोरम्स में पेंडिंग हैं । आपने बताया किडिस्ट्रिक्ट लेवल परपहले 20 लाख रुपये तकथा, अबवह 1 करोड़ रुपये होगया है । इसके बारे में क्या स्ट्रेटिजी है?मंत्री जीइसके बारे में बताएंगे । जोएडवरटाइजमेंट कोड होता है,लीगल बैंकिंग केबारे में स्टैंडिंग कमेटी नेजो रिकमेंडेशन कीहै, वहअच्छी चीज है । इसके बारे में सरकार कोई वादा कबकरेगी? 20 लाख रुपये तकका जोकेस होगा, वहविद आउट एडवोकेट केफाइनल होजाएगा, यहचीज अच्छी है । स्टैंडिंग कमेटी नेभी इसके लिए रिकमेंड किया है ।
कंज्यूमर्स कोअवेयरनेस केलिए कौन एजुकेट करेगा? कंज्यूमर्स अवेयरनेस कीएजुकेशन कैसे दीजाएगी, इसे कौन-कौन करेगा? मंत्री महोदय जीआप इसबात कोक्लेरिफाई करें ।
महोदय,मैं इन्हीं शब्दों केसाथ धन्यवाद देते हुए अपनी बात कोसमाप्त करता हूं ।
श्री गिरीशचन्द्र (नगीना): महोदय, आपनेमुझेउपभोक्तासंरक्षणसंशोधनबिल, 2019 कीचर्चापर बोलनेका मौकादिया, इसकेलिए मैंआपकोधन्यवाददेनाचाहताहूं ।मैं बहुजनसमाजपार्टीकी राष्ट्रीयअध्यक्षआदरणीयबहन जीका भीआभारप्रकटकरनाचाहताहूं किउनकेआशीर्वादसे मुझेयहांआने कामौकामिला ।
महोदय, उपभोक्तासंरक्षणअधिनियमवर्ष1986 मेंपारितहुआ ।आम जनताको इसकातुरन्तलाभ मिले, ऐसीव्यवस्थाइसमेंदी गईहै । मैंअवगतकरानाचाहताहूं कि उत्तरप्रदेशकी उपभोक्ताअदालतोंमें लगभग5 से15 वर्षतक मुकदमेविचाराधीनहैं ।उपभोक्ताअदालतोंमें पिछलेतीन वर्षोंमें सदस्योंकी कोईनियुक्तिन होनेके कारणमुकदमेनिस्तारितनहींहो पारहे हैं । अकेलउत्तरप्रदेशमें हीलगभग50 उपभोक्तान्यायालयऐसे हैं, जहांअध्यक्षएवं सदस्यदोनोंके हीपद रिक्तहैं औरउपभोक्तान्यायालयठप पड़ेहैं ।सरकारउपभोक्ताअदालतोंपर कोईध्याननहींदे रहीहै, जिसकेकारणवहांसरकारका काफीपैसाबर्बादहो रहाहै । ऐसाकानूनबने किजिससेउपभोक्तान्यायालयकभी भीखालीन रहेंतथा उपभोक्ताअदालतोंमें कार्यरतअध्यक्षएवं सदस्यनिर्धारितसमय मेंमुकदमेनिर्णीतन करेंतो उनकीजवाबदेहीभी तयहोनीचाहिए ।मैं आपसेऐसी मांगरखताहूं ।
महोदय, देशके अन्यराज्योंमें राज्यउपभोक्ताआयोगकी पीठके साथ-साथ, राज्यआयोगकी सर्किटबेंचभी गठितहैं ।उत्तरप्रदेशएक ऐसाराज्यहै, जोजनसंख्याएवं क्षेत्रफलको देखतेहुए काफीबड़ा राज्यहै । उत्तरप्रदेशमें राज्यउपभोक्ताआयोगकी पीठलखनऊमें स्थापितहै । उत्तरप्रदेशमें राज्यउपभोक्ताआयोगकी मात्रएक पीठहोनेके कारणमुकदमोंका निस्तारणवर्षोंतक लम्बितपड़ा रहताहै । इसलिएमैं अन्यराज्योंकी तरहउत्तरप्रदेशमें भीउपभोक्ताओंके हितोंका ध्यानरखतेहुए राज्यउपभोक्ताआयोगकी कमसे कम 5 सर्किटबेंचखोलीजाएं । इसकीएक पीठमुरादाबादमण्डलके जनपदबिजनौरमें भीखोलनेकी मैंमांगरखताहूं ।
राज्यआयोगतथा जिलाफोरम्समें सदस्योंकी भर्तीकी योग्यताकम सेकम विधिस्नातकहो । सेवानिवृत्तअधिकारियों, कर्मचारियोंके लिएभी योग्यताविधिस्नातकसे कमन हो ।संघ लोकसेवाआयोगअथवाअधीनस्थचयन सेवाआयोगके द्वाराही भर्तीकी जानीचाहिए ।
राष्ट्रीय आयोग, राज्य आयोग तथा जिला फोरमों में अध्यक्ष एवं सदस्यों केपदों कीभर्ती में अनुसूचित जाति एवं अनुसूचित जनजाति वअति पिछड़े वर्ग कानिर्धारित आरक्षण इसमें लागू होने कीव्यवस्था हो । वर्तमान में जिला फोरम में मुकदमों केनिस्तारण कीअवधि तीन माह निर्धारित है,परंतु वर्षों मुकदमों केनिस्तारण में लगजाते हैं ।
महोदय, मैं आपकी जानकारी में लाना चाहता हूं किजिला फोरम में एकमाह में कमसे कम 75 मुकदमे निस्तारित करने कालक्ष्य है,लेकिन अधिकतर जिला फोरमों में माह में पांच यादस मुकद्मे हीमेरिट केआधार परनिस्तारित होरहे हैं । ऐसी स्थिति में जिला फोरम केअध्यक्ष औरसदस्यों केविरुद्ध जवाबदेही भीतय होनी चाहिए । उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार फोरम केअध्यक्ष एवं सदस्यों कोश्रेणी कके अधिकारियों केसमकक्ष कावेतन औरसभी प्रकार कीसुविधाएं प्रदान कररही है,परंतु मुकदमों कानिस्तारण मानक लक्ष्य केआधार परनहीं होरहा है । इससे धनकी बर्बादी होरही हैतथा उपभोक्ता न्याय पाने केलिए भटक रहा है । चेक बाउंस केमामले, छात्र वशिक्षा सेसंबंधित मामलों कीसुनवाई उपभोक्ता न्यायालयों में होनी चाहिए ।
वर्तमान में उपभोक्ता न्यायालयों में विद्युत विभाग केकेवल बिलिंग सेसंबंधित मामलों कोसुनने काअधिकार है,परंतु विद्युत विभाग केऔद्योगिक वव्यवसायिक मामलों कोसुनने काअधिकार नहीं है । उपभोक्ताओं केहितों कोध्यान में रखकर विद्युत विभाग केऔद्योगिक वव्यवसायिक मामलों कोसुनने काअधिकार भीउपभोक्ता न्यायालयों कोहोनी चाहिए । खाने-पीने कीवस्तुओं में जिस तरह कीमिलावट है,जिस तरीके सेउनके दाम बढ़ते हैं,उसके आधार परपानी कीबोतल हमलोग दसरुपये में तैयार करते हैं लेकिन वही बोतल जबफाइव स्टार होटल में चली जाती है,तब दोसौ रुपये में बिकती है । इसे भीहम लोगों कोध्यान में रखना चाहिए । खाने-पीने कीवस्तुओं में मिलावट तथा बाट एवं माप सेसंबंधित मामलों कीसुनवाई उपभोक्ता न्यायालयों में होनी चाहिए ।
मैं महोदय कीजानकारी में यहभी लाना चाहता हूं किउत्तर प्रदेश में प्रति जिला फोरम हेतु तृतीय श्रेणी केतीन कर्मचारियों केपद स्वीकृत हैं रीडर, आशुलिपिक वकनिष्ठ लिपिक । तीनों कर्मचारियों परकार्य काअधिक दबाव रहता है,इसलिए प्रति जिला उपभोक्ता फोरम हेतु तृतीय श्रेणी केकम सेकम दोपद लिपिक वस्टोर कीपर कोबढ़ाना चाहिए । अगर येपद स्वीकृत किए जाते हैं तोउन परदबाव कमरहेगा औरमुकदमों कानिस्तारण समय सेहो जाएगा । आपका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद ।
SHRI SAPTAGIRI SANKAR ULAKA (KORAPUT): Sir, I am a first-time legislator in the Lok Sabha. I have never been an MLA. जबभी बिल आता है,पिछले सदन में पास किया गया,स्टैन्डिंग कमेटी में गया है । But the thing is that all the Bills are passed only in the Lok Sabha and the Government passed RTI Bill or Triple Talaq Bill not because of the merit of the Bill but because of the Government’s brute majority in the House. हम सदन में मुद्दा उठाते हैं फिर भी बिल लोक सभा में पास होजाता है, बिल अच्छा हैया खराब है,आपकी मेजोरिटी हैऔर आपबिल पास कररहे हैं लेकिन वहराज्य सभा में जाकर अटक जाता था,अब धीरे-धीरे पास होरहा है । यहबिल भीवैसे हीहै Now, we are talking about introducing a new Bill and we took into consideration the Standing Committee Report. We have created something called a Central Consumer Protection Authority. This does not do anything but this is creating parallel powers. What will happen to the existing quasi-judicial courts? उसमें क्याहै, इसबिल में नहीं बताया गया हैकि कंज्यूमर्स कोटर्स काक्या दायरा रहेगा, What is the limitation of that? So, this might lead to some parallel powers. I think the Government needs to clarify what will happen to the Consumer Courts. दूसरी बातहै, They love to control everything. In Section 18(c), they have said that we want to regulate advertisements also. क्या सेंट्रल गवर्नमेंट यहबोलेगी what an advertisement should be like? अभी तोमोदी टीवी भीआ रहा है,बहुत आरहा है । ऐसा लगरहा हैकि सरकार काही सबचलेगा, एडवर्टाइजमेंट कंट्रोल करना चाहते हैं । यह 80 सी में भीलिखा हुआ है. In this Bill, they have given excessive control to the Central Government. ग्रीवेंस रिड्रेसल कोभी आपकंट्रोल करना चाहते हैं । We are buying something. Now, you want to control everything by the centralisation of power. Section 18(d) says, “No person takes part in publication of any advertisement which is false or misleading”. इसका क्या मतलब है? How will someone know whether it is false or misleading? When it comes to celebrity, Section 21(5) says, “No endorser shall be liable to penalty if he has expressed due diligence”.
13.00 hrs This Government is in favour of celebrities. Clause 18(d) of the Bill says, “ensure that no person takes part in the publication of any advertisement which is false or misleading.” And clause 21(5) says, “No endorser shall be liable to a penalty … if he has exercised due diligence to verify the veracity of the claims made in the advertisement regarding the product or service being endorsed by him.” This is ambiguous. Does the Bill hold the endorser responsible or not? आप सेलिब्रिटिज केसाथ हैं याविरोध में,उसके बारे में भीबताएं । These two clauses are contradictory to each other.
One of the biggest problems now is of fake goods. With the advent of e-commerce websites, there are a lot of fake goods being sold. This Bill has nothing to say about goods sold on e-commerce sites like Amazon, Flipkart, etc. When one orders for a mouse, after opening the packet only he finds that it is a fake product. These sites claim to be selling an Apple product but instead you get a fake product which is made in China. But the e-commerce sites are never responsible. They are just meant to be carriers of products. It has to be clearly defined as to what has to be done in such cases.
Sir, the process of mediation has been introduced in Chapter 5. While this Bill is supposed to redress the grievances quickly, this mediation is likely to give scope to corruption. जो करप्शन करना चाहता है,वह करसकता है । जिसके पास पॉवर औरपैसा है,वह इसको कंट्रोल भीकर सकता है । This will further delay the process of grievance redressal.
I would like to highlight some jurisdiction issues. There are multiple other laws also along with this Bill. I will give you a few examples. There is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 which deals with real estate and construction activities. If you include the real estate in the present Bill also, under which of these two laws will the real estate be managed?
This Bill is being projected as a modern legislation. मंत्री जीने बताया थाकि I am bring in the Bill, जो 30 सालों तकचेंज नही होगा । ऐसा नहीं होता है । जोई-कामर्स है,हम लोगों काजो वेऑफ टेक्नोलॉजी चेंज होता है,वह एक-दो साल में चेंज होता है । आपऐसा कोई बिल नहीं लासकते हैं,जो 20 या 30 साल तकलास्ट करेगा । You need to reconsider things from time to time. Will e-commerce be a part of the Information Technology Act, 2000 or will it come under the present legislation? We passed the National Medical Commission Bill, 2019 yesterday. यदि किसी कोडॉक्टर सेशिकायत हैतो वहइसी बिल कोदेखेगा नकि नेशनल कमीशन बिल को । So, there is duplicity of things here. We need to clarify all these things. When we want to bring a new legislation like the Consumer Protection Bill, we need to understand that the consumers of today are young, they work on multiple platforms, and they come from vast and varied backgrounds. We use technology, we import multiple products from abroad also. We need to see that there are some sunset clauses here.
This Bill has to be brought in such a way that it keeps changing and improving. The power you are giving to the Central Government has to be distributed. We need to include the people who are the consumers excepting the Central Government so that the grievance redressal can be done.
Sir, we need to send this Bill back to the Standing Committee because this is not thought through. The Bill having been passed in the last Lok Sabha and the Standing Committee examining it before does not mean that it has merit. The Bill was passed in the previous Lok Sabha because of the brute majority the Government had. Please try to send it back to the Standing Committee. Let us deliberate on it and then take it forward.
Thank you.
श्री अजयमिश्र टेनी (खीरी): धन्यवादसभापतिमहोदय ।मैं उपभोक्तासंरक्षणविधेयक, 2019 कासमर्थनकरनेके लिएखड़ा हुआहूं ।हमारादेश एकऐसा देशथा जिसमेंपहलेलोग अपनीजरूरतकी चीजेंअपने-आपही उत्पादितकरतेथे औरबनातेथे । धीरे-धीरेजब लोगोंकी क्रयशक्तिबढ़ी तोवर्ष1986 मेंएक बिललानेकी जरूरतमहसूसकी गई, जिससेउपभोक्ताको संरक्षणऔर सुविधाएंमिल सके । वर्ष1986 मेंलायागया वहबिल 33 सालपुरानाहो गयाहै । इसदौरानहमारेदेश मेंन केवलअर्थव्यवस्थाबढ़ी हैबल्किलोगोंकी आमदनीबढ़ी है, क्रयशक्तिबढ़ी हैऔर ई-कामर्सजैसीबहुतसारीचुनौतियांभी बढ़ीहैं, जिसकेकारणवह बिलजिसमेंबहुत-सारेअमेंडमेंट्सपहलेसे हीहो चुकेथे, उसकीजगह परएक नयाबिल लानेकी आवश्यकताथी ।
हमारी सरकार वर्ष 2018 में उसबिल कोलेकर आईथी । वहबिल लोक सभा में दिसम्बर 2018 में पारित होगया था,लेकिन उसके बाद चुनाव आगया औरयह बिल वापस हमलोगों कोलेकर आना पड़ा है । इसबिल काकेवल एकही उद्देश्य हैकि हमारे जोउपभोक्ता हैं,उनको हमअधिक सेअधिक सुविधाएं देसकें औरउनका संरक्षण करसकें । उसके लिए हमने मध्यस्थता केप्रावधान किए हैं । जोत्रिस्तरीय न्यायिक व्यवस्था वर्ष 1986 केबिल में थी,जिसमें जिला, राज्य औरराष्ट्रीय स्तर परजो प्रावधान बनाए गएथे, उनका भीविस्तार किया गया है,उनकी सीमाएं बढ़ाई गईहैं । इसके अलावा मध्यस्थता कानून केसाथ-साथ ऑनलाइन प्रावधान भीकिए गएहैं ।
माननीय सभापति महोदय, जिस तरह सेवर्ष 2004 में माननीय अटल बिहारी वाजपेयी जीकी सरकार केदौरान हमारी देश कीअर्थव्यवस्था पूरी दुनिया में 11वें नंबर परथी और 2014 तक 11वें नंबर परही रही,लेकिन वर्ष 2014 से 2019 के बीच में हमछठवें स्थान परआ गए । इसतरह सेतीन हजार अरब डॉलर केलगभग हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था होचुकी हैऔर आगे वर्ष 2024 तकपांच हजार अरब डॉलर होने कीसंभावना है । लोगों कीक्रय शक्ति में बहुत तेजी सेइजाफा हुआ है । एकअध्ययन केअनुसार यहभी कहा जारहा हैकि भारत काउपभोक्ता बाजार पूरी दुनिया में सबसे तेजी सेबढ़ रहा है । इसअध्ययन में आया हैकि वर्ष 2008 में उपभोक्ता बाजार जहां 31 लाख करोड़ रुपये था,वर्ष 2018 में 110 लाख करोड़ रुपये होगया है । यहसंभावना हैकि वर्ष 2028 तकयह तीन गुना बढ़कर 335 लाख करोड़ रुपये होजाए । इससे हमयह अनुमान लगा सकते हैं किहमारे देश में कितनी तेजी सेक्रय शक्ति बढ़रही है । इसका कारण बढ़ती आबादी भीहो सकती है । शहरीकरण भीतेज हुआ है । मध्यम वर्ग भीतेजी सेबढ़ा है । हमारे देश में लगभग 17 करोड़ लोग उच्च मध्यम वर्ग में आरहे हैं और 30 करोड़ सेज्यादा लोग लगभग 50 करोड़ लोग मध्यम वर्ग में हैं । ज्यादातर लोग ई-कामर्स काप्रयोग कररहे हैं । यहभी एकबड़ी चुनौती हमारे सामने है । यहउम्मीद हैकि वर्ष 2021 तकहमारा ईकामर्स काबाजार 84 अरब डॉलर होजाएगा । यह वर्ष 2017 में केवल 24 अरब डॉलर थातो आपसमझ सकते हैं किकितनी तेजी सेयह बाजार बढ़रहा है । इसका सबसे बड़ा कारण यहहै किहमारी सरकार जबवर्ष 2014 में आईथी तोहमने डिजिटलीकरण कोइतना बढ़ावा दिया किजिससे लोगों कीसुविधाएं बढ़ीं औरलोगों कोघर परही उनकी जरूरतों कासामान तुरन्त उपलब्ध होने लगा । इसका प्रभाव यहपड़ा किई कामर्स बहुत तेजी सेबढ़ रहा है । जहां इससे ग्राहकों कीसुविधा बढ़ी है,वहीं हमारी सरकार कीचुनौतियां भीबढ़ी हैं । जैसा आपअपने उद्बोधन में कहरहे थेकि आपको मोबाइल कीजगह उन्होंने स्टोन देदिया तोयह शुरुआती दौर कीबात थी । इससमय हमारे सामने डाटा संरक्षण कीबहुत बड़ी चुनौती है । जिस तरह सेपूरी दुनिया में ईबाजार बढ़ा है,उससे डाटा संरक्षण करने कीदेश केअन्दर बहुत बड़ी जरूरत महसूस कीजा रही है । अगर हमारा डाटा संरक्षित नहीं होगा तोपूरी दुनिया केदूसरे देश उसका लाभ उठा सकते हैं । इसलिए ग्राहक काही उसके डाटा परपूरा नियंत्रण होऔर देश में हीडाटा संरक्षित होयह भीमैं माननीय मंत्री जीको आपके माध्यम सेअनुरोध करना चाहूंगा । इन्टरनेट सेकारोबार काएक बहुत बड़ा माध्यम होगया है । 62 करोड़ सेज्यादा लोग हमारे देश में इन्टरनेट काप्रयोग कररहे हैं ।
माननीय सभापति जी,मैं आपको यहकहना चाहता हूं किहमारी सरकार एकसंवेदनशील सरकार है,जहां हमने लोगों कीअर्थव्यवस्था बढ़ाई है । हमकिसानों केलिए भीयह लक्ष्य लेकर चलरहे हैं कि 2022 तक उनकी आमदनी दुगुनी करेंगे । हमगावों में शहरी व्यवस्थाएं औरसुविधाएं उपलब्ध कराने काप्रयास कररहे हैं । लोगों कीजब क्रय शक्ति बढ़ती हैऔर लोगों कीजरूरते बढ़ती हैतो बाजार कोदेखकर केजो उद्योगपति होते हैं,वे उत्पादन उतारते हैं । उसमें कईबार बहुत कठिनाइयां आती है,जैसे भ्रामक विज्ञापन होते हैं याकुछ डिसप्ले करते हैं,तो उसमें वेभ्रामक बातें कहदेते हैं,लेकिन उत्पादन में वास्तविकता नहीं होती है,इसी कारण चुनौतियां बढ़जाती हैं । सुप्रीम कोर्ट नेभी इसका संज्ञान लिया । सुप्रीम कोर्ट नेयह कहा किकेवल टैक्नीकल आधार परकिसी भीउपभोक्ता कोरोका नजाए । एकयाचिका पहले भीहुई थी,उसमें विवरण आया थाकि वेचार हफ्ते लेट होगए । सुप्रीम कोर्ट नेकहा किकानून काउद्देश्य यहहै किउपभोक्ता कासंरक्षण औरउपभोक्ता कोसुविधा हो । वैसे हमारी सरकार पूरी तरह सेसंवेदनशील हैऔर हमलोगों नेप्रयास किया हैकि हमबाजार कोपूरी तरह सेसुरक्षित करें औरउपभोक्ताओं कीशक्ति कोबढ़ाएं । उपभोक्ताओं कासंरक्षण करते हुए उनकी सुविधाएं बढ़ाएं ।
सभापति जी,इस बिल में जोमुख्य बातें हैं,उनमें सेएक यहहै किसेंट्रल कन्ज्यूमर प्रोटेक्शन अथॉरिटी केगठन काप्रस्ताव किया गया है,जिसके माध्यम सेअनैतिक व्यापारिक गतिविधियां रोकने में हमें कामयाबी मिलेगी । खराब प्रोडक्ट्स कीजिम्मेदारी उसे बनाने वाली कंपनी कीहोगी औरउसके साथ हीइसमें उसकंपनी कोभी जोड़ा गया है,जो ई-कॉमर्स केमाध्यम सेउपभोक्ता कोवह प्रोडक्ट उपलब्ध कराएगी । एकनया कांसेप्ट यहभी जोड़ा गया हैकि जोमैन्यूफैक्चरर यासर्विस प्रोवाइडर होगा, उसमें केवल एकउपभोक्ता याउपभोक्ताओं काकेवल एकसमूह नहीं होगा, बल्कि उसग्रुप केजितने भीलाभार्थी होंगे, सभी कोउसका लाभ मिलेगा । इसके साथ ही,प्रोडक्ट कीमैन्यूफक्चरिंग, डिजाइन आदि खामियों कीवजह सेअगर ग्राहक कोकोई नुकसान होता हैतो उसके लिए भीविक्रेताओं कोजिम्मेदार बनाने कीहमने कोशिश कीहै । बिल में उपभोक्ता विवादों कोसुलझाने केलिए जिला, राज्य औरनेशनल लेवल परमौजूद संरचनाओं कोहटाने काप्रस्ताव है । इसविधेयक में प्रावधान हैकि यदि जिला औरराज्य उपभोक्ता फोरम उपभोक्ता केहित में फैसला सुनाते हैं तोआरोपी कंपनी राष्ट्रीय फोरम में नहीं जासकती है । इसके अलावा उपभोक्ता आयोग सेउपभोक्ता मध्यस्थता सैल कोजोड़ दिया गया है । जबये दोनों आपस में जुड़ जाएंगे तोइस दौरान उपभोक्ता कोजो कठिनाइयां आती थीं,वे नहीं आएंगी । ई-कॉमर्स कोलेकर भीइस कानून में बहुत सारे प्रावधान किए गएहैं । समय कमहै, इसलिए मैं अभी उनके विस्तार में नहीं जारहा हूं । मैं आपकी बात समझ रहा हूं ।
नया कानून मामलों केजल्द निपटारे केलिए महत्वपूर्ण है । इसमें वीडियो कांफ्रेंसिंग सेसुनवाई काभी प्रावधान किया गया है । ई-कॉमर्स कंपनीज केलिए उपभोक्ताओं केडेटा एक्सेस केलिए सहमति लेना अनिवार्य करदिया गया है । मैंने शुरुआत में हीकहा हैकि इसदुनिया में जैसे-जैसे डिजिटलीकरण बढ़रहा है,ई-कॉमर्स औरई-सर्विसेज बढ़रही हैं । इससमय डेटा सबसे महत्वपूर्ण होगया हैऔर डेटा कोकोई भीरोक नहीं सकता है । यहखुला बाजार है । इसलिए डेटा केसंरक्षण केलिए देश में एकमजबूत कानून बनना चाहिए । हमारे देश केउपभोक्ताओं काडेटा हमारे हीदेश में संरक्षित होऔर उसग्राहक कापूर्ण नियंत्रण अपने डेटा पररहे, इसकी व्यवस्था भीमंत्री जीको इसकानून केमाध्यम सेकरनी चाहिए ।
बिल में मैन्यूफैक्चरर औरप्रोडक्ट काप्रचार करने वाले लोगों कोभी जिम्मेदार बनाया गया है । हमलोगों नेदेखा हैकि भ्रामक विज्ञापन होते थे,भ्रामक विज्ञापनों में बहुत बड़े-बड़े सिलेब्रेटीज होते थेऔर लोग उनसे प्रभावित होकर उनसामानों कोखरीद लेते थे । हमलोगों नेहाल हीमें देखा कि…*के ऊपर सुप्रीम कोर्ट नेआम्रपाली केकेस में …(व्यवधान)
माननीयसभापति : किसीका नाममत लीजिए ।
श्री अजयमिश्र टेनी : जी, हां । नामनहींलेंगे ।जो क्रिकेटटीम केएक पूर्वकप्तानथे, उनकेलिए ऐसाकियागया है । ऐसेही हमारेएक बड़ेफिल्मस्टारथे, जोमैगीका प्रचारकरनेको लेकरफंसेथे । अमेरिका, चाइना, साउथकोरियाने दवाओंके विज्ञापनके मामलेमें कुछदवाओंको प्रतिबंधितकियाहै, हमारेइस बिलमें भीऐसा कियागया है । डायबिटीजवगैरहकी दवाएंहैं यालम्बाईबढ़ानेया गोराकरनेकी कोईदवा है, उनकेबारेमें यहकहा गयाहै किसिलेब्रेटीजइनमें भागनहींलेंगे ।अमेरिकामें यहव्यवस्थाहै किजो व्यक्तिविज्ञापनकरताहै, उसकीयह जिम्मेदारीहोतीहै किवह स्वयंउस प्रोडक्टको यूजकरे औरउसकेबाद उसकेबारेमें कहे । अमेरिका, चाइनाआदि देशोंमें प्रोडक्टबनानेवालीकंपनीके साथही, वितरणकरनेवालेऔर विज्ञापनकरनेवालेसभी लोगोंको जिम्मेदारबनायागया है । ऐसेही हमारेदेश मेंइस बिलके माध्यमसे एकप्रयासकियागया है । मैंअपनीदो-तीनडिमाण्ड्सरखकरअपनीबात कोसमाप्तकरूंगा ।
मैंमाननीयमंत्रीजी सेकहनाचाहूंगाकि एमआरपीऔर एमआरपीडिसकाउण्ट, जोकंपनियांडिसप्लेकरतीहैं, उसमेंएक बहुतबड़ा झोलहोताहै । उसमेंहोतायह हैकि वेएमआरपीघोषितकर देतेहैं औरफिर उसपर डिसकाउण्टदेतेहैं, तबभी उसमेंउनकोदो गुनालाभ होताहै । इसपर हमलोगोंको ध्यानदेनाचाहिए ।डेटासंरक्षणकी बातमैंनेपहलेही कहीहै । इसकानूनमें ई-फाइलिंगकी भीव्यवस्थाकी गईहै, सीमाका विस्तारकियागया है, राष्ट्रीयस्तरपर निगरानीकरनेकी भीव्यवस्थाकी गईहै । ऐसेसारेप्रावधानइस बिलमें किएगए हैंऔर ग्राहकोंकी सुविधाएवं संरक्षणके लिएजहांकानूनीप्रावधानकिए गएहैं, वहींसंरक्षणऔर निगरानीके माध्यमसे इसबाजारको बढ़ानेका कामकियागया है । प्रावधानोंमें विस्तारके द्वाराउपभोक्तासंरक्षणहेतुयह बिललायागया है, जिससेउपभोक्ताअधिकारोंका बलमिलेगा ।मैं सभीसदस्योंसे अनुरोधकरताहूं किआम सहमतिसे इसबिल कोपारितकरनाचाहिए ।धन्यवाद ।
SHRI JAYADEV GALLA (GUNTUR): Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill. I will be brief and put forth my submissions point-by-point.
The first point I would like to make is relating to Clause 2 of the Bill which deals with definitions. Sir, Clause 2 (42) defines ‘service’ and brought under its purview a host of services, right from banking to entertainment. But there is no mention of health-care, which is a very important service.
In 1995, the Supreme Court gave a judgement which clearly said that medical services to patients, for which fee is charged, comes under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. But, conspicuously, the Bill has left out this direction of the Supreme Court. Not just paid service, even service provided in Government hospitals free of charge should be included in this Bill. It is not about whether they are charging something or not, but it is about the rights of a consumer, regardless of whether the service is free or on chargeable basis. So, even free Government services should be brought under this Bill. I would like to know from the hon. Minister the reasons for not including health-care as a service in the Bill.
It was promised that the Government would come out with a Bill which would provide consumers an alternate system of consumer justice, which would help them seek resolution of their disputes with manufacturers and service providers in a simple and quick manner. Sir, now-a-days, consumer justice has turned out to be anything but simple, quick or inexpensive.
The cases are piling up at every level. But I find no such provision in this Bill. So, I would like to know from the hon. Minister how is he going to simplify the procedure and resolve disputes in a fixed time-frame, as was promised to the consumers of this country?
Clause 2(7) and (42) of the Bill define the words ‘consumer’ and ‘services’. Here you are putting a condition that there has to be some consideration to go before the concerned forum. I feel that consideration should not be a condition precedent in case of availing medical or municipal services provided by the Government. Let me give an example. A victim of medical negligence in a Government hospital or if a person dies due to negligence of any of the identified municipal services, should also be entitled to compensation. The proposed Bill restricts this. It says that there has to be a ‘consideration’. I feel that the definition should be enlarged bringing even free services provided by the Government under the purview of the Bill for compensation. I would request the hon. Minister to consider this.
Sir, Clause 89 of the Bill talks about punishment for false or misleading advertisements which have far-reaching implications. There are penal provisions which say that in case of false advertisements, the imprisonment will be for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 5 lakh. But the Bill is silent on surrogate advertisements. For example, if you have surrogate advertisements for alcohol brands, pan masala brands, cigarette brands, and other such type of dangerous products where advertising is restricted, they come out with the surrogate advertisements. We are all aware of it. There will be liquor brand advertising mineral water and so on. There are advertisements where brands claim that doctors recommend a particular toothpaste, health drink, etc., and if such toothpaste or health drink misrepresents, penal action has to be taken against such brand and company. But there is no such provision in the Bill for surrogate advertisements. So, I would request the hon. Minister to give a serious thought to surrogate advertisements.
The next most important point is related to Clause 10 which deals with the appointment of the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority, and Clause 42 deals with the appointment of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. When it comes to the composition of the Commission, the Bill does not mention anything about the composition of the Central Consumer Protection Authority.
The Bill delegates powers with regard to qualification, terms and conditions of service, salaries, etc., to the Government of India and same is the case with regard to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where appointment of the President, Members, their qualifications, salaries and allowances, etc., are under the State Government.
The existing Consumer Protection Act clearly mentions that Commissions at various levels will be headed by a person qualified to be a judge. And, 1986 Act also clearly mentions about minimum qualification for Members. But nothing has been mentioned in this Bill.
Sir, I also mentioned, while speaking on the RTI Bill, similar concern that the Government wants to keep in its fist every institution by keeping with it the qualification, salaries, allowances, tenures, etc. HON. CHAIRPERSON : Now, please conclude.
SHRI JAYADEV GALLA: It is not in the interest of any institution, including the consumer forums. So, instead of detailing them under subordinate legislation, I would request the hon. Minister to mention the same in the Bill itself.
Sir, I will finish with just two short points. The next point, which some other hon. Members also mentioned, is about penalising celebrities who endorse misleading advertisements. While I agree that there has to be some accountability with the celebrity, we also need to understand that they are not organisations that can do due diligence on every product that they endorse. So, while there has to be brought some type of accountability, it should not be the same type of penalty as on the brand of the company, but, I think, something to hold them accountable is in order.
Finally, the Jago Grahak Jago movement is not going on with the kind of a momentum which it ought to have been. So, I suggest for consideration of the hon. Minister to provide some extra financial support for this movement and to bring awareness among consumers about their rights and duties.
You should make a provision in this Bill itself that all private TV channels could telecast consumer-related advertisements, at least, five minutes in an hour. This will help a lot in consumer education.
With these observations and hoping that the hon. Minister, Shri Paswan Ji, would pay attention to the various issues raised by me and act on suggestions rendered and take them to their logical conclusion for a better consumer-friendly mechanism, I support this Bill. Thank you.
*SHRI GIRISH BHALCHANDRA BAPAT (PUNE): Hon. Chairman Sir, I rise to support the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019. At the outset, I would like to thank the Hon. Ministry Shri Ramvilas Paswan ji and Shri Rao Saheb Danve ji. This law has been continuing since 1986 with fewer amendments at regular intervals and this is for the first time that many amendments are made. This is going to support and help millions of people to seek justice and that is why I want to congratulate them. Hon. Chairman Sir, if someone wishes to speak on this entire Bill which runs into 75 pages, it will take around 2 hours and hence I would not go into all the details. I was a minister of this ministry in Maharashtra Cabinet and I have a good experience of all these. Hon. Minister Ramvilas Paswan ji had supported me whenever I needed his support and I am very grateful to him. So, I would not go into Clauses, Sub-Clauses, Rules, Sub-rules. But, I must mention here about the stand and commitment of this Government. Manufacture-distributor-Consumer are in the chain. This is common to all and a consumer is both a customer as well as beneficiary and that is why he is more vulnerable. This bill aims to protect the consumers and hence it is unique. It works at three different levels like district, state and central. This bill will cover all the stages, levels and areas and it will also do justice to the common consumer.
Some members asked to send it back to Select Committee once again. Many newspapers took cognizance of this and they have also made many suggestions in that regard. Cabinet sub-committee had also looked into it. We are not claiming that this is a foolproof bill. But, I must say that nothing is foolproof and everything changes with time. Earlier, there were no TV or other electronic advertisement 50 years ago. But, with changing times, now we have electronic, computerized, online purchases and even other means of shopping.
While appreciating this bill, I would request Hon. Minister Shri Rao Saheb Danve ji to set up new Consumer Courts. We have the data regarding pending cases, and around 4,61,000 cases are pending throughout India. We should come forward for speedy and time bound trials in Consumer Courts. I have got few things to mention. If any consumer is cheated, all the concerned consumers would get compensation and that kind of provision has been made in this bill. It would be a big deterrent to the traders and retailers. I want to make few points here. This bill is very important for the cause of common man. This is consumer-centric bill and Government has come out with many amendments for the benefit and welfare of common man. All the sections of our society like SCs, STs, OBCs and women should also get due representation in appointments under this bill. There is a saying in our Marathi. The moment a law comes into existence, it also paves the way for its misuse. We cannot stop this but we should take utmost care and come with a better law having minimum loopholes. We should also use new means of communications like video conferencing, digital and online complaints and other electronic platforms. District Magistrate should also be made more responsible.
Hon. Minister Sir, I would like to draw your kind attention towards the issue of lesser funding for courts from Central Government. No proper court buildings and chambers are available for advocates and judges in many districts. Adequate space should be made available to the judiciary and Government should come forward for this.
I have last two points to make. Somebody spoke about ‘Jago Grahak Jago Campaign’. If somebody is at fault, we have a law to punish him, but we should focus on spreading awareness. We should run an awareness campaign through schools and colleges for consumer education and awareness. To avoid accidents, we educate the children about traffic rules. Likewise we should focus on consumer awareness to avoid cheating. Whether they are children or aged people, we all are consumers. We all need protection as consumers and I think this bill will definitely serve the purpose. But I have one more point to make. We should be more alert and vigilant as a consumer to avoid cheating. Citizens should also come forward to file complaints whenever they are cheated.
I can give you a good example about it. One day, a man came to me. He told me that his dhoti is torned due to a nail fitted in railway seat. I asked him to file a complaint against railways. He filed a complaint. The litigation took a long time but at last the court ordered railways to pay the expenses of fares for trips to Mumbai and also to gift of 2 dhotis to the complainant. This is a classic example of alertness and awareness. Government cannot intervene in everything and everywhere. Citizens should be cautious about their consumer rights and also to fight against injustice. You have given the much needed protection to them through this bill. But, I think awareness is the key to all the problems. We should focus more and more on awareness. We should come out with more ‘Jago Grahak Jago like Campaigns’. Lastly, I would like to reiterate that more funds should be allocated for courts. We cannot discuss all the issue of the bill due to paucity of time. But, I think commitment and willingness of the Government is more important. I would like to thank Hon. Ministers and this Government for bringing this Bill. I conclude with these words. Jai Hind Jai Maharashtra.
SHRIMATI SUPRIYA SADANAND SULE (BARAMATI): Hon. Chairperson, thank you for giving me this opportunity. I stand here in support of this Bill. I would just like to ask four to five pointed questions as clarifications from the Government.
The Standing Committee made a recommendation that the word `Government’ is not included. I appreciate what Shri Bapat ji said just now about what happened in Railways. But there is no redressal system which had actually been recommended by the Standing Committee. The specific word `Government’ has to be there. The incident that he mentioned about the Railways is actually a very valid point. The story is small and sounds inconsequential in the larger context of discussion on this Bill. It is a very valid point. It is not just what he said. I would like to add that there are stories of food adulteration which are horrific. Who do we turn to? I want a pointed clarification from the hon. Minister. The Food Safety Officer of every district comes under the Ministry of Health. Now, will there be a duplication of this? I would like to have a pointed clarification that in case of all the adulterations that we are seeing, this is also a very consumer-oriented product, who does he or she turn to? Like Bapat ji said he had to go to the court ten times. Can we find a better system with the help of technology which is far more effective?
13.34 hrs (Shri N.K. Premachandran in the Chair) I appreciate that the Bill is very well-meaning but the Government has not accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee which specifies the word `Government’. So, why has it been left out? Apart from adulteration, look at healthcare and education as an example. There are so many times that you have issues because of education and because of healthcare. Who does the common man turn to? The Government talks about their flagship scheme about great healthcare but who does the common man turn to? So, will the hon. Minister kindly clarify on what would be the role in case of healthcare and education?
Another thing is about service defects. These are all product based. If there is a bad product you go to court you will get help. But what about services? How will this redressal system work for bad services given? I will give you a very small example.
If you are in the transport business and you do not get good transport for the commitment that you have paid for, what will happen specifically to the service industry? There is always a loophole in most of these rules. If there could be some specific rule, it will be good.
Coming to labs, I would like to rethink about big multinational companies which vends a lot of products. I am a mother myself. When you hear something different about any product which is popular in that age group, or if it is banned, the first thing which every mother feels is that it is obviously not good for a child. I hope there are enough labs to support it and every lab in this country, State wise, gives a different report. For the same product – I would not like to name the company – UP had a separate report and Maharashtra had a separate report. The point is, who do we turn to and whom do we believe? We cannot go to Central Government for everything and it cannot be centralised at this rate. Are the labs strengthened enough to look into adulteration and food products? I hope that it is not misused either because firstly, the product was banned pan India. Everybody got panicked and then it was removed. Then after a few tests, it became normal. Was it a harassment or what was it? It has put some sort of suspicion in my mind that whether it was misuse of power because it is a product consumed globally. Why was this particular company picked up? These things actually put pressure on consumers because you do not know where you stand. What is the plan for strengthening specific laboratories and technicians by this Government?
Product liability is applicable to all participants in the food chain. Here, the producer is at one end and the consumer is at the other end. Today, when there is a product which can be adulterated, what about the middle level agencies? There are multiple agencies which can be responsible for it. If it is a milk product or a food product or fresh food item, the transporters are involved and people who store them are involved. How will you pinpoint in the whole supply chain? I think everybody should have accountability. There is no point just saying that only the producer is responsible. This has to be a collective effort. Will the Government give a signal of a collective measure of zero tolerance of bad food or any adulteration? That sort of a signal should be given.
There are a plenty of laws already in the country but adulteration has still not stopped. We have to put in our collective mind to see how we can go about it. I appreciate what Shri Bapat has said that there is always a law made and somebody finds a loophole in it. It is not about finding a loophole. The collective thought of this entire discussion should be to make better and stringent rules in the interest of the citizens. I come from a State where the consumer is the king. Maharashtra is always known for its marketing abilities. So, the consumer is the king. Let us put the consumer first and find a Bill which is in the interest of the nation. Thank you.
श्री हसनैन मसूदी (अनन्तनाग) : जनाब चेयरपरसन साहब, मुझे आपने बोलने कामौका दिया है,उसके लिए आपका शुक्रिया । मैंकोई लंबी तकरीर करने नहीं जारहा हूं औरआप मुझे करने भीनहीं देंगे । यहजो बुनियादी मामला है,यह सारफीन केतहफ्फुज़ काकानून है । हमयह कहानी पिछले एकमहीने सेसुन रहे हैं । It is scripted in each and every piece of legislation. एक प्रयास किया जारहा हैकि हमारे जोसारे इदारे हैं,उन परमरकज़ी हुकूमत द्वारा कंट्रोल किया जाए । यहकानून भीउसी कीएक कड़ी है । यहसारफीन केलिए कितना मोअस्सर है,वह अलग बात है । लेकिन यहउसी कीकड़ी है,चाहे आपआरटीआई देखिए, चाहे आपकल जोमेडिकल कमीशन बिल पास हुआ है,उसका कानून देखिए, तोहर जगह एककोशिश कीजा रही हैकि सरइदारों परसेन्ट्रल गवर्नमेंट कीतरफ सेकब्जा करलिया जाए औरस्टेट्स कोदरकिनार करदिया जाए । This effort to run down institutions is not good for the health of the democracy of the country. Democracy flourishes in the country because we respect institutions. And elsewhere in our neighbourhood, that is not done and we see how things have gone wrong there. यह जोकोशिश होरही है,मेरी यहगुजारिश होगी किइस कोशिश सेऐतराज किया जाए । इसकानून कोभी एकसेकेंड लुक दिया जाए । यहसारफीन काकानून क्यों बना है?इसलिए बना है,क्योंकि एकलेवल प्लेइंग फील्ड नहीं है । Essentially, this belongs to the court of law but it was taken away from there. We provided an alternate mechanism because consumers do not have a level playing field. They have no resources. They cannot organise litigation costs to fight big business houses. उनके लिए एकइफिशियेंट मैकेनिज्म देने कीकोशिश कीगई है । Essentially, the colour and custom of this efficient mechanism are that of a court.
अबपहली बार यहकिया गया है,जो इससे पहले नैशनल रिड्रैसल कमीशन था,उसमें एकसुप्रीम कोर्ट केजज साहब याउनकी क्वालिफिकेशन वाले होते थे,स्टेट्स में एकहाईकोर्ट केजज साहब होते थेऔर डिस्ट्रिक्ट में एक्टिंग डिस्ट्रिक्ट जजसाहब होते थे । The whole exercise is a judicial exercise. एक कंप्लेंट है,उसमें लीगन इश्युज़ हैं,उन परअपना निर्णय देना है,अपना फैसला देना हैऔर वही आजखत्म किया जारहा है । This is a question of big concern. I do not know whether this Bill will survive a judicial challenge, a challenge before the Supreme Court. अभी इसी वक्त हमइसको एकसैकेंड लुक देसकते हैं । यहजो कम्पोज़ीशन है,अभी हमइतना ओवर सैंट्रलाइज़ कररहे हैं किहम स्टेट कोडिस्ट्रिक्ट रिड्रैसल कमीशन भीबनाने केलिए नहीं देरहे हैं । वहभी अपने हाथ में लेरहे हैं । So, this is one of the concerns.
The second point is that we cannot expect a perfect law, the Consumer Protection Law, because it is an evolving concept. नया-नया अनुभव होता हैऔर नई-नई चीज़ें हमइसमें शामिल करते हैं । इसकानून में नईटैरेटरीज़ कोकरवर किया गया है । There is no doubt. ऑनलाइन शापिंग है,एक ई-कॉमर्स है,उसको शामिल किया गया है । लेकिन एकएफिशिएंट जस्टिस डिलीवरी सिस्टम अभी भीनहीं हुआ है । सर,जब तकहम आईटी टूल्स कोइंटीग्रेट नहीं करेंगे, जोकंज्यूमर ज्यूरिसप्रूडेंस है,कंज्यूमर जस्टिस डिलीवरी सिस्टम केसाथ नहीं करेंगे, तबतक हमें कोई उम्मीद नहीं है । आजभी हमारा अपना तजुर्बा हैऔर बाकी जोऑनरेबल मेंबर्स हैं,उनका भीतजुर्बा होगा किज़मीनी सतह परसारिफ़ कोइंसाफ नहीं मिल रहा है । It is the same story for him in terms of procedural angles. It is run of the mill attitude. वहीकोर्ट कचहरी कामामला है,नहीं मिल रहा है । वहइस वजह सेनहीं मिल रहा हैक्योंकि हमएक एफिशिएंट कंज्यूमर जस्टिस डिलीवरी सिस्टम इवॉल्व करने में नाकाम रहे हैं । उसपर एकध्यान देने कीजरूरत है । औरजो भीइसमें जरूरी बातें हैं,जैसे एडीआर सिस्टम है, Alternative Dispute Resolution system can be integrated with Consumer Grievance Redressal System. Say, there is a sum up to Rs 50 lakh, our first priority would be to get it settled by employing ADR mechanism.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Kindly wind up.
SHRI HASNAIN MASOODI : उसके अलावा जोप्राइस फिक्सेशन कामामला है, sometimes, we have to have a holistic approach. हम जबसर्विसिज औरगुड्स कीबात कररहे हैं,उनमें डेफिशिएंसी कीबात कररहे हैं याउनमें जोवे कॉरस्पोंड नहीं करते हैं with description.…(Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please conclude.
SHRI HASNAIN MASOODI: I am just going to conclude.
हर जगह बुनियादी मामला है । हमपिछले एकमहीने सेदेख रहे हैं । बुनियादी मामला है to run down institutions. This is again one more effort to run down institutions, and to leave everything to the Central Government, even matters pertaining to the district consumer redressal. Thank you.
SHRIMATI APARAJITA SARANGI (BHUBANESWAR): Hon. Chairman Sir, I am extremely grateful to you for having given me this opportunity to speak on this very important Bill, the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019.
At the outset, I would like to congratulate the hon. Prime Minister and also the hon. Minister for bringing this Bill to this august House for deliberation and discussion.
Sir, with all conviction at my command, I would definitely like to say that this particular Bill, with eight chapters and about 107 clauses, if implemented well, will be a game-changer for consumers and consumers’ interests in our country. I would definitely say that this particular Bill is an expression of the fact that here is a smart Government which believes in smart governance.
Sir, this Bill is not new to Lok Sabha. This Bill had already been brought to Lok Sabha, and was cleared by the Lok Sabha on 20th of December, 2018. This Bill, if you go through, speaks of rigorous preparation, and all the concerns, issues and suggestions that had been put forth have been incorporated, as far as possible, by the hon. Minister and his Ministry. In fact, it was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee, and it was also sent to the group of Ministers. As has already been pointed out, the Parliamentary Standing Committee made 37 recommendations out of which 32 recommendations have been incorporated.
I also convey my very sincere appreciation to the hon. Minister and his Ministry for taking into account 80 official amendments; and they have left no stone unturned in ensuring that this Bill is enriched as far as possible.
Sir, there are three major goals, as we know, of this Bill. One is to prevent violation of consumer rights; two is, to check illegal trade practice, to check illegal business ethics; and of course, last but not the least, to prevent, to stop, to curb false, misleading advertisements.
यहप्रस्तावित विधेयक उपभोक्ताओं केअधिकारों कासंवर्धन करने, संरक्षित करने औरप्रवृत्त करने, अनुचित व्यापार औरव्यवहारों सेपरेशान उपभोक्ताओं कोनुकसान सेबचाने औरमिथ्या एवं भ्रामक विज्ञापनों कोबंद करने कीदिशा में एकसशक्त कदम है ।
Sir, if we go through this Bill, the consumer and the consumer’s interests are the focal points. All the proposed actions are intended to protect, promote and enforce consumer’s interests.
Now, there can be a question in the House -- and in fact, I have been sitting since this morning and I have heard about the need for this particular Bill when there is already the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is a very valid question. But here, there are two reasons, which I would just like to highlight very briefly. The first reason is this. In today’s world, consumer markets and services have undergone drastic transformation. We are talking of 1986, and we are talking of 2019. The modern market place has a plethora of goods and services, and this kind of situation, at the moment, has made the consumers very vulnerable to new forms of unfair trade and unethical business practices. We have to agree to this. So, we have been talking about different kinds of marketing; and we have also talked about the kind of problems that are arising. Misleading advertisements, tele-marketing, multi-level marketing, direct selling and e-commerce pose new challenges to the consumers, and definitely, it stands in the way of consumer’s interests. So, there is the need for this kind of a Bill. There is the need for amendment of the Act.
Now, second and most important reason is this. There have been District Consumer Forums, State Consumer Forums, National Consumer Forum but the fact remains that there is very slow disposal of cases and that is detrimental to the interests of the consumers.
Sir, this issue has already been pointed out by my esteemed colleagues from this side and that side.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: The Consumer Commissions are taking more time than that of the courts.
SHRIMATI APARAJITA SARANGI (BHUBANESWAR): Absolutely, Sir.
So, 4,61,000 cases await disposal. This is extremely unfortunate. This is from the National Commission Website that all of us have actually got the information from.
So, we need quick disposal of cases; we need to enforce the rights of the consumers and that is why this Bill has come.
At the cost of being repetitive, I would just like to point out a couple of things, which are extremely important. It is about the salient features of this particular Bill, which has been tabled today. Number one, which is the most important thing, and many people, in fact, from my right side, have been speaking against it, is the CCPA, that is, the Central Consumer Protection Authority. We need swift Executive interventions. When something of this kind happens, violation of consumer rights take place or there is a misleading, false advertisement, we need to move swiftly. We have not been able to move swiftly, and this is the problem with all of us. That is why this Bill has come.
So, CCPA is a great thing, which has been conceptualised. It is a wonderful thing, in the sense that we are talking of Chief Commissioner and Commissioners, and we are talking of Regional Branches. So, there is no question of saying that everything is centralised.
Number two, the wonderful thing is the product liability concept. We have to have the product liability action, and this is a new thing, which is very much part of this Bill. There has to be product liability action in case a product is deficient or a product is going to be harmful to the consumer.
Number three, and the most important point is the issue of mediation, which has been brought in. Again, this is to speed up the disposal of cases.
We have to talk of alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The Bill provides for several provisions for simplifying the consumer dispute adjudication process.
Sir, our friends, who talked against the CCPA, I would, definitely, like to mention before them certain things. I will just take two or three minutes. I would, definitely, like to mention before them that other countries have certain best practices. It is always large-heartedness and broadmindedness which makes India adopt some of the best practices. USA has the Federal Trade Commission. Australia has the Competition and Consumer Commission and Finland has the Competition and Consumer Authority. This, particular, Bill is very much pro-consumer. We are talking of deemed admissibility of complaints in 21 days of the filing of the complaint by the opposite party. We are talking of ease in filing. The e-filing is there. The mediation and product liability is there.
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Please arrive at the concluding remarks.
SHRIMATI APARAJITA SARANGI: Yes, Sir. I would conclude with the words of Henry Ford – “Coming together is the beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” We all need to work together. We all need to resolve today to support this comprehensive Bill which is very much in the interest of consumer and consumer interest.
Thank you so much.
SHRI E.T. MOHAMMED BASHEER (PONNANI): Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
Sir, this Bill is a welcome move. We call consumer a king. The rights of the consumer have been specifically defined such as the right to be protected against the marketing of goods and services, which are hazardous to life and property, the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, the right to be assured of access to a variety of goods and services at competitive prices and seek redressal against unfair trade practices or restrictive trade practices. These are all clearly defined in this Act.
It is suggested to have a Central Consumer Protection Authority to attain this goal. The powers of the same are elaborately mentioned in this Bill.
As far as the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission is concerned, that is also specifically mentioned in this Bill. But as far as the Grievance Redressal Mechanism is concerned, I still have my own doubts that these provisions are insufficient. It is still very much delayed. It has again to be addressed seriously. This system is time-consuming. The Grievance Redressal Mechanism seems to be very poor. I hope these new suggestions will improve the situation. Anyhow, the Minister may apply his mind whether we can further improve this or not.
As far as the consumer education is concerned, that also is very important. I hope, the Government would give a lot of emphasis on this. I would like to know whether this Bill is up to the expectation of the people. I would like to say that it has to be further improved. The proposed Bill requires inclusion of more provisions to deal with fast-changing technological, market dynamics, e-commerce and things like that. We know that a lot of developments have taken place in the market. We have to apply those things. As far as the original Act of 1986 is concerned, at that time, it was sufficient. After that, in 1991, we improved it. In 1993, we again improved it. In 2002 also, we had made some basic changes in this Act. But the problem still remains the same. It needs to be improved further. I hope that the Minister will also do that work.
As I mentioned, the Bill, in its present form, is an insufficient piece of legislation. It is not keeping pace with the new market dynamics and multi-layered delivery chains. It is unable to deal with often misleading advertisements and other magic remedies and things like that.
There is a procedural difficulty also. I would like to mention that also and then conclude. It is very difficult; it is a very cumbersome process. The main problem is with the implementation procedure. The Act does not grant the authority to proceed against any person guilty of violation under the Act or take suo motu cognizance of an unfair trade practice. At the same time, penal steps can be taken only through a judicial process before the State or the District Consumer Redressal Forums.
So, what I would like to suggest in brief is this. We have to streamline the grievance redressal mechanism and improve consumer education programmes.
With these few words, I conclude.
13.56 hrs 13.57 hrs CONSUMER PROTECTION BILL, 2019 – Contd.
ADV. A.M. ARIFF (ALAPPUZHA): Thank you, Chairperson, Sir for giving me an opportunity to speak on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019. Due to paucity of time, I would not like to go into the details. The anxieties and the issues raised by the former speakers were especially about the products manufactured abroad, mainly the imported electronic items about which the Bill keeps silence.
I would like to raise my grave concern about the consumers from the rural areas. Most of our consumers come from villages who are not conscious about their rights as consumers. Who would like to consider the interest of rural consumers when 70 per cent of them are below poverty line and 80 per cent of their household consumption is on food items only? From whatever money is left, they can hardly buy other necessities like clothing, medicines etc. In such a situation, one can hardly insist on quality, price or measurement.
The per capita income of agricultural workers has been declining in comparison to what he used to get previously. They have no time to go through the procedures insisted upon by the Bill. So, we have to make more efforts to protect the interests of the poor rural consumers.
But, as far as the Bill is concerned, why does the Bill not take suo motu cognizance of an unfair trade practice or an action? Due to paucity of time, I would like to draw your attention to some specific points only.
My first concern is about the inefficiency of the Bill to keep pace with the new market dynamics, multi-layered delivery chains, and innovative and often misleading advertising and marketing machinery.
The Bill needs to consider the variety of products that are available through e-commerce. I am mentioning about the financial products such as insurance policies sold online or services such as housekeeping, pest control etc. which are excluded. The main problem is with the implementation procedure. The former speaker Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer also spoke about it.
The Act does not grant the authority to proceed against any person guilty of a violation under the Act. Penal steps can be taken only through a judicial process before the State or District Consumer Redressal Forums.
Another issue is speedy disposal of cases due to complicated bureaucratic process. Quick disposal of cases is essential as justice delayed is justice denied.
I would like to seek a clarification from the Government on the average time taken to dispose of the cases. According to Clause 11, definition of deficiency has changed which can invite more cases against doctors for even small or post-surgery ailments on the point that doctors did not inform about the post-surgery precautions or risks to the patients and their relatives. The speakers from doctors community have already raised their apprehensions in this regard. This leads to a situation where doctors will not be ready to take risk and will deny treatment to the poor and the illiterate.
Another point is that the term ‘illegally’ has to be explained as whatever doctors do and practise, they do it as per books and standard operative procedures. Then he cannot be said to have acted illegally while deciding whether injury has been caused to the complainant or not under Clause 2 (23) of the Bill.
14.00hrs I have another important point. I invite your attention to the RTI reply by the Reserve Bank of India. It says that the banks cannot be held responsible for the loss of valuables kept in bank lockers. This has put a big question mark over the safety of valuable documents stored in bank lockers for safe keeping. I request the Government of India to fill the gaps in the Bill with the most decent consultations to ensure the full protection of the rights of the consumer.
So, I request you to send the Bill to the Standing Committee which is going to be constituted.
SHRI ASADUDDIN OWAISI (HYDERABAD): Sir, I oppose this Bill. Why do I oppose this Bill? It is because as in the RTI Bill, the Government has diluted this Bill. I do not know how the Government has succumbed or the Government which has 280 seats …(Interruptions)
14.01 hrs (Dr. Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar in the Chair) सर,मुझे इसबात काताज्जुब हैकि एकसरकार जिसके पास खुद के 303 अराकीन एलोक सभा है । मेडिकल लॉबी केआगे आपने घुटने टेक दिए । आपमेडिकल लॉबी सेक्यों डररहे हैं?
मैडम,आप देखिए किजब इसऐवान में वर्ष 2016 में यहबिल पास हुआ था,तो उसमें हेल्थ केयर काजिक्र था,लेकिन आपने उसको निकाल दिया । आपमेडिकल लॉबी सेइतना क्यों डररहे है?मैडम, अबयह होगा किजो कोई भीऔरत बेवा होजाएगी, अपने बच्चों केकफ़ालत केलिए उसको सिविल कोर्ट जाना पड़ेगा । अबसिविल कोर्ट में वकील कीफीस कौन देगा? क्या आपवकील कीफीस देंगे? कोर्ट कीफीस कौन जमा कराएगा, क्या आपकराएंगे? यहमेडिकल लॉबी कीकामयाबी है ।
मैडम,यह अप्रोप्रिएट हैकि आपउस कुर्सी परतशरीफ फरमा रही हैं । वर्ष 1986 केएक्ट में महिलाओं केलिए रिजर्वेशन था,लेकिन आपने उसको डिलीट करदिया । सारी दुनिया जानती हैकि कंज्यूमर प्रोटेक्शन में सबसे आगे महिलाएं रहती हैं,लेकिन आपने उसरिजर्वेशन कोनिकाल दिया । यह अजीबोगरीब है । दानवे साहब, आपके रहते हुए ऐसा होरहा है,यह तोमुझे यकीन नहीं होरहा है ।
मैडम,मैं तीसरी बात कहना चाहता हूं किवर्ष 1986 कीएक्ट केप्रीऐम्ब्ल में यहलिखा हुआ थाकि an act to provide a better protection of consumer rights, लेकिन आपनेलफ्ज़ए बेटर कोनिकाल दिया । आपको बेटर सेइतनी दुश्मनी क्यों है? …(व्यवधान) मुझे नहीं मालूम किप्रीऐम्ब्ल सेबेटर कोक्यों निकाला गया?क्या अभी आपउसको खराब करदेंगे? इसलिए मैं कहरहा हूं किआपने डाइलूट करदिया है ।
मैडम, अबमेरा चौथा प्वाइंट हैकि सेक्शन 107 में यहनहीं बताया जाता, हमवर्ष 1986 काएक्ट रिपील करने जारहे है,जो केसेस डिस्ट्रिक्ट, स्टेट औरनेशनल कमीशन केपास जे़रे-ए-दौरान है,उनका क्या होगा?
मैडम, मेरा पांचवां प्वाइंट यहहै किचैप्टर 4, सेक्शन 38, सब-सेक्शन 2 में 45 दिन काटाइम पीरियड है । क्या यहमैन्डेटरी हैया डिस्क्रीशनरी है,क्योंकि सुप्रीम कोर्ट में आजएक कंस्टिट्यूशनल बेंच इसी प्वाइंट परहियर करने जारही हैकि यह 45 दिन काटाइम मैन्डेटरी हैया डिस्क्रीशनरी है । दानवे साहब, जबआप रिप्लाई देंगे, तोमुझे इसबारे मेबताइए, क्योंकि इसे कंस्टिट्यूशनल बेंच हियर कररही है ।
मैडम, मेरा छठा प्वाइंट हैकि सेक्शन 51, सब-सेक्शन 1 में प्रोविजन हैऔर सेक्शन 67 में सेकेंड प्रोविजन है । अबअगर किसी अपीलेन्ट कोअपील करनी है,तो उसको जो 50 परसेंट अमाउंट काअवार्ड मिला है,उसे अपील करने सेपहले जमा करना पड़ेगा । यहकैसे होगा? यहतो गैर जरूरी है । इसमें मेरी राय हैकि यहहार्डशिप पैदा करेगा । बेहतर यहहै किइसको आपस्टेट तथा नेशनल कमीशन परछोड़ दीजिए, बजाय उसको मैन्डेटरी कंडीशन बनाने के ।
मैडम, मेरा एकऔर प्वाइंट यहहै किचैप्टर 2, सेक्शन 3, सब-सेक्शन 1 में सेन्ट्रल काउंसिल है । दानवे साहब, आपकितने लोगों कोइसका मेम्बर बनाइएगा? आपहमें बताइए । आपहमें बता नहीं रहे हैं,यानी आपके मूड परमुन्हसिर होगा किसुबह उठकर दानवे साहब बोलेंगे किऐसा नहीं है,बल्कि पन्द्रह बना दूंगा । क्या आप 15 बना देंगे? आपउसमें नंबर नहीं लिखते हैं । अबचैप्टर 2, सेक्शन 3, सब-सेक्शन 2, सब-सेक्शन-बीहै, यहबड़ा वेग है । इसमें जिनको मेम्बर बनाया जाएगा, उनका क्राइटीरिया क्या होगा? ऐसा होसकता हैकि आपकिसी डफर याथम्सअप कोबना देंगे । ऐसा होसकता है,इसलिए वही आपचाहते हैं ।
मैडम, मैं चैप्टर 2, सेक्शन 6, सब-सेक्शन 2, सब-सेक्शन- बीतथा सीके बारे में कुछ कहना चाहता हूं । आपइसे स्टेट में भीबनाएंगे । आप वहां क्यों बनाएंगे? यकीनन महाराष्ट्र सहित बहुत जगह आपकी सरकार है,मगर स्टेट कीतो कोई इज्ज़त रखिए । क्या आपबंगाल में बनाएंगे, फिर स्टेट क्या करेगा, क्या स्टेट बैठकर थाली बजाएगा?
चैप्टर 3 - सेंट्रल अथारिटी । येफिर सेनहीं बताते, येस्पेसिफाई नहीं करते कि members of the Chief Commission which constitutes the Central Consumer Protection Authority, वह कौन होगा? इसे भीआप नहीं बताते हैं । क्वालिफिकेशन इनचैप्टर 3, सैक्शन 11 देखिए, क्वालिफिकेशन, रिक्रूटमेंट काप्वाइंट मैं आपको बोल चुका हूं ।
मैडम,अब में 18 (2) पर आता हूं । This can be used against companies. You will constitute an inquiry against any company which has not given you electoral bonds. It is as simple as that. You are taking away every power, hats off to your vision and your foresightedness in getting electoral bonds. I do not know what it is. As per section 18(2), you can inquire or investigate anyone. That is why, I say I oppose this Bill on these issues.
My last point to the Government is that the pecuniary jurisdiction norms need to be corrected. You are saying in the Bill, ‘the value of the goods or services paid’. May I request you to consider this? This is avoidable. You make it, ‘on the value of claim, including the compensation claim’.
जोप्वाइंट मैंने सामने रखे हैं,उनकी बुनियाद परमैं इसबिल कीमुखालिफत करता हूं । यहकंज्यूमर केफेवर में नहीं है,बल्कि मेडिकल लॉबी कोआपने कामयाब करदिया, स्टेट्स कीपॉवर्स आपछीन रहे हैं,इससे बहुत सेऔर मसाइल पैदा होने वाले हैं ।
جناب اسدالدین اویسی (حیدرآباد): سرمجھے اس بات کا تعجب ہے کہ ایک سرکار جس کے پاس اپنے خود کے 303 اراکینِ لوک سبھا ہیں۔ میڈیکل لابی کے آگےگھٹنے ٹیک دئے ۔ آپ میڈیل لابی سے کیوں ڈر رہے ہیں؟ میڈم، آپ دیکھئےکہ جب اس ایوان میں سال 2016میں یہ بِل پاس ہوا تھا، اس میں ہیلتھ سروِس کا ذکر تھا، لیکن آپ نے اس کو نکال دیا۔ آپ میڈیل لابی سے اتنا ڈر کیوں رہے ہیں؟ میڈم، اب یہ ہوگا کہ جو کوئی بھی عورت بیوہ ہو جائے گی، اپنے بچوں کی کفالت کے لئے اس کو سِول کورٹ جانا پڑے گا۔ اب سِول کورٹ میں وکیل کی فیس کون دےگا؟ کیا آپ وکیل کی فیس دیں گے؟ کورٹ کی فیس کون جمع کرائے گا، آپ کرائیں گے؟ یہ میڈیکل لابی کی کامیابی ہے۔ میڈم، یہ ایپروپریٹ ہے کہ آپ اس کرسی پر تشریف فرماں ہیں۔ 86 کے ایکٹ میں خواتین کے لئے ریزرویشن تھا، لیکن آپ نے اس کو ڈیلیٹ کر دیا۔ ساری دنیا جانتی ہے کہ کنزیومر پروٹیکشن میں سب سے آگے خواتین رہتی ہیں، لیکن آپ نے اس ریزرویشن کو نکال دیا۔ یہ عجیب و غریب ہے۔ دانوے صاحب، آپ کے رہتے ایسا ہو رہا ہے۔ یہ تو مجھے یقین نہیں ہو رہا ہے۔ میڈم، میں تیسری بات کہنا چاہتا ہوں، 1986 کی ایکٹ کے پریمبل میں یہ لکھا ہوا تھا کہ an Act to provide a better protection آپ نے لفظِ بیٹر کو نکال دیا۔ آپ کو بیٹر سے اتنی دشمنی کیوں ہے۔ (مداخلت)۔۔ مجھے نہیں معلوم کہ پریمبل سے بیٹر کو کیوں نکالا گیا؟ کیا ابھی آپ اس کو خراب کر دیں گے؟ اس لئے میں کہہ رہا ہوں کہ آپ ڈائلیوٹ کر دئے ہیں۔ میڈم، اب میرا چوتھا پوائنٹ یہ ہے کہ سیکشن 107 میں یہ نہیں بتایا جاتا، ہم 1986کا ایکٹ ریپیل کرنے جا رہے ہیں، جو کیسِس ڈسٹریکٹس، اسٹیٹ اور نیشنل کمیشن کے پاس زیرِ دوراں ہیں ان کا کیا ہوگا؟ میڈم، میرا پانچواں پوائنٹ یہ ہے کہ چیپٹر 4 کے سیکشن 38 سب۔سیکشن2 میں 45 دن کا ٹائم پیریڈ ہے۔ کیا یہ مینڈیٹری ہے یا ڈِسکریشنری ہے؟ کیونکہ سپریم کورٹ میں آج ایک کانسٹی ٹیوشنل بینچ اسی پوائنٹ پر ہیر کرنے جا رہی ہے کہ یہ 45 دن کا ٹائم مینڈیٹری ہے یا ڈِسکریشنری ہے۔ دانوے صاحب،جب آپ ریپلائی دیں گےتو مجھے اس بارے میں بتائیے، کیونکہ اسے کانسٹی ٹیوشنل بینچ ہیر کر رہا ہے۔ میرا چھٹا پوائنٹ ہے کہ سیکشن 51 کے سب ۔ سیکشن 1 میں پروویزن ہے اور سیکشن 67 میں پروویزن ہے ۔ اب اگر کسی اپیلینٹ کو اپیل کرنا ہے، تو اس کو 50فیصد اماوُنٹ کا جو ایوارڈ ملا ہے، اسے اپیل کرنے سے پہلے جمع کرنا پڑے گا۔ یہ کیسے ہوگا؟ یہ تو غیر ضروری ہے۔ اس میں میری رائے ہے کہ یہ ہارڈشِپ پیدا کرے گا۔ بہتر یہ ہے کہ آپ اس کو اسٹیٹ اور نیشنل کمیشن پر چھوڑ دیجئے، بچائے اس کو مینڈیٹری کندڈیشن بنانے کے ۔ میڈم، میرا ایک اور پوائنٹ یہ ہے کہ چیپٹر 2 میں سیکشن 3 سب سیکشن1 میں سینٹرل کاوُنسل ہے۔ دانوے صاحب آپ کتنے لوگوں کو اس کا ممبر بنائیں گے۔ آپ ہمیں بتائیے، آپ ہمیں بتا نہیں رہے ہیں، یعنی آپ کے مونڈ پر منحصر ہوگا کہ کہ صبح اٹھ کر دانوے صاحب بولیں گے کہ ایسا نہیں ہے، بلکہ 15 بنا دوں گا۔ کیا آپ 15 بنا دیں گے؟ آپ اس میں نمبر نہیں لکھتے ہیں۔ اب چیپٹر 2، سیکشن 3، سب ۔ سیکشن 2، سب۔سیکشن B ہے، یہ بڑا ویگ ہے۔ اس میں جن کو ممبر بنایا جائے گا، ان کا کرائی ٹیریا کیا ہوگا؟ ایسا ہو سکتا ہے کہ آپ کسی ڈفر یا تھمس اپ کو بنا دیں گے۔ ایسا ہو سکتا ہے اس لئے وہی آپ چاہتے ہیں۔ میڈم، میں چیپٹر2، سیکشن 6، سب۔سیکشن B اور C، کے بارے میں کچھ کہنا چاہتا ہوں۔ آپ اسے اسٹیٹ میں بھی بنائیں گے۔ آپ وہاں کیوں بنائیں گے؟ یقیناً مہاراشٹر سمیت بہت جگہ آپ کی سرکار ہے، مگر اسٹیٹ کی تو عزت رکھئے۔ کیا آپ بنگال میں بنائیں گے، پھر اسٹیٹ کیا کرے گا، کیا اسٹیٹ بیٹھ کر تھالی بجائیے گا۔ ؟ چیپٹر 3، سینٹرل اتھارٹی یہ پھر سے نہیں بتاتے، یہ سپیسِفائی نہیں کرتے کہ members of the Chief Commission which constitutes the Central Consumer Protection Authority, وہ کون ہوگا؟ اسے بھی آپ نہیں بتاتے ہیں۔ کوالیِفیکیشن ان چیپٹر 3، سیکشن 11 دیکھئے، کوالیِفیکیشن، ریکروٹمینٹ کا پوائنٹ میں آپ کو بول چکا ہوں۔ میڈم، اب میں 18 (2) پر آتا ہوں۔ This can be used against companies. You will constitute an inquiry against any company which has not given you electoral bonds. It is an simple as that. you are taking away every power, hats off to your vision and your foresightedness in getting electoral bonds. I do not know what it is. As per section 18 (2), you can inquire or investigate anyone. That is why, I say I oppose this Bill on these issues.
My last point to the Government is that the pecuniary jurisdiction norms need to be corrected. You are saying in the Bill, ‘the value of the goods or services paid’. May I request you to consider this? This is avoidable. You make it, ‘on the value of calm, including the compensation claim’.
جو پوائنٹ میں نے سامنے رکھے ہیں، ان کی بنیاد پر میں اس بِل کی مخالفت کرتا ہوں۔ یہ کنزیومر کے حق میں نہیں ہے، بلکہ میڈیکل لابی کو آپ نے کامیاب کر دیا، اسٹیٹس کی پاورس آپ چھین رہے ہیں، اس سے بہت سے اور مسائل پیدا ہو سکتے ہیں۔ شکریہ (ختم شد) श्री जनार्दन मिश्र (रीवा): महोदया, आपने मुझे अवसर दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपको धन्यवाद देता हूं । बहुत सारी बातें आगई हैं,लेकिन जिन मुद्दों का,बिंदुओं काउल्लेख नहीं होपाया है,मैं उनके बारे में कहना चाहूंगा । कुछ लोग कहरहे हैं किसारे अधिकार लेलिए हैं । आपके वर्ष 1986 केएक्ट में यहप्रावधान नहीं था,लेकिन यहां जोड़ा गया हैकि केन्द्रीय प्राधिकरण केनिर्णय केविरूद्ध उपभोक्ता याजो भीपक्षकार हो,वह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय में जासकता है । येकह रहे हैं किअधिकार एकहाथ में रहेगा । महालेखापरीक्षक सारे खर्चे का,गतिविधियों कापरीक्षण करेगा, जिसका खण्ड 26 में उल्लेख है ।
खण्ड 106 में यहउल्लेख हैकि अधिनियमों केउपबंधों कोप्रभावी करने में कोई कठिनाई उत्पन्न होती है,तो केन्द्रीय सरकार राजपत्र में प्रकाशित आदेश द्वारा ऐसे उपबंध करसकेगी, जोउस अधिनियम केउपबंधों सेअसंगत नहों, जोउस कठिनाई कोदूर करने केलिए उसे आवश्यक यासमीचीन प्रतीत हों । इसतरह सेदो वर्ष केअंदर जोभी आवश्यकता अभी हैया जोपरिस्थितियां निर्मित होंगी, उन्हें भीइसमें अमेंड किया जासकता है । इसप्रावधान केखण्ड 106 में यहलिखा हुआ है । येतीन चीजें पूरी चर्चा केदौरान नहीं आईथीं, इसलिए इनचीजों कामैंने उल्लेख किया है ।
विरोधी दलके तमाम लोगों नेकहा कियह मोदीकरण है । यहमोदीकरण नहीं है,यह जनकरण है,जनकल्याण काकरण है । हमने एककरोड़ रुपये तकजिला न्यायालय में लिमिट रखी है । येकिसानों कीबात करते हैं,गरीबों की बात करते हैं । पहले एक करोड़ रुपये वाले हमारे यहां भोपाल जाते थे । जिले में 20 लाख रुपये कीलिमिट थी,उसको हमने 1 करोड़ रुपये किया है ।
महोदया, येविज्ञापन कीबात करते हैं । महिलाओं काविज्ञापन किस राज में किसने शुरू किया? यहउस समय शुरू हुआ,जब एकखादी कीटोपी पहनने वाले नेता ने,धोती औरजैकेट पहनने वाले नेता ने,अंग्रेजी टीशर्ट, स्कर्ट पहनी हुई महिला की सिगरेट कोलाइटर सेजलाया था । उसदिन सेयह पैदा हुआ है । यहउस दिन सेपैदा हुआ,जिस दिन खद्दर कीटोपी औरजैकेट उतारकर 15 अगस्त कीआधी रात कोब्रिटिश कोट पहन लिया औरउसमें गुलाब काफूल लगा लिया । उसदिन सेअश्लीलता शुरू हुई है ।
यह थमने कानाम नहीं लेरही है । यहकैसे थमेगी? आपजिस कल्चर सेपैदा हुए हो, 70-72 सालों तकइस कल्चर कोजन्म दिया, आपकल्चर बनाते हैं औरसदन केअंदर आपकल्चर कीबात करते हैं । आपके काम कैसे हैं?आप किस संस्कृति में पले हैं । रात में आपक्या करते हैं,आपने किस कल्चर कोजन्म दिया है,विज्ञापनों कीबात करते हो,देश कोबेवकूफ बनाते हो ।
अभीओवैसी साहब बोल रहे थेकि घुटने टेक दिये । आपके कलेजे सेहुक उठती है,इस एक्ट में प्रावधान किया गया हैकि अगर किसी कोअपील करनी हैतो आधी रकम पहले उसउपभोक्ता कोदें, उसके बाद उसकी अपील स्वीकार होगी । इसतरह सेबात करने में लोगों कीछाती फटती है । हमनहीं देंगे तोवह गरीब मरजाएगा, गरीब केलिए प्रावाधान किया गया है,आधी रकम दो,उसके बाद अपील में जाओ ।
तमिलनाडु केसाथी बता रहे थेकि पूरी एक्टिविटीज चाहे सीपीसी होया व्यवहार प्रक्रिया संहिता हो,मैंने 22 सालों तकवकालत कीहै । मैंने उपभोक्ता फोरम में जाकर काम किया है । इसलिए मुझे दर्द होता है,जब लोग इसतरह सेबात करते हैं । फटी लंगोटी लगाता था,जो पहले प्रोसिजर था,उससे उसको कोर्ट में न्याय नहीं मिलता था । इसकी सारी व्यवस्थाएं इसमें कीगई हैं । रोड काले लो,अस्पताल काभी लेलो, जितनी भीगतिविधियां हैं,सीपीसी खत्म करदो, सीआरपीसी खत्म करदो, आईपीसी खत्म करदो, येकिसलिए कानून बने हुए हैं । देश में अपराध, सिविल औरदूसरे प्रावधान केमामले में तमाम सारे कानून बने हुए हैं । आपसब कुछ उपभोक्ता फोरम केअंदर लाना चाहते हैं । येक्यों इसतरह कीबातें कररहे हैं?देश कोतोड़ने वाली भाषा काप्रयोग कररहे हैं । जोकुछ भीहै, वहआज कीपरिस्थितियों औरआधुनिक बाजार केअनुकूल है । अगर कुछ भीजोड़ना हैतो दोसाल केअंदर इसमें जोड़ा जासकेगा । इन्ही शब्दों केसाथ धन्यवाद, जयहिन्द ।
SHRIMATI ANUPRIYA PATEL (MIRZAPUR): Thank you, Madam, Chairperson. I rise to speak in support of the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019 which is going to replace the 33-year old Act of 1986. Every year on March 15 we observe the World Consumer Protection Day and even in India we observe that day as the National Consumer Protection Day and we chant the usual mantra ‘Consumer is the King’. But this is not really reflected in reality. With the rise in the number of consumers’ complaints and the rise of pending cases in the consumer forums, there is really a need to have a new and a more dynamic law which is in tune with the changing times and needs. With the growing popularity of online purchases, we need a new law so that we are able to protect the rights of consumers in this digital environment.
I am glad today that the hon. Minister, who is sitting right in front of me has brought this new comprehensive Bill which has all the intention of protecting consumer rights and has several important provisions like setting up of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions at district, State and national levels to look into the consumers’ complaints, and setting up of a Central Consumer Protection Authority to promote, protect and enforce consumer rights as a class and defining the unfair and restricted trade practices. The Bill also has a provision for the establishment of Consumer Protection Councils at district, State and the national levels to render advice on consumer protection. While I understand the goodness behind all these provisions, I have certain questions related to these provisions for which I seek clarifications from the hon. Minister.
Madam, my first question relates to the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions, which are supposed to function as civil courts. The Bill says, it is going to have a President and other members, but what the Bill does not specify is the minimum judicial qualification which the President and other members should have.
So, what I want to understand from the hon. Minister is whether any minimum judicial qualifications are going to be prescribed by the Central Government or not. If, at all, we are not going to have judicial officers in these redressal commissions, which are going to function as civil courts, is it not violating the principle of separation of powers?
These Consumer Protection Councils are supposed to play an advisory role. They will render advice on how to protect the consumer rights better. These Consumer Protection Councils are going to be headed by the Ministers at the State and Central level and by the District Collector at the district level. Actually, the Ministers or the District Collectors are the implementing authority. So, what I fail to understand is who exactly the Consumer Protection Council is rendering advice to. I am not able to understand this and want the hon. Minister to clarify this.
My next question relates to the recommendations of the Standing Committee which have not been adhered to. The first one is regarding incorporating a provision to terminate a contract on the grounds of the quality of the service or the goods which are delivered. I do not find this having been included in the consumer rights which have been outlined in the Bill. Secondly, a provision has not been incorporated in the Bill to the effect that any misleading advertiser is being compelled to issue a corrective advertisement.
These are the three or four small issues which I want to ask the hon. Minister. I do support this Bill, but I want the hon. Minister to clarify these points while replying to the debate in the House.
Thank you very much.
HON. CHAIRPERSON : Shri P. Raveendranath Kumar – not present.
Shri Hanuman Beniwal – not present.
… (Interruptions)
HON. CHAIRPERSON: Okay, Shri Raveendranath Kumar has come.
SHRI P. RAVEENDRANATH KUMAR (THENI): Madam Chairperson, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of my AIADMK party.
I appreciate our hon. Prime Minister and hon. Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution for having brought this regulatory Bill with an aim to replace the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and widen the ambit of consumer protection.
I welcome the positive features in this Bill and the statement of the hon. Minister. It is pertinent to mention that in my State of Tamil Nadu, as on 30.06.2019, there are 9,071 consumer cases pending in various district consumer disputes redressal forums and particularly in my Theni district, there are 101 cases pending as on 30.06.2019. Right from the inception of the said Consumer Protection Act, 1986, so far 1,22,373 consumer cases were filed all over the State, out of which 1,13,302 cases were disposed of as on 30.06.2019. In order to reduce the above number of prolonged pending cases as well as to curtail unwarranted litigation, a new chapter, Chapter V, has been added in this Consumer Protection Bill, 2019. This would enable settlement of disputes by a mediator upon reference by a consumer court and will reduce unnecessary litigations in future.
It is pertinent to mention here the volume of online trading which is increasing every year, but at the same time, steps should be taken by the Government to ensure the quality of products being sold through online mode since the number of substandard products in online marketing has also increased recently. There is no awareness among the public about the way to complain about it.
Madam, I want one clarification from the hon Minister. There is no awareness among the public about the way to complain against spurious products, if such products are supplied by online marketing firms.
So, I would request the hon. Minister to enlighten us what kind of actions he is going to take to create awareness among the public to file the complaints.
I need one more clarification. I wish to know as to what kind of monitoring system has been planned by the Government to prevent misleading advertisements. So, I request the Minister to inform this House about the steps taken for establishing a monitoring body on the lines of Advertising Standards Council of India to monitor and book complaints voluntarily against misleading advertisements.
One of my colleagues who is sitting on the other side has said that our Central Government, that is the Modi Government, has ‘zero democracy’. This is not ‘zero democracy’, but a ‘Hero Democracy’. It is accepted by the people of our country. People of India have shown who is zero and who is hero. In the elections everything was proved.
Keeping in view the good factors of the Bill that I have mentioned, I support the Bill. The vital need of the hour is to strengthen the rights of the consumers and to provide a mechanism for redressal of complaints effectively. So, I welcome this regulatory Bill. Thank you.
SHRI N.K. PREMACHANDRAN (KOLLAM): Madam Chairperson, thank you for giving me this chance to speak on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019.
I rise to support the spirit of the Bill, but with certain reservations in regard to the contents of the Bill. I also want to put forth some suggestions.
The original Act of 1986 was enacted to protect the better interests of the consumers. Four institutions have also been established through that Act. They were the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at the district level; Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission at the State and national level; and also, as Madam has rightly said just now, Consumer Advisory Council.
After 33 years of experience regarding the impact of this Act, I think, this is the right time to review the COPRA, that is the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. So, I welcome the step taken by the hon. Minister as well as by the Government in repealing the entire Act of 1986 and coming out with a comprehensive legislation, that is the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019. Hence, I support the view and the vision of the Government in this respect.
When we are repealing and coming out with a new legislation, abundant care and caution should be taken so as to address the present situation which is prevailing in our country. The consumer markets for goods and services have drastically changed. Most of the hon. Members have already stated that there is emergence of global supply chains, and modern marketing technological tools, like on-line trading, e-commerce, e-trading, etc. have come into existence. So, we have to change the law according to the situation prevailing in our country. That means we have to change in tune with the changing market scenario or market conditions. This new comprehensive legislation has been brought in exactly to address that and has been brought to this House for our consideration.
The market forces have put the consumers in a very vulnerable position. Many innovative marketing technologies have been introduced. These innovative technologies are being used to cheat the consumers in different ways.
Coming to the review of 1986 Act, the sole intention of COPRA was to give immediate relief to the consumers. That is why the Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions were formed at the district, State and national levels. The Consumer Advisory Council was also formed for the same purpose.
Madam Aparajita Sarangi has just now stated that justice delayed is justice denied. Why were these Dispute Redressal Commissions constituted? It is quite unfortunate to note that most of the Commissions are not delivering service as we expected them to do.
A number of cases is being lodged in the consumer courts. It is not because of the fault of the Central Commission alone. Most of the State Governments are not giving financial support for the functioning of the Commissions in the State.
So, my suggestion to the hon. Minister is to do something so that the States can be empowered or the Commissions can be empowered by providing some financial grant from the Central Government to make the Commissions at the State level and the district level more effective so that the relief can be given and the grievances can be redressed at the earliest.
Madam, I have already stated about reviewing of the Act. The salient feature of this new Bill is the constitution of a Central Consumer Protection Authority and an alternative dispute redressal mechanism through mediation. These are the two salient features of this Bill.
Madam, I am coming to Clause 10 of the Bill and also seeking some clarifications from the hon. Minister. I think Clause 10 is the heart and soul of this Bill. According to Clause 10, a Central Consumer Protection Authority is being constituted and wide powers are being given to it. I am not reading the entire Clause. The Central Consumer Protection Authority, known as the Central Authority, is supposed to regulate matters relating to violation of rights of consumers, unfair trade practices, and false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests of public and consumers and to promote, protect, and enforce the rights of consumers as a class. This is a general power which is being given to the Central Consumer Protection Authority. My point is that no specific power has to be given.
Regarding the constitution of the Authority, as most of the hon. Members have mentioned, I would like to say that now it has become the order of the day and it has become the usual practice that the service conditions, appointment, tenure of service – everything is being determined by the Government as per the rule prescribed by the Government from time to time. What is it? That is why in the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, I put the same question. If you are determining the tenure, if you are determining the qualifications of the Chief Commissioner or the Central Consumer Protection Authority, then what is the Parliament for? That means it will be decided by the bureaucrats. What is the scope of the Parliament then? We do not know about the qualifications to be prescribed to become the Chief Commissioner of the Central Consumer Protection Authority. That means you are taking away the rights of the Parliament. That means legislative supremacy of the Parliament is being taken over. So, I have a strong objection for Clauses 10 and 11.
Madam, I will just mention about one very important point. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to Clause 18(1) (c) and Clause 24 and with that point I will conclude. I just read Clause 18(2) (c). It says that the Central Consumer Protection Authority will intervene in any proceedings of the State Commission, National Commission and the District Commission in respect of any allegation of violation of consumer rights or unfair trade practices. Yes, I agree to that.
Madam, Clause 24 says that a person aggrieved by any order passed by the Central Authority under Sections 20 and 21 may file an appeal to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such order. What does it mean? The National Commission is acting as the Appellate Authority of the State and the Central Consumer Protection Authority is acting as the Central Authority and the Central Authority has the right to intervene in the proceedings of the National Commission. It is totally contradictory. How will this survive in a court of law? What kind of piece of legislation is being made? So, this has to be corrected or this has to be clarified by the hon. Minister. If I am wrong, I stand corrected. Otherwise, I am seeking a very specific clarification regarding Clause 18(2) (c) and Clause 24.
Madam, the last point I would like to raise is that stringent punishment has to be there for the misleading advertisements. The present punishment and the penal provisions are not sufficient. So, provisions for stringent punishment have to be made as far as the misleading advertisements are concerned. With these words, I am concluding. I support the Bill.
*DR. THOL THIRUMAAVALAVAN (CHIDAMBARAM) : Hon. Chairperson. Vanakkam. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Consumer Protection Bill, 2019. The Consumer Protection Act of 1986 which was in practice for so long is now being totally replaced by a new Bill. I welcome this Bill as it is aimed to protect the consumers who are being affected by e-commerce, as the provisions relating to e-commerce have been included in the Bill. This Bill in its present form is taking away the rights of the State Government. As per the 1986 Act, which was in force, the State Governments can set up Consumer Protection Councils in different places. These powers were vested with the State Governments. But the Consumer Protection Councils or Courts to be set up at the District and State Levels will be governed by the Members to be appointed directly by the Union Government. As per the 1986 Act, these Councils had members of the Judiciary and therefore functioned as a quasi-judicial body. But this new Bill will pave way for a Bureaucratic body to be run by bureaucrats and politicians. In that way, this will totally loose the identity and recognition of a quasi-judicial body. Therefore it is shocking to say that this Bill has diluted the provisions of the earlier Act. This set up should be allowed to function as a quasi-judicial body. I request the Hon. Minister to make some amendments to this Bill in this regard. We are aware of the fact that how the consumers are being affected due to unfair trade practices followed by industrialists, businessmen, and brokers of the market, on a daily basis. It is the responsibility of the Union Government to protect the consumers from such unfair trade practices.
Although the present Bill is aimed to protect the consumers, it should never loose its identity of having the judicial powers or the quasi-judicial powers. It has raised a serious question whether this Bill will really protect the consumers and their rights?. This new Bill will create a big gap between the relations of the Union and State Governments. Therefore this Bill should have new provisions aimed at protecting the rights of the consumers, without taking away the rights of the State Governments, and providing judicial powers to the Consumer Protection Councils or Courts.
14.31 hrs (Hon. Speaker in the Chair) This Bill should have the powers to appoint District Judges, High Court judges and the Supreme Court Judges in the Consumer Protection Councils. Thank you for this opportunity.
माननीयअध्यक्ष : माननीयसदस्य, हरविषयपर बोललेतेहैं ।
…( व्यवधान)
संसदीय कार्यमंत्रालयमें राज्यमंत्री तथाभारी उद्योगऔर लोकउद्यम मंत्रालयमें राज्यमंत्री (श्रीअर्जुन राममेघवाल): आपनेबीएसीमें जोव्यवस्थादी है, उसेआप उसेआगे सेइम्प्लिमेंटकरें– रोटेशनलसिस्टम ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : माननीयमंत्रीजी ।
श्री रामविलासपासवान : अध्यक्षमहोदय, मैंसभी माननीयसदस्योंको बहुत-बहुतधन्यवाददेनाचाहताहूं ।इस बिलपर पहलेभी यहांदो बारबहस होचुकीहै, लेकिनआपकीअध्यक्षतामें इसबार जोडिबेटहुई हैऔर जिनमाननीयसदस्योंने अपनीराय दीहै, मैंवर्ष1977 सेइस सदनमें रहाहूं, बहुतगहराईसे औरबहुतअध्ययनकरकेमाननीयसदस्योंने रायदी है ।
माननीयअध्यक्ष : अपनेनए माननीयसदस्यबहुतइंटेलिजेंटआए हैं ।
श्री रामविलासपासवान : वेबहुतइंटेलिजेंटहैं ।यह बिलपास भीहो जाएगा, लेकिनमैं चाहूंगाकि जिनमाननीयसदस्योंने अपनीभावनाव्यक्तकी है, हमउनकेसाथ एकबार बैठकर चर्चाकरें । जोमाननीयसदस्यआना, चाहेंवे आसकतेहैं ।हम लोगबिल्कुलओपन हैं । हमचाहतेहैं कि यहउपभोक्तासंरक्षणविधेयकजो पासहोनेजा रहाहै, वहअपने-आपमें एकऐतिहासिकहो । चूंकियह 33 सालोंके बादआ रहाहै । सभीमाननीयसदस्योंने अपनीबातोंको कहाहै औरजिस तरीकेसे कहाहै, मैंनेपहलेभी इसपर गंभीरतासे विचारकियाहै । उदाहरणके लिएडॉक्टरके संबंधमें है । हमारेएक साथीने कहाकि मेडिकल, हेल्थकेयरको क्योंनहींरखा गयाहै? मैंभी सोचरहा थाकि हेल्थकेयरको रखनाचाहिए ।उन्होंनेकहा किवर्ष1995 मेंसुप्रीमकोर्टने कहाथा किइसकोरखनाचाहिए ।
इससे पहले वर्ष 2018 केबिल में यहप्रावधान था,लेकिन राज्य सभा में बिल कोपास नहीं किया गया । हमने विरोध करने वाले माननीय सदस्यों कोबुलाया औरउनसे पूछा किआप क्यों इसका विरोध कररहे हैं?उन्होंने कुछ बातें कहीं औरहमें भीलगा किइन बातों परविचार करना चाहिए । उन्होंने कहा कियदि कोई डाक्टर केयहां जाता है,तो डाक्टर आंख मूंद करदवाई लिख देता हैकि आपके सिर में दर्द है,खांसी है,तो आपयह दवाई लेलीजिए । लेकिन जिस दिन डाक्टर्स कोलगा किहमने खांसी कीदवाई दी,लेकिन बीमारी कुछ औरहै, तोजब उनके ऊपर क्लेम आएगा, तोकोई भीडाक्टर जल्दी दवाई नहीं लिखेगा औरवह कहेगा किपहले पूरी जांच हो । जांच में इतना समय औरपैसा लगजाएगा किमरीज कोबहुत परेशानी होजाएगी ।
मैंसर्वप्रथम राजेन्द्र अग्रवाल जी,रणजीत रेड्डी जी,दुर्गा प्रसाद जी,विष्णु प्रसाद जी,वीरास्वामी जी,प्रतिमा मंडल जी,राहुल शेवले जी,चन्द्रेश्वर प्रसाद जी,रमेश चन्द्र जी,गिरीश चन्द्रा जी,सप्तगिरी उलाका जी,अजय मिश्रा जी,जयदेव गल्ला जी,गिरीश बापट जी,सुप्रिया सुले, मसूदी जी,सारंगी जी,बसीर जी,ओवैसी जी,जनार्दन मिश्रा, अनुप्रिया पटेल जी,रविन्द्रनाथ कुमार जी,प्रेमचन्द्रन जीऔर तिरुमावलवन जीको धन्यवाद करता हूं किसभी नेअपनी बातों कोरखा । इनसभी कीबातों में तीन-चार मेन प्वाइंट हैं । हमारा मेन मकसद सिस्टम कोसरल करने काहै । पहले कंज्यूमर कोर्ट नाम कीकोई चीज नहीं थी,कंज्यूमर फोरम डिस्ट्रिक्ट में थीऔर राज्य में कंज्यूमर कमीशन औरनेशनल कमीशन था,लेकिन धीरे-धीरे इन्होंने कोर्ट कारूप लेलिया । इसका जोमेन परपस था,वह पीछे रहगया । आपकहते हैं किइसमें इतना समय क्यों लगता है,उसका एककारण कोर्ट कामामला है,कोर्ट में वकील कामामला है,इसलिए हमने वकील कोहटा दिया । हमने कहा कियदि कोई व्यक्ति कम्प्लेंट देगा, वहदर्ज यदि नहीं कीजाती है,तो वह 21 दिनों में आटोमैटिक दर्ज होजाएगी । हमने कहा कियह जरूरी नहीं हैकि वकील हीपैरवी करे । आपअपने आपपैरवी करसकते हैं । अधिकांशत: 90 परसेंट केस डिस्ट्रिक्ट में आते हैं औरउसका दायरा बहुत कम 20 लाख रुपये तकथा, उसे बढ़ाकर हमने एककरोड़ रुपये करदिया औरराज्य में दायरा बढ़ा कर 10 करोड़ रुपये करदिया । 10 करोड़ रुपये सेऊपर नेशनल दायरे में लादिया । पहले मध्यस्थता काविषय नहीं था । बहुत साथियों नेमध्यस्थता कोसराहा है । कईसांसदों नेकहा किइसमें परदर्शिता नहीं है । जबहम रूल्स बनाएंगे, तोइसे देखने काकाम करेंगे । इसमें मिसलीडिंग एडवरटाइजमेंट कामामला भीहै, यहबहुत बड़ा है । कईसदस्यों नेकहा हैकि विज्ञापन में मिसलीडिंग क्या है?आप रोड परजा करदेखिए । वहां लिखा रहता हैकि तीन महीने में कदबढ़ाएं । सिर परबाल नहीं हैं,तो तीन दिन में बाल आजाएंगे, इससे ज्यादा मिसलीडिंग क्या होगा? हमने इसमें बहुत सावधानी बरती हैकि जोभी एडवरटाइजमेंट देता है,वह इसके लिए रिस्पोंसिबल होगा किआप हानिकारक विज्ञापन देरहे हैं । प्रेस वालों कोहमने छोड़ दिया है । हमतभी प्रेस वालों कोपकड़ेंगे जबवह कहता कुछ हैऔर छापता कुछ हैजो कभी हुआ नहीं होगा याहोना नहीं चाहिए ।
तीसरा विषयसेलिब्रिटीज़ काहै । सेलिब्रिटीज़ केलिए स्टैंडिंग कमेटी नेकहा थाकि उनके लिए जेल काविधान होना चाहिए । हमलोगों नेइसमें सेजेल काविधान हटा दिया है । हमने कहा किसेलिब्रिटीज़ कोसजा देंगे, लेकिन हमउन्हें बैन करदेंगे याउन परजुर्माना लगजाएगा, यही उनके लिए काफी है । हमलोगों नेकहा थाकि जो आपको लिखकर दिया जाता हैतो आपउतना हीपढ़ने काकाम कीजिए । आपने कहा किकेस में डिले होता है । हमने राज्य सरकारों कोकम सेकम, पिछली बार भीमेरे पास यही मंत्रालय था,दो दर्जन बार लिखा है । कहीं परचेयरमैन कापद खाली है,कहीं मेंबर कापद खाली है । अभी भीमैंने पर्सनल लैटर लिखा है । सरल भाषा में,अपनी तरफ से,हमने सरकारी महकमे सेकहा किहटो! हमतीन पेज कालैटर नहीं लिखेंगे, हमचार लाइन काही लिखेंगे किआपके यहां ये-ये पदखाली हैं,इन्हें आपभर दीजिए औरअगर कोई दिक्कत है,तो हमें बताइए ।
हमने 1 अगस्त कोयहीं, दिल्ली में स्टेट केमिनिस्टर्स कीकांफ्रेंस रखी थीलेकिन मेरे छोटे भाई औरसांसद रामचन्द्र पासवान कानिधन होगया, इसीलिए हमने उसको आगे बढ़ा दिया है । हमउसके पीछे लगे हुए हैं । सीसीपीए एकबहुत हीकारगर हथकंडा है । हमने इसको एब्सोल्यूट पावर नहीं दीहै, नही इसको नैशनल कमीशन, स्टेट कमीशन याडिस्ट्रिक्ट कमीशन में अलग-अलग रखा है । इसके लिए हमने सिर्फ इतना हीकिया हैकि कंप्लेंट होने परयह इमीडिएट एक्शन लेसकता है । इसमें सबसे बड़ी बात यहहै किअभी तकइंडिविजुअल केस देखा जाता था । यदि आपको कोई सामान खराब मिल गया,जैसे खराब कार मिल गईतो आपने इंडिविजुअल परएक्शन लिया है । अबहम लोगों नेकहा किनहीं, अबवह क्लास एक्शन लेगा । मान लीजिए एककार है,जिसका इंजन खराब हैतो उसी कार काइंजन खराब नहीं होगा, उसलॉट में जितनी कारें बनी हैं,उनका इंजन भीखराब होगा, इसलिए उसको क्लास एक्शन लेने कापूरा कापूरा अधिकार रहेगा ।
इसीतरह यदि कोई आदमी खराब सामान बेचता हैया खराब सेवा प्रदान करता है,जिसके बारे में यहां कईबार बात होचुकी है,प्रेमचन्द्रन जीऔर लीडर ऑफकांग्रेस पार्टी यहां बैठे हैं । पिछली बार आपसब लोगों नेअमेंडमेंट्स दिए थेऔर इसबार भीजो दिए हैं,उन सबको हमने बहुत गंभीरता सेदेखने काकाम किया है । हमने पिछली बार भीबहुत डिटेल में बताने काकाम किया था । जितने एनजीओ केलोग हैं औरजो मीडिया केलोग हैं,उनसे पूरी कीपूरी रिपोर्ट लेकर हमने इसबिल कोबनाने काकाम किया है । मैं आपको विश्वास दिलाता हूं किइस बिल परसेंट्रल औरस्टेट गवर्नमेंट केसंबंध में जोभी बातें कही हैं,उन परजब हमरूल्स बनाएंगे - हमारा इसमें कोई पर्सनल इन्ट्रेस्ट नहीं है – जो भीआपके नैशनल इन्ट्रेस्ट, जनहित केसजेशन्स होंगे, उन्हें हमरूल्स में डालने काकाम करेंगे । …(व्यवधान)
अत: मैं सभी माननीय सदस्यों सेआग्रह करता हूं,मैं आजज्यादा नहीं बोलूंगा । आपसब लोग इसबिल कोसर्वसम्मति सेपास करने काकाम करें । आपसबका बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद । …(व्यवधान)
श्री अधीररंजन चौधरी : पासवानजी, इसमेंएडल्ट्रेशनकी बातकी गईहै । …(व्यवधान) क्याइसमेंखाद्यपदार्थभी शामिलहैं? …(व्यवधान)
श्री रामविलासपासवान : खाद्यके मामलेके लिएएफएसएसएआईहै । …(व्यवधान) एडल्ट्रेशनऐसी चीज़है, जोअलग-अलगहोतीहै । …(व्यवधान) जैसे स्टील काजो एडल्ट्रेशन होता है,उसे स्टील डिपार्टमेंट देखता है । …(व्यवधान) खाद्य केएडल्ट्रेशन कोएफएसएसएआईदेखताहै । …(व्यवधान) उनलोगों केसाथ भीहमारा तालमेल रहता है । …(व्यवधान) फूड एडल्ट्रेशनमें आपकोआजीवनकारावासया फांसीकी भीसज़ा होसकतीहै, इसलिएयह विषयअलग है । …(व्यवधान)
श्री अधीररंजन चौधरी : आपजो विधेयकपारितकर रहेहैं, इसकेचैप्टर7 केसैक्शन90 और91 मेंएडल्ट्रेशनके बारेमें कहागया है । …(व्यवधान) मुझे लगता हैकि यहतो हैल्थ काविषय है,आप इसे कैसे संभाल पाएंगे? …(व्यवधान) आपने कोऑर्डिनेशन कीक्या व्यवस्था कीहै? …(व्यवधान) हिन्दुस्तान में सबसे ज़्यादा यहकारोबार होता है । …(व्यवधान) आपचौंक जाएंगे किहमारे कोलकाता में फेंके हुए कुत्ते केमांस कोभी एडल्ट्रेशन में चला देते हैं । …(व्यवधान) कुछमहीनोंपहलेयह खबरआई थी । …(व्यवधान) आपदेखिए कियह भीकंज़्यूमर है,वह भीकंज़्यूमर है । …(व्यवधान) जोइलैक्ट्रॉनिक गुड्स खरीदता है,वह भीकंज़्यूमर है । जोखाद्यान खरीदता है,वह भीकंज़्यूमर है । …(व्यवधान) इनके बीच तालमेल कैसे होगा?
श्री रामविलासपासवान: जोहैल्थ का मामलाहै, जिसडिपार्टमेंटका मामलाहै, वहीडील करेगा । हमउसमेंइंटरफियरनहींकरेंगे ।यह बातमैं साफकह देताहूं ।बहुतसी चीजेंहैं, जिन्हेंहम नहींकह सकेहैं ।अभी हमारेसाथीएम.आर.पी. कीबात कहरहे थे । हमजानतेहैं किएम.आर.पी. कीबात, आपहोटलमें चलेजाइए, जोबोतलहै, वहदस गुनाज्यादादाम परबिकतीहै । हमनेउसकीडबल एम.आर.पी. केखिलाफकार्रवाईकी । लोगकोर्टमें चलेगए । कोर्टने नहींकह दिया । हमफिर लिखरहे हैं । एकचीज नहींहै, बहुतसारीचीजेंहैं ।जैसेहमारीबहन नेकहा कि चपरासी सेलेकरराष्ट्रपतितक कंज्यूमर है, बच्चे से लेकरबूढ़ेतक कंज्यूमरहै । येसारेके सारेकंज्यूमरहैं ।हम इसलिएस्ट्रिक्टलीनहींकर पारहे हैं, क्योंकिलोग रोडपर सामानबेच रहेहैं ।यदि आपस्ट्रिक्टलीकरेंगेतो रोडकी सारीदुकानोंको स्टैण्डर्डके मुताबिकहटानापड़ेगा ।जो कंज्यूमरहै, ई-कॉमर्सके संबंधमें कहाहै, सारीचीजेंहमारेदिमागमें हैं । आपकभी आइएतो हमआपकोमंत्रालयमें चायभी पिलाएंगेऔर जोकुछ भीसंभवहोगा, उसकोकर देंगे ।
DR. SHASHI THAROOR (THIRUVANANTHAPURAM): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek three clarifications from the Minister. The basic purpose of having a Consumer Protection Act is to redress the unequal balance of power between corporations on the one hand and consumers on the other. There are three ways in which the Bill fails to do that. I want to ask the Minister whether he can remedy this somehow in the Rules or whatever.
First, many companies do write an arbitration clause into a contract. So, if a consumer purchases a product and then if he has a dispute, he has to go to an arbitrator. An arbitration clause should not have been allowed to trump a Consumer Forum. Nothing in arbitration should be allowed to limit the power of the Consumer Forum to protect the consumer.
Second, similarly many companies write limited liability clauses. They write saying that if something goes wrong, they have a limited liability. Then the consumer is not protected because he may lose much more than the company is prepared to give him. Once again, Sir, we should have it in the law that the law takes precedence over limited liability clauses also so that the consumer is protected.
Thirdly, Sir, there is an omission which worries me. The definition of services in the Bill explicitly excludes free services. The poor people of our country very often use government hospitals for example where the service is free. But, if as a result of a hospital’s negligence the poor patient dies, no compensation is given. That is because free services are excluded from the protection you have given.
These are very small changes the Minister can make to ensure that the law is interpreted in a way that protects the consumer. I have written to him on 27th February, 2018 when he first brought the Bill, to point these things out. They are unfortunately not reflected in the new Bill. But I would urge him to make sure that these protections are there at least in the Rules. Otherwise, the consumers will continue to be at the weaker end of the bargaining with the corporations. Thank you.
माननीय अध्यक्ष: मंत्रीजी, आपसबकाएक साथही जवाबदे दीजिएगा ।
श्री रामविलासपासवान: उन्होंनेहैल्थकेयरके संबंधमें कहाथा, मैंनेउसकाभी प्लसऔर माइनसपॉइंटबता दियाहै । हमनेरखा था, सुप्रीमकोर्टने 1995 मेंकहा थाऔर हमारेबहुतसे माननीयसदस्योंने राज्यसभा मेंउस मामलेको पासनहींहोनेदियाथा । जोडॉक्टर्सहैं, वेभी इसबात कोकह रहेथे । जबहम रूल्सबनाएंगेतो उससमय हमसारीचीजोंको देखलेंगे ।आप पिछलीबार बोलेभी थेऔर आपनेअमेंडमेंट्सभी दिएथे, वेभी मैंनेपढ़े थे ।
श्री राजीव प्रताप रूडी (सारण): महोदय, मैं इसमें तीन उदाहरण देना चाहता हूं । इसमें पर्याप्त प्रोटेक्शन दिया गया है । यहमानते हुए किहम सभी माननीय सदस्य, कुछ ऐसी सेवाएं हैं,जो सरकार सेनियंत्रित होती हैं याऐसे व्यक्तियों सेहोती हैं,जिनके पास मोनोपॉली है । उदाहरणस्वरूप टेलीफोन है । अगर हमदो महीने टेलीफोन काबिल पेन करें तोउसके पास अधिकार हैकि वहमेरा टेलीफोन काकनेक्शन काट देगा । मैं यहां सेटेलीफोन लगाता हूं औरदूसरे व्यक्ति सेबात करना चाहता हूं,लेकिन अभी मैंने फोन डिसकनैक्ट नहीं किया, उसने भीफोन डिसकनैक्ट नहीं किया औरकॉल ड्रॉप होगई तबमैं किसके पास जाऊं? मेरी नाराजगी अगर टेलीफोन कंपनी सेहोती हैऔर मैं कहूं किपैसा नहीं दूंगा तोवह कहेगा मैं आपका टेलीफोन कनैक्शन काट दूंगा । यहएक उदाहरण है । मैंने फोन काटा नहीं, उसने फोन काटा नहीं, कॉल ड्रॉप हुई,चार बार लगाया, लेकिन इसपीड़ा काकहां परसंवाद है?
अध्यक्ष महोदय, दूसरा यहहै किबिजली मेरा मौलिक अधिकार है । यहां परमंत्री जीबैठे हुए हैं । मेरे घरमें बिजली आरही है,लोक सभा कीकार्यवाही चलरही है,इतनी बढ़िया बातचीत चलरही है,लेकिन बिजली चली गई । मुझे बिजली विभाग परगुस्सा आया,मैं बिजली विभाग सेकहूंगा किमैं आपको पैसा नहीं दूंगा, क्योंकि आपमेरी बिजली बार-बार काट रहे हैं । मैं यहजिस दिन तयकरता हूं किपैसा नहीं दूंगा, वहमेरे घरकी बिजली काट देगा औरहम उसके खिलाफ कोई कार्रवाई नहीं करपाएंगे । लेकिन अगर वहसमय परऔर 24 घंटे बिजली नहीं देता है,जो मेरा अधिकार है,तो मैं कुछ नहीं करपाता हूं । विमान कंपनियां टिकट में लिख देती हैं कि 45 मिनट…(व्यवधान) मंत्री जीआप बैठ जाइए, यहां परपूरी सरकार बोलने केलिए बैठी हुई है । अभी आपबैठ जाइए ।…(व्यवधान) I have not yielded. …(Interruptions) Hon. Minister, I have not yielded. When it comes to your department, we will talk about it.
तीसरे, हमलोग एयरपोर्ट परजाते हैं । टिकट केपीछे लिखा होता हैकि 45 मिनट पहले आइए । हमटिकट लेकर एकघंटे पहले जाकर वहां परबैठ जाते हैं । जहाज उड़ने में दोघंटे काविलंब होजाता है । मेरे तीन घंटे कासमय बर्बाद होता है । वहां परमेरा क्या उपभोक्ता संरक्षण है?
अध्यक्ष महोदय, इसमें ऐसी बहुत सारी स्थितियां हैं,जिनके बारे में बिल में कहीं परकोई चर्चा नहीं आपा रही है । अगर हमइन सबको प्रोटेक्शन नहीं देपाएंगे, तोजिनकी मोनोपोली है,वे उपभोक्ताओं केसाथ में जिस प्रकार काबर्ताव करते हैं,यह एकबड़ा विषय है । इसविषय में आपको संज्ञान होगा । इसलिए, ऐसे विषयों पररूल्स बनाते समय ध्यान दिया जाए,ताकि सरकार कीउपलब्धियों कोमाना जाए ।
DR. KALANIDHI VEERASWAMY (CHENNAI NORTH): Sir, I would like to draw the attention of all the hon. Members, especially, the Congress Party. If you look into clause 62, it says:
“On the application of the complainant or of its own motion, the National Commission may, at any stage of the proceeding, in the interest of justice, transfer any complaint pending before the District Commission of one State to a District Commission of another State or before one State Commission to another State Commission.” Sir, this is a very mischievous clause. When there is redressal for appellate to a National Commission, why should the National Commission intervene on the States’ rights to investigate on a particular matter. So, I wish that everybody would agree on this that this clause should be struck off.
DR. M.K. VISHNU PRASAD (ARANI): The hon. Minister gave a very detailed reply. He mentioned about the advertisements. He said that if there is an advertisement about gaining height, which claims to increase 2 to 3 ft. height in one month, which of course, is not true, then, the problem is not with the media. That is what he has mentioned. So, in that case, is there any proposal to have a board, like Censor Board, for these advertisements? Is there any proposal for these electronic or print media advertisements to go through some kind of a board, so that, the authenticity and the effectiveness of the product can be determined then and there, and the people will not be misled? Is the Government having any proposal to have a special board for that.
Thank you, Sir.
श्री रामविलासपासवान : हमारेपास जितनेभी कंज्यूमरकोर्टहैं,…(व्यवधान) अबहमनेउनकानाम डिस्ट्रिक्टफोरम, स्टेटफोरमऔर नेशनलफोरमरखा है । इसकेअलावाभी आपकेपास कोर्टका रास्ताखुलाहुआ है । आपसिविलकोर्टमें जासकतेहैं ।यदि नेशनलकमीशनमें कोईएग्रीव्डपार्टीहै, तोवह सुप्रीमकोर्टमें भीजा सकतीहै । लेकिनहम यहकोशिशकर रहेहैं किन्यायपद्धतिको सरलकरें, उपभोक्ताओंको जल्दसे जल्दराहतमिलेऔर राहतमिल भीरही है । हमइसकेलिए कामकर रहेहैं ।बाकीआप जितनीडिटेलमें जाएंगे, उतनेही समयकी बर्बादीहोगीऔर उपभोक्ताओंको भीउतनीही परेशानीहोगी ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्नयह है :
“किउपभोक्ताओं केहितों कासंरक्षण करने केलिए औरउक्त प्रयोजन के लिए उपभोक्ता विवादों केसमय सेऔर प्रभावी प्रशासन तथा परिनिर्धारण के लिए प्राधिकरणों कीस्थापना करने औरउससे संबद्ध याआनुषंगिक विषयों केलिए उपबंध करने वाले विधेयक परविचार किया जाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब सभा विधेयक परखंडवार विचार करेगी ।
Clause 2 Definitions माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्रीकोडिकुन्निलसुरेश, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?
SHRI KODIKUNNIL SURESH (MAVELIKKARA): I beg to move:
Page2, for lines 2 to 5,--
substitute ‘(1) “advertisement” means commercial messages or endorsements or pronouncements or offer of services broadcast through the means of any audio or video publicity, representation or pronouncement, made by means of light, sound, smoke, gas, print, electronic media, internet enabled media including websites and social media and includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper, invoice or any such documents that contain a commercial message or any other form as deemed fit by the competent authority;’. (1) Page 2, line 37,--
after “deficiency” insert “or the rendering of services is inefficient or unsatisfactory as against the promised or offered or agreed upon or declared quality”. (2) Page 4, line 32,-- after “digital products” insert “, conventional manufactured products or any other listed products”. (3) Page 5, line 13,-- after “illness” insert ”, full or partial disability”. (4) Page 5, afterline 42,-- insert “(v) misleads the consumer by means of describing or alluding magical properties, remedies or supports any superstitious healing methodology which is in contravention to existing legal provisions;”. (5)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अबमैं श्री कोडिकुन्निलसुरेश द्वारा खंड 2 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 1 से 5 को सभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए और अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्रीएन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN: I beg to move:
Page 2, line 3,--
after “gas,” insert “gestures, art forms,”. (6) Page 2, line 9,-- after “Central Government” insert “or a State Government”. (7) Page 2, line 21,-- after “a consumer” insert “or a person duly authorized by the consumer”. (8) Page 2, line 35,-- after “one or more defects” insert “or any delay or deficiency in service in connection with rendering service for rectifying the default or defects”. (9) Page 2, line 37,-- after “any” insert “delay or”. (10) Page 3, line 24,-- after “commercial purpose” insert “other than a capital investment of not more than 25 lakh rupees”. (11)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अबमैं श्री एन. के. प्रेमचन्द्रन द्वारा खंड 2 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 6 से 11 को सभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए और अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्रीमतीप्रतिमामण्डल, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतीहैं?
SHRIMATI PRATIMA MONDAL (JAYNAGAR): Sir, I am not moving my amendment No. 12.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR : Sir, if the Minister agrees with me, why not accept the amendment? He has agreed with me; he can accept my amendment.
HON. SPEAKER: Are you moving your amendment or not?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR : I beg to move:
Page 7, after line 37,-
insert ‘Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, the expression “service free of charge” shall not include services provided by the State, such as the provision of services related to public healthcare, public education, etc.’. (19) माननीय अध्यक्ष: अबमैं डॉ. शशिथरूरद्वाराखंड 2 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या 19 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखताहॅूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया और अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 2 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 2 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 3 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 4 Procedure for meetings of Central Council माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रो. सौगत राय, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?
PROF. SOUGATA RAY: Sir, I am not moving my amendment No. 13. …(व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष: क्यों कोई तकलीफ हैक्या बोलने में? ‘डर गएहो’, यहक्या है?यह सदन है । ऐसे क्यों करते हो?
…( व्यवधान)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 4 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 4 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 5 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 6 State Consumer Protection Councils माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रो. सौगतराय, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?
PROF. SOUGATA RAY: Sir, I am not moving my amendment No. 14.
माननीय अध्यक्ष: डॉ. शशिथरूर, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR : The Minister has given his assurance that this will be in the rules. So, I am not moving my amendment No. 20.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : मंत्री जीने तोसबके लिए कहदिया हैकि आओ बैठें, बात करें, चर्चा करेंगे । अबमुझे नहीं लगता हैकि इससे बड़ी बात कोई माननीय मंत्री जीकहेंगे ।
प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 6 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 6 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 7 से 9 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 10 Establishment of Central Consumer Protection Authority माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रो. सौगत राय, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं? PROF. SOUGATA RAY : I beg to move: Page 11, lines 43 and 44,- for “such number of other Commissioners as may be prescribed” (15)
माननीयअध्यक्ष: अबमैं प्रो. सौगतराय द्वाराखंड 10 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या15 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखताहॅूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया और अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 10 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 10 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 11 से 14 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 15 Investigation Wing माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं? DR. SHASHI THAROOR: Sir, I am not moving amendment No. 21. माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यहहै : “कि खंड 15 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । खंड 15 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । Clause 16 Power of District Collector माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं? DR. SHASHI THAROOR: Sir, I am not moving amendment No. 22. माननीय अध्यक्ष: प्रश्न यहहै : “कि खंड 16 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । खंड 16 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । खंड 17 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । Clause 18 Powers and functions of Central Authority माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रो. सौगत राय, क्याआप संशोधनप्रस्तुतकरनाचाहतेहैं? PROF. SOUGATA RAY: I beg to move: after “consumer rights” insert “with regard to price, weight or quality of goods and services”. (16)
माननीयअध्यक्ष: अबमैं प्रो. सौगतराय द्वाराखंड 18 मेंप्रस्तुतसंशोधनसंख्या16 कोसभा केसमक्षमतदानके लिएरखताहॅूं ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया और अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
15.00 hrs माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR : Sir, I am not moving.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 18 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 18 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 19 से 27 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 28 Establishment of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्रीमती प्रतिमा मंडल, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहती हैं?
SHRIMATI PRATIMA MONDAL : I beg to move:
Page 16, for line 42,-
substitute “(a) a President, who shall be a retired High Court Judge; and”.(17)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्रीमती प्रतिमा मंडल द्वारा खंड 28 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 17 कोसभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूँ ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया और अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रो. सौगत राय,क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
PROF. SOUGATA RAY: I beg to move:
Page 16, for lines 43 and 44,-
substitute “(b) not more than ten members to be appointed by the State Government”. (18) माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं प्रो. सौगत राय द्वारा खंड 28 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 18 कोसभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूँ ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया और अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR: I beg to move:
Page 16, for lines 41 to 44,-
substitute “(2) Each District Commission shall consist of-
(a) a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge, who shall be its President;
(b) two other members, one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely:-
(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age, (ii) possesses a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university, and (iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration.”. (24) Page 16, after line 44,-
insert “Provided that any person shall be disqualified for appointment as a member, if he-
(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the State Government, involves moral turpitude; or (b) is an undischarged insolvent; or (c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or (e) has, in the opinion of the State Government such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member; or (f) has such other disqualifications as may be prescribed. (3) Every member of the District Commission shall hold office for a term of five years or up to the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.”. (25)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं डॉ.शशि थरूर द्वारा खंड 28 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 24 और 25 को सभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूँ ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए और अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 28 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 28 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 29 से 38 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 39 Findings of District Commission
माननीय अध्यक्ष : श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : I beg to move:
Page 21, line 46,-
for “twenty-five per cent.” substitute “fifty per cent.” (34)
माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन द्वारा खंड 39 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 34 कोसभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूँ ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखा गया और अस्वीकृत हुआ ।
प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 39 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 39 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 40 और 41 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 42 Establishment of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission माननीय अध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं? DR. SHASHI THAROOR : Sir, I am not moving. माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै : “कि खंड 42 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । खंड 42 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । Clause 43 Qualifications, etc. of President and Members of State Commission
माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, since the Minister has assured that it will be discussed with us, I am not moving any further amendments.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 43 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 43 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 44 Salaries, Allowance and other terms and conditions of service of President and Members of State Commission
माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : Sir, I am not moving.
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 44 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 44 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खंड 45 से 53 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 54 Composition of National Commission माननीयअध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR : I will move these amendments simply because the Minister has agreed with the substance of what I have said. हम मंत्री जीके समर्थन सेकरते हैं ।
I beg to move:
Page 25, for lines 27 to 29,— Substitute "(a) a person who is, or has been, a Judge of the
Supreme Court, to be appointed by the Central Government, who shall be its President:
Provided that no appointment under this clause shall be made except after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
(b) not less than four, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely:-
(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age.
(ii) possesses a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university,
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing, and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:
Provided that not more than fifty per cent of the members shall be from amongst the persons having judicial background.”. (28) Page 25, after line 29,-
insert ‘Explanation. – For the purposes of this clause, the expression “persons having judicial background” shall mean persons having knowledge and experience for at least a period of ten years as a presiding officer at the district level court or any tribunal at equivalent level:
Provided further that a person shall be disqualified for appointment, if he –
(a) has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government, involves moral turpitude; or
(b) is an undischarged insolvent; or
(c) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or
(d) has been removed or dismissed from the service of the Government or a body corporate owned or controlled by the Government; or
(e) has, in the opinion of the Central Government, such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member, or
(f) has such disqualifications as may be prescribed.’. (29) माननीय अध्यक्ष : अब मैं डॉ.शशि थरूर द्वारा खंड 54 में प्रस्तुत संशोधन संख्या 28 और 29 को सभा केसमक्ष मतदान केलिए रखता हूँ ।
संशोधन मतदान के लिए रखे गए और अस्वीकृत हुए ।
माननीय अध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यहहै :
“कि खंड 54 विधेयक का अंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खंड 54 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
Clause 55 Qualifications, etc. of President and Members of National Commission माननीयअध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
DR. SHASHI THAROOR : One day if the Government would also listen to common-sense suggestions, the exercise would be more useful.
I am not moving.
माननीयअध्यक्ष : श्री एन.के. प्रेमचन्द्रन, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं?
SHRI N. K. PREMACHANDRAN : I am not moving.
माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रश्नयह है:
“कि खण्ड 55 विधेयक काअंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ ।
खण्ड 55 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया ।
खण्ड 56 से 99 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए ।
Clause 100 Act not in derogation of any other law माननीयअध्यक्ष : डॉ. शशि थरूर, क्या आपसंशोधन प्रस्तुत करना चाहते हैं? DR. SHASHI THAROOR: I am not moving. माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रश्न यह है: “कि खण्ड 100 विधेयक काअंग बने ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । खण्ड 100 विधेयक में जोड़ दिया गया । खण्ड 101 से 107 विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए । खंड 1, अधिनियमन सूत्र और पूरा नाम विधेयक में जोड़ दिए गए । श्रीरामविलासपासवान : महोदय, मैंप्रस्तावकरताहूँ: “किविधेयकको पारितकियाजाए ।” माननीयअध्यक्ष : प्रश्नयह है: “कि विधेयक पारित किया जाए ।” प्रस्ताव स्वीकृत हुआ । श्रीरामविलासपासवान : आपसभी लोगोंका बहुत-बहुतधन्यवाद । 15.08 hrs MESSAGES FROM RAJYA SABHA AND BILL AS PASSED BY RAJYA SABHA*