National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Rupesh Kumar Jha S/O. Mr. Dharmesh Jha vs Oswaal Books And Learning Private ... on 8 May, 2026
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CCPA APPEAL NO. NC/CCPAA/9/2026
RUPESH KUMAR JHA S/o. Mr. dharmesh jha
PRESENT ADDRESS - ROOM NO. 3, BLOCK A , JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY ,
NARMADA EXTN. , SOUTH WEST,DELHI.
PERMANENT ADDRESS - KAJHI HRIDAYNAGAR , BANMANKHI , PO- KAJHI , PURNIA,BIHAR.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
OSWAAL BOOKS AND LEARNING PRIVATE LIMITED Through its Authorised Representative
BUSINESS ADDRESS - 1/11 SAHITYA KUNJ , AGRA , M.G. ROAD , AGRA,UTTAR PRADESH.
THE UNDER SECRETARY
BUSINESS ADDRESS - CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY , NEW DELHI ,
ROOM NO. 456-A, KRISHI BHAWAN , NEW DELHI,DELHI.
CENTRAL CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY Through its Director
BUSINESS ADDRESS - ROOM NO. 373 C, KRISHI BHAWANNEW DELHI , NEW DELHI,DELHI.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. P. SAHI , PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARATKUMAR PANDYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
-
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
-
DATED: 08/05/2026
ORDER
For the Appellant IN PERSON
For the Respondents Mr Arunav Guha Roy, Advocate for Oswaal
Books (R 1 )
Mr Subham Gill and Mr Satya Prakash
Bhardwaj, Advocates or CCPA (R 2 and R 3)
Dated 8th May 2026
ORDER
1. The appellant is a student of Bihar, presently residing at the Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi and has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the communication dated 24.09.2025 of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (in short, 'the CCPA) constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, 'the Act'). The appellant initially approached the High Court of Delhi by filing writ petition no.12267 of 2025 praying for a mandamus to the authority for taking cognizance of its complaint, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court was informed of the issuance of the communication dated 24.09.2025, whereupon the High Court has observed vide judgment dated 25.03.2026 that the petitioner has an alternative remedy for the redressal of his grievances against the said order and accordingly reserving the said liberty to the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of.
2. The present appeal has therefore been instituted praying for setting aside of the said order on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and for further directions to the authority to adjudicate the complaint afresh on merits through a reasoned and speaking order. It is also prayed that the Central Authority be directed to pass orders after carrying out investigation in respect of the allegations of unfair trade practice and misleading advertisements resorted to by respondent no.1. M/s Oswaal Books and Learning Private Limited, Agra, Uttar Pradesh.
3. We have heard the appellant in person who has appeared on-line, Mr Arunav Guha Roy for the 1st Respondent and Mr Subham Gill and Mr Satya Prakash Bhardwaj, Advocates for Respondent nos.2 and 3, CCPA and its Under Secretary.
4. The complainant has alleged that having recently passed his Class 12th Examination and for his pursuit of higher education he commenced preparation for the upcoming Common University Entrance Test 2025, examination conducted by the National Testing Agency for admission in under Graduate classes.
5. It is alleged by the complainant that relying on the recitals contained in the advertisement of respondent no.1 on E-commerce platform that they were making available the best sellers as per the latest examination pattern and syllabus, the complainant utilized the publication of respondent no.1, Oswaal Books, and it was purchased by him for the said purpose.
6. The complainant alleges that the examinations were to commence on 08.05.2025 when it was discovered that these books were not in accordance with the syllabus and the examination pattern of the testing agency and that there was a huge variation. This amounted to an unfair and misleading trade practice adopted by respondent no.1, not only for the complainant but for a large number of similarly situated students who relying on the misleading advertisement of the respondent no.1 were allured into purchasing the publication of respondent no.1 whereas in fact the trust as professed by respondent no.1 was breached by this reckless commercial conduct of respondent no.1 by selling books on the basis of an alleged syllabus which had not even been announced.
7. The complainant has narrated details of his communication with the respondent no.1 in this regard but no action was taken by respondent no.3 - Authority to carry out the investigation and proceed with the complaint, as is visualized in terms of Section 18, 19 and 20 of the Act, 2019.
8. The complainant having failed to get his grievances redressed, during the pendency of the complaint before the authority filed Writ Petition no. 12267 of 2025 before the High Court of Delhi praying for a mandamus to the authority to decide the petitioner's complaint dated 05.05.2025, declare that re-direction to the petitioner's complaint to the National Consumer Helpline was without authority and further a direction to the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs to consider framing or notifying a proper mechanism for filing complaints in electronic mode.
9. The petition was instituted on 05.08.2025 whereupon notices seem to have been issued to all the respondents. Respondent no.1 herein M/s Oswaal who were arrayed as 3rd respondent before the High Court, filed a Miscellaneous Application no. 66185 of 2025 for condoning the delay and filing of the reply that was allowed on 26.09.2025 and was taken on record. The petition was taken up before the High Court on 09.12.2025 when the respondent CCPA intimated that the writ petition, which was for a mandamus to take a decision, was rendered infructuous as orders had been passed by the authority on 24.09.2025. The order sheet dated 09.12.2025, is extracted herein as under:
1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present petition has become infructuous inasmuch as vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), the petitioner's complaint dated 04.05.2025 has been decided.
2. Let a copy of the said order dated 24.09.2025 be supplied to the petitioner.
The matter was directed to come up on 06.04.2026.
10. It appears that before the petition could be listed, two applications were filed by the appellant one for taking on record the amended memo of parties and the second for an amendment of the writ petition challenging the order dated 24.09.2025. Both these applications were taken up on 25.03.2026 itself and the amended memo was taken on record. On the said applications orders were passed observing that the petitioner may approach this Commission as there was an alternative remedy available to get his grievances redressed against the order dated 24.09.2025.
11. It is in this background that the present appeal has been instituted in terms Section 24 of the Act 2019. The petitioner has raised his contentions on the merits of his claim but while questioning the correctness of the impugned order, the petitioner has also raised jurisdictional issues contending that the impugned order amounts to abdication of the exercise of the powers conferred on the Authority to entertain and decide the complaint. It is also alleged that the communication impugned is issued by the Under Secretary who is not a part of the Central Authority and is therefore, the communication is without authority of law. Learned counsel has also invited the attention of the Bench to the note sheets on the file contending that it has been dealt with administratively by an inferior officer on the administrative side whereas, entertaining and decision of the such complaints is a quasi-judicial function which has not been performed and the complaint of the appellant has been shelved in the breach of the provisions of Section 18 to 20 of the C P Act 2019.
12. It is urged that the communication dated 24.09.2025 impugned herein is neither a decision nor does it contain any valid reason for not entertaining the complaint. A summary closure purely on an administrative exercise is without jurisdiction, as such, complaints cannot be dealt with in the manner as has been done through the impugned communication dated 24.09.2025. The complainant has therefore, raised several grounds apart from the above on merits to contend that the appeal deserves to be entertained and the impugned order deserves to be set aside, with an order of remand to the Central Authority to adjudicate the appellants complaint afresh on merits by passing a reasoned and speaking order by the Competent authority designated as the Central Authority after carrying out the investigation into the unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements as alleged in the complaint. Further directions have also been sought in the prayers enumerated at the end of the appeal.
13. There is no gain saying that such disputes relating to misleading advertisements, where allegations of unfair trade practices have been made, the legislature deemed it appropriate to constitute the CCPA for the redressal of grievances relating to the consumers at large. Section 18 enumerates the powers conferred on the Central Authority for the protection, promotion and enforcement of the rights of consumers as a class and prevents violation of Consumer Rights under the Act. It also enjoins and obliges the authority to prevent unfair trade practices and more particularly to ensure that no person takes part in the publication of any advertisement which is false or misleading. The section further empowers the authority to cause an enquiry or investigation to be made either suo motu or on a complaint received or on the directions from the Central Government. There are other powers also conferred on the authority but for the present, the present proceedings relate to the said powers on the basis whereof, the grievances have been raised by the appellant.
14. Section 19 of the Act empowers the Central Authority that after receiving such information it can conduct a preliminary enquiry or cause to be conducted as to whether there exists a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights or any unfair trade practices or any false or misleading advertisement has been made by any person which is prejudicial to the public interest or the interest of consumers. It further provides that if the authority is satisfied on the basis of a preliminary enquiry it shall then cause an investigation to be made by the Director General or by the District Collector. Under sub-Section 2 of the Central Authority also has the power to refer the matter to the concerned Regulator that may have been established along with its report for further processing the matter.
15. After an investigation is carried out the Central Authority, on a satisfaction to be recorded on the basis of such investigation, is empowered to pass orders under Section 20 for recall of the goods or withdrawal of the services, reimbursement of the prices of goods and discontinuation of any such practices that may be unfair or prejudicial to the consumer interest after giving an opportunity of being heard to the concerned persons before passing an order.
16. A specific power with regard to imposition of penalties and issuing directions is conferred under Section 21 in cases of false or misleading advertisements, under Section 21 of the Act.
17. Thus, the Authority is empowered to get a preliminary enquiry made and upon being satisfied that there exists a prima facie case, an investigation can be directed or be referred to the Regulator in terms of Section 19 of the Act.
18. The issue which has arisen for our consideration is as to whether the communication dated 24.09.2025 is appealable under Section 24 of 2019 Act before the National Commission. The High Court has made the observations in the 26.03.2026 order and it is therefore, necessary to examine as to whether the appellate powers under Section 24 are available in respect of the impugned communication dated 24.09.2025.
19. To begin with, the impugned communication dated 24.09.2025 is extracted herein as under:
Subject: Complaint against Oswal Books and Learning Private Limited.
The undersigned is directed to refer to your complaint dated 04.05.2025 received by Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) regarding the issue that the books sold by the Respondent were prominently advertised as being in line with the latest examination pattern and syllabus for the CUET(UG) 2025 exam. However, the National Testing Agency (NTA) has not released the official syllabus and exam pattern for the 2025 exam until March 2025, and these books were sold much earlier, making the claims both premature and baseless".
2. In this regard, please note that the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has been established under Section 10(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to regulate matters relating to violation of consumer rights, unfair trade practices, and false or misleading advertisements prejudicial to the Interest of public and consumers to promote, protect and enforce rights of consumers as a class.
3. After reviewing your complaint, it is observed that grievance is of individual nature. To handle individual complaints, address consumer grievances, and serve as a centralized platform for lodging such concerns, the Department of Consumer Affairs has established the National Consumer Helpline. Therefore, your grievance was forwarded to NCH.
4. You may register your grievance by calling the toll-free number 1800-11-4000 or 1915, talking to an agent, or registering your complaint on the National Consumer Helpline website https:// consumerhelpline. gov.in/ about-portal.php
5. You may also file a consumer complaint before the appropriate consumer Commission through the e-daakhil (https://www.edaakhil.nic.in) portal along with the necessary supporting documents.
6. Therefore, the instant case falls outside the purview of Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) as defined by Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Therefore, no action lies on the part of CCPA.
20. As noted above, the argument of the complainant is that the said communication has been issued by an Under Secretary who is not the authority empowered to proceed with regard to any complaint in terms of Section 19 read with Section 10 of the 2019 Act. It has been urged that the Under Secretary is neither the authority appointed or designated to deal with any such complaint nor such essential powers of quasi-judicial nature can be even otherwise delegated to the Under Secretary.
21. From a perusal of the order dated 24.09.2025 it appears that in paragraph 3, it has been recited that the complaint has been reviewed and the complainant can get his grievances redressed at the National Consumer Helpline Platform where it has been forwarded. Alternatively, it has been observed that since it was a grievance of an individual nature it was upon the complainant to institute a consumer complaint before the appropriate Commission for any redressal and consequently, it was observed that the case fell outside the purview of the CCPA. Finally it was communicated that no action was required to be taken by the Central Authority.
22. The complainant has urged that the nature of the complaint was not only individual but for all such consumers as a class who may have been misled to utilize the publication of respondent no.1 that was based on misleading advertisements of the current syllabus and was a clear unfair trade practice, hence, the complaint had to be registered and investigated by the Central Authority. By not doing so, the Central Authority seems to have carried out an administrative exercise, that too under the signatures of an Under Secretary who is not authorized to carry out any quasi judicial functions. It is also urged by the complainant/ appellant that the National Consumer Helpline Website only monitors and has no power or quasi judicial authority to adjudicate a complaint of this nature. Thus, on both counts, the order apart from other merits alleged is unsustainable as it is based on an erroneous reasoning and otherwise without authority in law.
23. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 urged that the Authority isempowered to take a prima facie view and in the present case according to the note sheet as filed by the appellant in respect of the movement of the complaint itself discloses that it is the designated Commissioner who has taken the decision as endorsed at the bottom of the said note sheet as well as by the Chief Commissioner. It is therefore, urged that the argument that the communication is only by an Under Secretary is misplaced and the decision has been taken after examining the prima facie material recording a satisfaction that the complaint had to be closed and accordingly, the complainant was also advised to pursue his remedy before the National Consumer Helpline where his complaint had been referred to in terms of Section 19 (2) of the 2019 Act.
24. What is more important is that the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 Authority have urged that the communication dated 24.09.2025 is un-appealable as it is not an order under Section 20 or Section 21 of the CP Act 2019 and therefore, the appeal under Section 24 cannot be entertained.
We may reproduce Section 24 of the Act herein under:
24. Appeal - 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 30 days from the date of receipt of such order.
25. From a perusal of the order of the High Court dated 25.03.2026 quoted above, we do not find any such argument having been advanced on the strength of the provisions of Section 20, 21 and 24 of 2019 Act. The High Court was therefore given an impression as if the impugned communication dated 24.09.2025 was an order for which the petitioner had an alternate remedy of approaching the National Commission.
26. In our humble opinion, the High Court does not seem to have been apprised of the correct provisions about the remedy of statutory appeal provided before the National Commission, keeping in view the nature of the impugned communication dated 24.09.2025.
27. For this, we may revert back to Section 19 of the Act which is reproduced herein under:
19. Power of Central Authority to refer matter for investigation or to other Regulator - The Central Authority may, after receiving any information or complaint or directions from the Central Government or of its own motion, conduct or cause to be conducted a preliminary inquiry as to whether there exists a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights or any unfair trade practice or any false or misleading advertisement, by any person, which is prejudicial to the public interest or to the interests of consumers and if it is satisfied that there exists a prima facie case, it shall cause investigation to be made by the Director General or by the District Collector.
28. Section 19 (1) requires the Central Authority on receipt of any information or complaint to get a preliminary enquiry conducted and then upon a satisfaction being recorded about a prima facie case of violation of consumer rights or unfair trade practice or any misleading advertisement, get an investigation conducted.
29. The other power conferred is that after the preliminary enquiry, if the Central Authority is of the opinion that the matter has to be dealt with by a Regulator established under any other law for the time being in force, it may refer such matters to the concerned Regulator along with its report.
30. In the instant case, the note sheet indicates that the Under Secretary had observed that even though the number of grievances before the National Consumer Helpline were very few, but the nature of the grievances might impact the consumer as a class and therefore, the complaint may be examined. This noting dated 11.08.2025 is followed by an endorsement by the Commissioner that the complaint did not seemingly violate any provisions of Consumer Protection Act and therefore, it should be closed. This is how it reached the Chief Commissioner on 12.08.2025 and other officials where after the impugned communication has been issued to the complainant. This entire exercise in our opinion culminating in the communication dated 24.05.2025, falls within the four corners of Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, inasmuch as this was only a preliminary exercise which seems to have been dealt with on a prime facie basis in the manner aforesaid and the complaint was therefore, declined to be entertained, while simultaneously relegating the complainant to approach the National Consumer Helpline probably under Section 19 (2) of the Act.
31. We will not comment any further on the merits of the arguments advanced by the complainant, and in the background of the submissions raised by the respondent before us as noted herein above, inasmuch as, the communication dated 24.09.2025 does not traverse any distance, beyond Section 19 of the Act. There is no direction for carrying out any investigation and in fact no investigation has been carried out in terms of Section 19 to enable the Central Authority to exercise its powers under Section 20 of the Act or issue any directions or impose any penalty under Section 21 of the Act. No order has been passed either under Section 20 or Section 21 of the 2019 Act.
32. The provision for appeal, Section 24 is only and exclusively against the orders passed either under Section 20 or Section 21. There is no recital in Section 24 for exercise of appellate powers in respect of any action or orders passed under Section 19 of the Act. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no order either under Section 20 or under Section 21 of 2019 Act. The impugned communication is an exercise only under Section 19 of the Act and nothing beyond the same and hence, in our opinion, the authority and jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under section 24 by this Commission against such order is not available. This is also the contention of the respondents.
We are unaware as to why these submissions were not advanced by the respondents before the High Court at the very first instance but nonetheless having examined the provisions in detail we find that there is a complete lack of jurisdiction in entertaining an appeal under Section 24 of 2019 Act against the order dated 24.09.2025 which is simply a communication and an outcome of the exercise under taken under Section 19 of the Act by the Authority.
33. We may observe that the National Commission does have the status of a Tribunal and therefore, while exercising its jurisdiction it is governed by the specific provisions of 2019 Act. A Tribunal, as is well known does not possess any inherent or implied powers to assume any jurisdiction beyond the statutory frame work. This has been enunciated by the Apex Court in elaborated terms in the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar, (2011) 9 SCC 541. It is also well settled that the jurisdiction conferred under the statute, in the present case, the appellate jurisdiction under Section 24, cannot be enlarged and therefore, the present appeal cannot be entertained as it would suffer from the vice of jurisdictional defect for want of competence. It is equally well settled that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative Act. It cannot be conferred by any acceptance, acquiescence, consent or by any order of the Court as it can be achieved only by a legislative exercise. A right of appeal is neither an absolute right nor any ingredient of natural or an inherent right but is a substantive statutory of right to be regulated and conferred under the law.
34. There are several pronouncements of the superior courts on this aspect and the issue is no longer res integra and therefore, it is not necessary to enumerate the citations to that affect. The National Commission being a Tribunal, therefore, cannot assume jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in respect of a communication which is not an order either under Section 20 or Section 21 of 2019 Act. The jurisdiction therefore, being inherently lacking, the present appeal cannot be entertained.
35. We may also observe that the appellant is not remediless and to that extent the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ibrat Faizan Ifc vs Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd., 2002 SCC Online SC 620 and Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Suresh Chand Jain and Anr., 2023 SCC online SC 877 are relevant. Accordingly, the appeal is held to be not maintainable without prejudice to the rights of the appellant to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with the law.
..................J A. P. SAHI PRESIDENT ..................
BHARATKUMAR PANDYA MEMBER R SATISH KUMAR/Court-1/06