9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Challenge to order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission u/s revisional jurisdiction against District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission; Dismissal of review petition. Details of the judgment: The respondent filed a complaint regarding an advertisement by the appellant alleging unfair trade practices related to cigarettes. The District Forum dismissed the complaint due to parallel proceedings in the Civil Court. The State Commission upheld this decision. The National Commission found the advertisement misleading, stating that it detracted from the statutory warning. Directions were given to discontinue the unfair trade practice, issue corrective advertisements, and award compensation to the complainant. The appellant challenged the directions, arguing that the Consumer Protection Act provisions were not applicable at the time of the advertisement. A Review Petition was filed, contending that the compensation awarded was without a claim in the complaint. The appellant also argued that the direction to issue corrective advertisements was not valid as the relevant law was not in force when the advertisement was published. The appellant cited Section 14 of the Act, which was amended in 2003 to include issuing corrective advertisements. The National Commission's order was deemed unsustainable as it was based on provisions not applicable at the time of the complaint. The appellant also highlighted the prohibition of cigarette advertisements under the Advertisement Act. The National Commission's directions were found to lack evidence and were set aside. It was noted that the complainant did not suffer any loss due to the advertisement. The National Commission's decision was criticized for allowing a complaint filed in public interest without proper authorization. Ultimately, the National Commission's orders were deemed indefensible and set aside, with the appeals allowed. *(End of summary)*
|
