14 April 2016 08:13:13 IST

‘Every link in chain is liable for unsafe consumer goods’

To ease burden of proof on users, Parliament panel asks Centre to redraft Consumer Protection Bill

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, in its report on the Consumer Protection Bill, has recommended that the liability for distributing a sub-standard product should not fall on the manufacturer alone.

The Consumer Protection Bill has become a key legislation as there is growing concern over the safety of consumer products and services. The panel’s report, which was adopted on April 11, said the liability provisions should apply to any or all parties involved in the chain, right from the manufacturer to the retailer, for any damage caused by a product. The report said that apart from manufacturers and importers, the chain should also include companies that do not manufacture products but supply their own brands (private label), re-package, modify and customise products.

It urged the Centre to include penal provisions to punish those liable for damage. The report said Clause 73 (1) of the Bill, which deals with product liability, puts an undue burden on the consumer as he has to prove several conditions to make a manufacturer liable for damage. As the manufacturer will not be held liable if any of the conditions is not met, the panel urged the Centre to redraft the clause to help consumers.

CCPA powers On setting up a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), as proposed in the Bill, the report, after considering industry associations’ pleas, said the authority should not have judicial powers. The CCPA, however, should have executive powers to impose penalties and investigate complaints.

“The CCPA will be handicapped if it does not have an investigation wing on the lines of the DG–Investigation of the erstwhile MRTPC and the present Competition Commission of India as the CCPA is filling the regulatory gap on unfair trade practices,” the report added.

The committee also questioned a sub-clause that classifies holding of contests to promote sales as an unfair trade practice. “It would be unreasonable to classify all contests for the promotion of a product / service as an unfair trade practice,” the report noted.