Thursday, July 30, 2015

FALSE AND MISLEADING ADVERTISEMENT & IT'S CONSEQUENCES UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 False and misleading advertisement
                                                                 
                                              False and misleading advertisements are most vociforus. Such advertising is necessarily vulnerable. Where the major purpose of a company advertising falsely and misleading the customer is to attract members of the public towards buying a particular product, wherein it is fairly straight forwards that the methods employed in this process have become increasinghly complex.
                                                From the economic point of view, enormous amounts are spent on the false and misleading advertisement. A false advertisement represent the quality of a goods which it dose not possess, whereas a misleading advertisement hides some contents and adds other contents which mislead the consumer.
                                     
                  A dry cleaner exhibited his trade name on the sign board as ‘Modern Dry Cleaners’, but he made numerous holes in two saries of the complainant, entrusted for dry cleaning valued at Rs 4000. His service was found deficient.  

                   As per section 2(1)(r) of the consumer protection act 1986, the fact of falsely representing that the services were of a particular standard, quality or grade, amounted to unfair trade practice. In this case the opposite party though his name board was making the public believe that he was doing dry cleaning work, would admittedly he was not. He was clearly indulging in unfair trade practice. Any false representation would prove costly for him.[Modern Dry Cleaners v. A. Kanniappan]

Jurisdiction of consumer forum relating to complaints on false and misleading advertisement consequences.
                                On a true interpretation of section 2(1)(r) of the consumer protection act, the owner of an undertaking to which part A of chapter III of that Act, applies or any person acting on behalf or for the benefit of such owner is not included. In other words, the jurisdiction regarding unfair trade practice adopted by the owner of the company has been distributed between the Consumer Forum and M.R.T.P. commission . the Consumer Forum is not entitled to take up the case for decision regarding unfair trade practice adopted by owner of undertaking to which Part A of Chapter III of the Act, applies.is not entitled to take up the case for decision regarding unfair.

  
                  The provision of the Consumer Protection Act, are in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force.       

No comments:

Post a Comment