Consumer is a broad label for any individuals or households that use goods generated within the economy.

The concept of a consumer occurs in different contexts, so that the usage and significance of the term may vary. [edit]Economics

and marketing

The "consumer" is the one who consumes the goods and services produced. As such, consumers play a vital role in the economic system of a nation because in the absence of the effective demand that emanates from them, the economy virtually collapses. Typically when business people and economists talk of consumers they are talking about person as consumer, an aggregated commodityitem with little individuality other than that expressed in the buy/not-buy decision. However there is a trend in marketing to individualize the concept. Instead of generating broad demographic profiles and psycho-graphic profiles of market segments, marketers have started to engage in personalized marketing, permission marketing, and mass customization.[1] There is increasing backlash from the public over use of the label "consumer" rather than "customer", with many finding it offensive and derogatory. [2] [edit]In

law and politics

The law primarily uses the notion of "consumer" in relation to consumer protection laws, and the definition of consumer is often restricted to living persons (i.e. not corporations or businesses) and excludes commercial users.[3] A typical legal rationale for protecting the consumer is based on the notion of policing market failures and inefficiencies, such as inequalities of bargaining power between a consumer and a business.[4] As of all potential voters are also consumers, consumer protection takes on a clear political significance. Concern over the interests of consumers has also spawned much activism, as well as incorporation of consumer education into school curricula.[citation needed] There are also various non-profit publications, such as Consumer Reports and Choice Magazine, dedicated to assist in consumer education and decision making, and Consumer Direct in the UK.

In India, the Consumer Protection Act 1986 clearly differentiates a consumer as consuming a commodity or service either for his personal domestic use or to earn his livelihood. Only consumers are protected as per this act and any person, entity or organization purchasing a commodity for commercial reasons are exempted from any benefits of this act.[5] Furthermore, Indian case law has quite a few references on how to distinguish a consumer from a customer.[citation needed] [edit]In

intelligence studies

Within intelligence studies, the concept of "consumer" refers to the political staff consuming and requesting intelligence.

Consumer protection consists of laws and organizations designed to ensure the rights of consumers as well as fair trade competition and the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. The laws are designed to prevent businesses that engage in fraud or specified unfair practices from gaining an advantage over competitors and may provide additional protection for the weak and those unable to take care of themselves. Consumer protection laws are a form of government regulation which aim to protect the rights of consumers. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about productsparticularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue, such as food. Consumer protection is linked to the idea of "consumer rights" (that consumers have various rights as consumers), and to the formation of consumer organizations, which help consumers make better choices in the marketplace and get help with consumer complaints. Other organizations that promote consumer protection include government organizations and self-regulating business organizations such as consumer protection agencies and organizations, the Federal Trade Commission, ombudsmen, Better Business Bureaus, etc. A consumer is defined as someone who acquires goods or services for direct use or ownership rather than for resale or use in production and manufacturing.[1]

Consumer interests can also be protected by promoting competition in the markets which directly and indirectly serve consumers, consistent with economic efficiency, but this topic is treated in competition law. Consumer protection can also be asserted via non-government organizations and individuals as consumer activism.

Consumer law
Consumer protection law or consumer law is considered an area of law that regulates private law relationships between individual consumers and the businesses that sell those goods and services. Consumer protection covers a wide range of topics, including but not necessarily limited to product liability, privacy rights, unfair business practices, fraud, misrepresentation, and other consumer/business interactions. Consumer protection laws deal with a wide range of issues including credit repair, debt repair, product safety, service and sales contracts, bill collector regulation, pricing, utility turnoffs, consolidation, personal loans that may lead to bankruptcy.

Consumer organization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2009)
Consumer organizations are advocacy groups that seek to protect people from corporate abuse like unsafe products, predatory lending,false advertising, astroturfing and pollution. Consumer organizations may operate via protests, campaigning or lobbying. They may engage in singleissue advocacy (e.g., the BritishCampaign for Real Ale (CAMRA), which campaigned against keg beer and

for cask ale)[citation needed] or they may set themselves up as more general consumer watchdogs, such as the Consumers' Association in the UK. One common means of providing consumers useful information is the independent comparative survey or test of products or services, involving different manufacturers or companies (e.g., Which?, Consumer Reports, etcetera). Another arena where consumer organizations have operated is food safety. The needs for campaigning in this area are less easy to reconcile with their traditional methods, since the scientific, dietary or medical evidence is normally more complex than in other arenas, such as the electric safety of white goods. The current standards on mandatory labelling, in developed countries, have in part been shaped by past lobbying by consumer groups. The aim of consumer organizations may be to establish and to attempt to enforce consumer rights. Effective work has also been done, however, simply by using the threat of bad publicity to keep companies' focus on the consumers' point of view.[citation needed] Consumer organizations may attempt to serve consumer interests by relatively direct actions such as creating and/or disseminating market information, and prohibiting specific acts or practices,or by promoting competitive forces in the markets which directly or indirectly affect consumers (such as transport, electricity, communications, etc.)

Consumer Guidance Society of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2007)
The Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) is a consumer rights organisation based in Mumbai, India. It was the earliest consumers organisation in India, founded by nine women in 1966 , and became the first to conduct formal product testing in 1977. CGSI publishes a magazine, Keemat. Among the chairpersons were Dr. Mrs. Kamala Sohonie, Mrs. Leela Wagh, Mrs. Krishna Basrur, Mrs. Kohli, Mrs. Indu Shirali and Mrs. Usha Sukhtankar. Others followed. Various activities included testing the purity of food products, weights and measures used by shopkeepers and consumer protection in other forms. Consumers have often been made to endure sub-standard products, very high prices, hazardous drugs, never ending shortage of goods and many more injustices. To fight against these odds 9 ladies in Delhi came together to form Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI).

[edit]Achievements

and features

It was the earliest organization founded in the year 1966 It pressed for Consumer protection Act and Consumer Protection Court in the year 1975. Consumer protection court materialized in the year 1975 itself but consumer protection act turned into reality in 1986

70-80% of the complaints received by CGSI are redressed It was the first consumer organisation to establish a formal product testing lab in the year 1977. It was the first to start a monthly magazine called 'Keemat' which provided information to consumers It promotes consumer education, undertakes training programs in rural areas and represents consumer interests in government and other bodies

It is the only Indian consumer organization to be a council member of Consumer International for 25 years It won a national award in 1991 for consumer protection It is also a member of state consumer protection council It also takes part in a large number of technical committees and government decision making bodies.

India has been observing 15 March since 1989 as the National Consumers Day. This day has a historic importance as it was on this day in 1962, when the Bill for Consumer Rights was moved in the US Congress. During his speech President John F. Kennedy had remarked: If a consumer is offered inferior products, if prices are exorbitant, if drugs are unsafe or worthless, if the consumer is unable to choose on an informed basis, then his dollar is wasted, his health and safety may be threatened, and national interest suffers. John F. Kennedy had equated the rights of the ordinary American consumer with national interest. He gave the American consumer four basic rights: 1. The Right to Safety - to be protected against the marketing of goods which are hazardous to health or life. 2. The Right to Choose - to be assured, wherever possible, access to a variety of products and services at competitive prices: and in those industries where competition is not workable and Government regulation is substituted, an assurance of satisfactory quality and service at fair prices. 3. The Right to Information - to be protected against fraudulent, deceitful or grossly misleading information, advertising, labeling, or other practices, and to be given the facts s/he needs to make an informed choice.

4. The Right to be Heard - to be assured that consumer interests will receive full and sympathetic consideration in the formulation of Government policy, and fair and expeditious treatment in its administrative tribunals. Kennedy recognised that consumers are the largest economic group in the countrys economy, affecting and affected by almost every public and private economic decision. But they were also the only important group who were not effectively organised, whose views were not heard. Therefore, the Federal Government, by nature the highest spokesman for all people, had a special obligation to the consumers needs. Thirteen years later President Gerald Ford felt that the four rights constituted in Kennedys Bill of Rights were inadequate for a situation where most consumers are not educated enough to make the right choices. So he added the Right to Consumer Education, as an informed consumer cannot be exploited easily. While these rights served the interest of the American consumer well enough, they did not cover the whole gamut, because a global consumer did need, apart from them, other well-defined rights like basic needs, a healthy environment and redress. The Consumers International (CI), former International Organisation of Consumer Unions (IOCU), the umbrella body, for 240 organisations in over 100 countries, expanded the charter of consumers rights contained in the US Bill to eight, which in a logical order reads: 1. Basic Needs 2. Safety 3. Information 4. Choice 5. Representation 6. Redress 7. Consumer Education and 8. Healthy Environment. This charter had a universal significance as they symbolised the aspirations of the poor and disadvantaged. On this basis, the United Nations, in April 1985, adopted its Guidelines for Consumer Protection. BIRTH OF CONSUMERS DAY Considering the importance of Kennedys speech to the US Congress on this day, and the resultant law, the CI took a decision in 1982 to observe 15 March as the World

Consumer Rights Day from 1983. Peculiar though it may sound, 15 March is not observed as a special day in the worlds largest and most pulsating consumer society the US. But at home in India the Government, adopted 15 March as the National Consumers Day. India is a country, which never fell behind in introducing progressive legislation - we were among the first in the world to introduce universal adult franchise for women. Gandhi had rightly said: A customer is the most important visitor on our premises. He is not dependent on us. We are dependent on him. He is not an interruption in our work - he is the purpose of it. We are not doing him a favour by serving him. He is doing us a favour by giving us the opportunity to serve him. BIRTH OF COPRA The right to redress lead to the passing of the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA) in 1986 in India which has been defined as the Magna Carta of consumers but, it recognises only six of these eight rights: 1. Safety; 2. Information; 3. Choice; 4. Representation; 5. Redress and 6. Consumer Education. Besides this statutory recognition, COPRA has succeeded in bringing about revolutionary judicial reforms by providing juristic quasi-judicial courts solely for redressal of consumer grievances (where a price has been paid), for adjudication within a limited time frame of 90 to 150 days. The rights of basic needs and healthy environment could not be provided in COPRA as these symbolised the aspiration of the poor and the disadvantaged, and were not the subject matter of priced commodities and services available in the market place. However, these are the backbone of peoples movements in both the developing and the developed worlds. Yet, inspite of pulsating movements, the rights of consumers could and were trampled on and often. There existed a vacuum in the definition of rights. It was often seen that boycotts would be spontaneous or organised in an adversarial situation, examples of,

which are numerous. On an occasion in Calcutta a boycott of fish was successfully organised and the marketing cartel had to bow down, by cutting the inflated prices, rather than store rotting fish. RIGHT TO BOYCOTT Taking a leaf out of Indias freedom movement, when Mahatma Gandhi had successfully organised various boycotts of foreign cloth, salt etc. we at CUTS, declared and adopted the 9th Consumer Right on Indias Independence Day - 15 August 1990: The right to resist and boycott any person, goods or services in the event of conflict with consumers interest. This right was the ultimate one, to be used when all methods fail. And many a times they do: the seller does not heed, the administration does not listen, and the judiciary fails. This right inherently signifies consumer unity as an individual consumer can be helpless or even apathetic, and it is a collective action that succeeds. While the right to boycott epitomises the enability of consumer rights, the right to basic needs remained abstract. It only defined a consumers necessities required to survive and live a dignified life but it did not demand the means to obtain them - the right to work. However, the right to work is also vague, as this colloquially meant easy jobs, and did not feature in the existing charter of Consumers Rights. In the interlude, a new Union Government in India raised a debate to recognise the right to work, as a fundamental right on the one hand, and advocating self employment schemes for everyone, including the poor, on the other. Observing the societal disarray created by government job and dole schemes, whether permanent or temporary, and how they maim the spirit of enterprise which prevails in the mass humanity of India, CUTS was inspired to declare and adopt the 10th (enabling) Consumer Right on 26 January 1991: The right to opportunities to acquire basic needs which will enable one to work and to earn a living, without exploitation. This inherently demands execution of the states singular responsibility to provide productive infrastructure, work ethos, job opportunities, social justice and economic equity. Both these rights were adopted at the Third National Convention of Consumer Activists at Calcutta during 1-3 November 1991, calling and urging the now (CI) IOCU to recognise and take suitable steps in expansion of the Consumer Rights internationally.

INDIAS GLOBAL REPUTATION Laws, rules, regulations and orders (for which India has unparalleled distinction in the Guinness book of records) alone do not protect consumers, but it is the rights movement of people which produce results in a democracy. One of the greatest achievements of the Indian consumer movement is the enactment of the dynamic consumer law: COPRA. Coming 39 years after Independence, it has acknowledged the rampant consumer abuses, including those of the government owned public utilities like telephones, transport, power etc. These utilities, in the first place, were created as state monopolies ostensibly to protect consumers! Critics of COPRA rightly conclude that it cant do anything about rising prices, but it has succeeded in bringing about fairplay in the supply of goods and services available in the market place, giving substance to the adage: Customer is King. Also, COPRA has encouraged active consumer bodies to demand, and perhaps see in the near future, independent Public Utility Regulatory Commissions to debate costing, pricing and promote competition. This confidence emanates from the empowerment of voluntary organisations in COPRA and other consumer laws. While right to information is enshrined in COPRA, addition of the enlarged Right to Know in the fundamental rights chapter of the Indian Constitution would only result in meaningful empowerment - no more tight rope walking, but total glasnost. In fact the Central Consumer Protection Council has recommended to the Government to enact a Freedom of Information Act on the pattern of a similar law in the US. Another major achievement of the Indian consumer movement in the context of the world scenario, was to get the government in 1989, to adopt 15 March, the World Consumer Rights Day, as the National Consumers Day. Unlike the Labour Day on 1 May, which has roots in the US, the Consumer Rights Day, which also has roots in the US, is not even observed there. Today India is the only country in the world, which has exclusive courts for consumer redressal. At the IOCUs 13th World Congress held in Hong Kong during 7-13 July 1991 it came in for praise and developed countries were called upon to emulate. In the same year, these developments inspired Jim Sugarman, a noted US consumer activist and a close associate of Ralph Nader, to candidly observe: India is getting a global reputation for the rapid development of its consumer movement. BUREAUCRATS REVENGE

COPRA, which was amended by an ordinance in June 1993, is a mixture of sad and happy tidings. And tragic because of one surprise which our bureaucrats sprung onto the bill, a matter which was not even discussed in the high power working group of the Central Consumer Protection Council. The law then proposed a limitation of one year to file complaints, where none existed. An utter nonsense, which goes beyond the principles of our well established Limitations Act of 1963, wherein courts cannot be approached after the expiry of three years of the last cause of action. Since there was no limitation period prescribed under COPRA, in one matter, the apex consumer court, the National Commission had pronounced that the principles of the Limitations Act do not apply but can be relied upon, though not religiously. This proposal would not only have put consumers at a terrible disadvantage but also annoy them badly. Most warranties and guarantees on goods expire in one year, and manufacturers often drag on many consumers during this period by attending to complaints, instead of setting it right or replacing or refunding the price of the defective goods. They will thus be deprived of the easy redressal avenue by this oneyear deadline. Consumers will be angry because the rule on the time limit of 90/150 days provided in COPRA for disposal of cases are practiced more in the breach, and cases drag on for years. Under this situation, expecting consumers to meet a deadline will be very irritating. Granted that delayed complaints can be entertained, but that would mean a set of lengthy arguments on just the admissibility of the case. Fourthly, the law also enables consumers to file class action complaints, which incidentally always existed, but there can be no basis to determine the deadline in such matters. For instance, if the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for certain mandatory safety features which have been ignored by manufacturers; after research, we decide to file a complaint what would be the limitation period? Due to these arguments and lobbing the time limit was revised to two years, when the ordinance was put on the table of the parliament. BELYING EXPECTATIONS The law belied the consumer affairs Minister, A K Antonys note in the statement of objects and reasons, wherein he says the working of the redressal agencies has helped to arouse the expectations of the people on several other grounds as well.

Housing by way of plots or flats or houses has been covered under the definition of services under COPRA. Rather than adopt the words: real estate, as defined under the MRTP Act, 1969 from which the whole definition clause of services was borrowed in the first instance, a new jargon: housing construction is added. This would mean that the consumer courts will only entertain complaints relating to: flats, land, houses purchased or to be purchased. In a beacon case involving a plot: Garima Shukla vs. UP Avas evam Vikas Nigam, the National Commission had held that the dispute is covered as a deficiency in the service of housing. The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the National Commission. Among several other recommendations of the Central Council, another major one has also been diluted. In view of several protests by consumers, the council had agreed to recommend incorporation of an open, democratic and a transparent process of selection of the non-official members of consumer courts. The recommendation was that a selection committee headed by the minister and consisting of the secretary in charge of the department, a nominee of the chief justice of the state high court and two consumer activists (one a woman) would be the right form. The bill now proposes a committee headed by the President of the state commission and the consumer affairs secretary and the state law secretary. It is thus heavily loaded against transparency. I have seen many a president of the State Commission sitting in the chamber of the secretary, especially when s/he is a retired high court judge. By and large the secretary has to follow the ministers orders, therefore the transparency sought in the selection process will be doubtful. Presence of two activists would have perhaps changed the odds. However the president of the State Commission can only be appointed after consultation with the Chief Justice of the concerned high court, but those who know, consultation does not mean consent or concurrence. On several occasions, in spite of opposition, people have been appointed, after the so-called consultation. THE BROOM STICK The Council had made several other vital recommendations after long deliberations and critical debates, but they have been given the broomstick. These were: 1. Consumer rights were to be put in a separate chapter so that violations of the same could be an additional ground, if not the basis of a complaint. These will

2.

3.

4.

5.

now continue as decorations in COPRA, for the central council to talk, about only once in a year, as against twice as recommended. Services rendered by public health care system and civic bodies were to be covered, as they are not charities but are run from the taxpayer money. So that consumer could get value for money and these white elephants are brought to heel. The union health ministry prevailed. Lawyers were to be debarred except when the complainant had engaged one, or with his consent or if the consumer court directed the parties to engage lawyers, when questions of law were involved. This was recommended because lawyers often delay the settlement of cases by court craft etc. Apparently the belligerent lawyers lobby proved stronger. Writ jurisdiction of high courts has to be excluded by bringing COPRA under Article 323B of the constitution as their interference, particularly the Calcutta High Court, delays the proceedings especially when an hierarchy of appeals is provided under COPRA where the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter. Empowering Consumer Courts by giving them the authority to order cease and desist, or interim injunction or take suo motu action (of its own accord and on its own information) like the MRTP Commission, so as to meet the ends of justice have not been incorporated. For, bureaucrats felt that it would give unbridled power to over 450 district fora and 30 state commissions and that would have created havoc.

Some readers might remember the case of ITC LTDs Wills brand being injuncted by a Gangtok district judge, which cost ITC a large sum of money to get it vacated from the Supreme Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. This type of case is a freak but without such power our consumer courts will be hamstrung in protecting the consumers interest, as it were. Section 1(4) of COPRA says this Act will apply to all goods and services, therefore under the definition of services, where illustrations are given, it was understood that it was an all inclusive definition and exclusions had to be specified. To correct the anomaly, especially in view of the hectic lobbying by the medical fraternity and other professional groups, it was proposed to put a semi-colon, and add, not limited to before the illustrations. But this has also not been inserted in the amendment bill. RECALLING UNSAFE GOODS

So much so for the bureaucratic revenge and/or sabotage. However there are many welcome steps, though confused as well, which will take the consumer movement considerably forward. These are:

Enhancement in the scope of relief under COPRA to stop the sale of and/or order withdrawing the marketing of hazardous goods. This will entitle consumers and consumer groups to challenge harmful goods, provided a law says so, like the BVO case when this toxic chemical was banned but continued to be used in soft drinks like Limca, Gold Spot etc.

But the clause does not empower consumers to challenge hazards in services. For instance the Electricity Act provides for certain safety measures to be adopted by the suppliers, but consumers may not be able to challenge it. This is more so surprising when in all the consumer rights in COPRA services have been added along with goods, and under the relief section power has also been given to consumer courts to remove defects and deficiencies in services.

A major beneficial change has been added to cover agreements for purchase, as against the earlier provision for only goods or services actually purchased. This would cover disputes relating to booking of flats, cars, scooters and similar contracts, where delivery has not been made. Restrictive trade practices have been added, also enabling the courts to stop these, as well as unfair trade practices. This means that there would be a miniMRTP Commission in every district. Monetary jurisdiction of a district forum has been raised to Rs 5 lakh, while that of a state commission to Rs 20 lakh. Beyond this, the National Commission. Age limit of the members of the state commissions has been fixed at 67, while that of the national commission at 70. No mention of the age limits of members of the district forums. Complaints against goods purchased for commercial purpose will ordinarily not be adjudicable under COPRA save and except where such goods in dispute have been purchased by a self-employed businessperson like a taxi ownerdriver. Costs would be awardable to consumers or their organisations that win cases. Simultaneously consumers who file frivolous or vexatious complaints could be penalised with a fine of upto Rs 10,000. And if they dont pay up, they could face a worse fate of paying a further fine of upto Rs 10,000 and/or undergo imprisonment of upto three years like other offenders. Following the Supreme Court order, in the Common Cause Vs Union of India case, administrative control of district fora will now be under the state

commissions, who will in turn report to the National Commission. A proper reporting system and procedures will also be incorporated. Lastly, a quiet change has been incorporated to redefine the department of civil supplies as consumer affairs, which is what we in the consumer movement have been shouting for a long time.

Consumer Rights in India

This article examines in detail the origin, establishment and status of Consumer Rights in India today. Consumer rights were recognized broadly in many ancient Hindu, Islamic and Christian religious scriptures; however, no literary work formalized them into a concise set until the 1960s. Consumer rights in India and the modern world owe their origin to the consumer revolution of the pre-60s in the United States of America. On March 15, 1962, US President John F Kennedy made a historical speech about consumer rights as he introduced 'The Consumer Bill of Rights' in the US Congress. Ever since, countries all over the world have celebrated March 15 as the Consumers Day. However, in India December 24 is celebrated as the National Consumer Day since the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted on this day by the Indian Parliament. Kennedy strongly believed that it is vital to United States National Interest to ensure the welfare of the consumers, as it is the consumer who fundamentally drives the economy. He formulated four rights for consumers, namely the right to safety, right to choose, right to information and right to be heard which, in 1985, was accepted by the United Nations (UN). The UN added to this list the right to basic needs, right to representation, right to consumer education, and right to healthy environment. In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of India, the following six consumer rights have been recognized.

Right to Safety
As stated in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, this consumer right is defined as the right to be protected against marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property. Specifically significant in areas such as healthcare, food processing and pharmaceuticals, this right spans across any domain that could have a serious impact on the consumers health or well being such as Automobiles, Travel, Domestic Appliances, Housing etc. Violation of this right is almost always the cause of medical malpractice lawsuits in India. Every year, it is estimated that thousands, if not, millions of Indian citizens are killed or severely hurt by unscrupulous practices by hospitals, doctors, pharmacies and the automobile industry. Yet the Indian government, renowned for its callousness, fails to acknowledge this fact or to make a feeble attempt at maintaining

statistics of these mishaps. Indian government is required to have world class product testing facilities to test drugs, cars, food, and any other consumable that could potentially be life threatening. It is not a coincidence that Tata Nano sells in India for half of what it would cost in an industrially developed country; this being a classic case of need for a cheap product outweighing the need for safety of self and family. In developed countries such as the United States, stalwart agencies oversee the safety of consumer products; the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for food and drugs, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for automobiles and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) for all other consumer products, just to name a few. This right requires each product that could potentially endanger our lives to be marketed only after sufficient and complete independent verification and validation. With respect to empowering this right completely and adequately, India is about 50 years away.

Right to Information
This consumer right is defined as the the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, as the case may be so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices in the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. In the Indian market place, consumers get consumer information through two popular, yet unreliable means, namely advertising and word of mouth. Due to this, the consumers in India seldom have accurate and complete information to assess the true value, suitability, safety or reliability of any product. Mostly we find out hidden costs, lack of suitability, safety hazards and quality problems only after we have purchased the product. Another right again trumpeted by our government on paper, this right should ideally ensure that all consumable products are labeled in a standard manner which contains the cost, the ingredients, quantity, and instructions on how to safely consume the product. Unfortunately, even the medicines in India do not follow a standard labeling convention. Unit price publishing standards need to be established for consumer market places where costs are shown in standard units such as per kilogram, or per liter. We, as consumers, should be informed in a precise yet accurate manner of the costs involved when availing a loan. For benefit to the society from this right, advertisers should be held against the product standards in the advertisements, pharmaceuticals need to disclose potential side effects about their drugs, and manufacturers should be required to publish reports from independent product testing laboratories regarding the comparison of the quality of their products with competitive products, just to name a few. Consumerdaddy is a website meant to empower the consumers with the right to information. We do not seek or expect any support from the government of India in this mission; yet, we ethically, systematically and fearlessly dissipate consumer satisfaction information to the general public in India. Without websites like Consumerdaddy.com we believe Indian citizens are about 25 years away from being fully empowered by this right.

Right to Choose
Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines this right as the right to be assured, wherever possible, to have access to a variety of goods and services at competitive prices. Competition, invariably, is the best regulator of a market place. Existence of oligopolies, cartels and monopolies are counterproductive to consumerism. How often have you noticed a conglomerate of companies that lobby the government to compromise consumer rights? Our natural resources, telecommunications, liquor industry, airlines have all been controlled by a mafia at some point. Coming from a socialistic background, tolerance of monopolistic market forces are ingrained in the blood of Indian Consumers. It is not very often we can say we are going to switch the power company, when we have a blackout at home!

Interestingly, even micro markets such as the fish vendors in particular cities have known to collude to drain the bargaining power of the consumers. In any size, any form, or any span, collusion of companies selling a similar type of product is unethical, less illegal. We estimate that India has about 20 years more of stride to empower our citizens fully in this right.

Right to be Heard
According to the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer's interests will receive due consideration at appropriate forums is referred to as the right to be heard. This right is supposed to empower Indian consumers to fearlessly voice their complaints and concerns against products and companies to ensure their issues are handled efficiently and expeditiously. However, to date the Government of India has not created a single outlet for the consumers to be heard or their opinions to be voiced. There are several websites that strive to do this, and the underlying mission of Consumerdaddy is to ensure that the voices of the consumers are heard by the corporate world. At the Consumerdaddy.com website, consumers can upload criticisms and file complaints. Each criticism filed will slightly lower the overall score of the product being criticized, and each complaint will be independently evaluated by an investigator from the Consumerdaddy.com website. Consumerdaddy.com gives the consumers the benefit of doubt always, in that their voice is heard over that of the company. We, at Consumerdaddy.com, strongly believe that a consumer is always right, and that customer is king. If a consumer makes an allegation about a product, the onus is on the dealer, manufacturer or supplying company to disprove that the allegation is false. In other words, the consumer is heard, and the burden of proof rests with the company. Feeble attempts have been made by the government to empower our citizens with this right, and we believe we have 10-15 years more to go on this route.

Right to Redressal
The right to seek redressal against unfair trade practices or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers is defined as the right to redressal in the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The Indian Government has been slightly more successful with respect to this right. Consumer courts such as District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums at the district level, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions have been established through the consumer protection act. Each of these consumer grievance redressal agencies has fiduciary and geographical jurisdictions to address consumer cases between consumers and businesses. Consumer cases less than 20 lakhs are heard in the district consumer forum, between 20 lakhs and one crore are heard in the state consumer court and cases more than one crore are heard in the national consumer court. On paper these sound nice; but hold on before you rejoice. Once started as the guardians of consumer protection and consumer rights in India, these courts have today been rendered ineffective due to bureaucratic sabotages, callousness of the government, clogged cases and decadent infrastructure. Very few of the district forums have officials appointed in a timely manner, and most of them are non-operational due to lack of funding and infrastructure. Estimates put the open legal cases in India at 20-30 million, which will approximately take 320 years to close. With the legal system in this manner compromised, consumer cases that form mere civil litigations will be pushed down the bottom of the priority list. We estimate that India is 10 years behind in effectively ensuring this right to every Indian consumer.

Right to Consumer Education

The right of each Indian citizen to be educated on matters related to consumer protection

and about his/her rights is the last right given by the Consumer Protection Act 1986. This right simply ensures that the consumers in India have access to informational programs and materials that would enable them to make better purchasing decisions. Consumer education may mean both formal education through school and college curriculums and also consumer awareness campaigns run by both governmental and non governmental agencies (NGO). Consumer NGOs, with little support from the Indian government, primarily undertake the ardent task of ensuring this consumer right around the country. India is 20 years away from ensuring this right empowers the common citizen consumer.

Consumer Protection Act 1987 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Consumer Protection Act 1987

United Kingdom Parliament Long title

An Act to make provision with respect to the liability of persons for damage caused by defective products; to consolidate with amendments the Consumer Safety Act 1978 and the Consumer Safety (Amendment) Act 1986; to make provision with respect to the giving of price indications; to amend Part I of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and sections 31 and 80 of the Explosives Act 1875; to repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 and the Fabrics (Misdescription) Act 1913; and for connected purposes.

Statute book chapter

1987 c. 43

Introduced by

Paul Channon Secretary of State for Trade and Industry[1] England and Wales; Scotland; Northern Ireland Dates

Territorial extent

Royal Assent

15 May 1987

Commencement 1 October 1987[2] Repeal date Other legislation Amendments Related legislation Repealing legislation

Status: Current legislation Official text of the statute as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom, from the UK Statute Law Database The Consumer Protection Act 1987 (1987 c. 43) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made important changes to the consumer law of the United Kingdom. Part 1 implemented European Community (EC) Directive 85/374/EEC, the

product liability directive, by introducing a regime of strict liability for damage arising from defective products. Part 2 created government powers to regulate the safety of consumer products through Statutory Instruments. Part 3 defined a criminal offence of giving a misleading price indication. The Act was notable in that it was the first occasion that the UK government implemented an EC directive through an Act of Parliament rather than an order under the European Communities Act 1972.[3] Contents [hide]

1 Product liability
o o o o o o

1.1 Product 1.2 Defect 1.3 Limitation 1.4 Development risks defence 1.5 Other defences 1.6 Impact of the Act 2.1 Enforcement authorities 2.2 Breach of regulations 2.3 Prohibition notices, notices to warn and suspension notices 2.4 Seizure and forfeiture 2.5 Provision of information 3.1 Misleading

2 Consumer safety
o o o o o

3 Misleading price indications

o

4 See also 5 Notes 6 References [edit]Product liability Section 2 imposes civil liability in tort for damage caused wholly or partly by a defect in aproduct. Liability falls on:

Producers;

Persons holding themselves out as producers, for example by selling private label products under their own brand ("own-branders"); and Importers into the European Union (EU) for commercial sale.

Liability is strict and there is no need to demonstrate fault or negligence on behalf of the producer. Liability cannot be "written out" by an exclusion clause (s.7) Damage includes (s.5):

Death; Personal injury; Damage to property, including land, provided that:

The property is of a type usually intended for private use; It is intended for private use by a person making a claim; and The value of the damage is more than 275;

but damage to the product itself is excluded, as are other forms of pure economic loss.[4] [edit]Product A product is any goods or electricity and includes products aggregated into other products, whether as component parts, raw materials or otherwise (s.1(2)(c)) though a supplier of the aggregate product is not liable simply on the basis of that fact (s.1(3)). Buildings and land are not included though construction materials such as bricks and girders are. Information and software are not included though printed instructions and embedded software are relevant to the overall safety of a product.[5] The original Act did not apply to unprocessed game or agricultural produce (s.2(4)) but this exception was repealed on 4 December 2000 to comply with EU Directive 1999/34/EC which was enacted because of fears over BSE.[6][7][8] [edit]Defect Section 3 defines a defect as being present when "the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect". Safety is further defined as to apply to products that are component parts or raw materials in other products, and to risks to property as well as risks of death and personal injury (s.3(1)). The standard of safety that "persons generally are entitled to expect" is to be assessed in relation to all the circumstances, including (s.3(2)):

The manner in which, and purposes for which, the product has been marketed; Its "get-up"; The use of any mark in relation to the product; Any instructions for, or warnings with respect to, doing or refraining from doing anything with or in relation to the product; What might reasonably be expected to be done with or in relation to the product; and The time when the product was supplied by its producer to another;

but the fact that older products were less safe than newer ones does not, of itself, render the older products defective. [edit]Limitation Schedule 1 amends the Limitation Act 1980. Claims under the Act are barred three years after the date when damage occurred or when it came to the knowledge of the claimant. However, no claim can be brought more than 10 years after the date the product was put into circulation.[9] [edit]Development risks defence Main article: Development risks defence Section 4(1)(e) states that, in civil proceedings, it is a defence to show that: ... the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the relevant time was not such that a producer of products of the same description as the product in question might be expected to have discovered the defect if it had existed in his products while they were under his control This defence was allowed to member states as an option under the Directive. [10] As of 2004, all EU member states other than Finland andLuxembourg had taken advantage of it to some extent.[11] However, the concept had been criticised and rejected by the Law Commission in1977, particularly influenced by the thalidomide tragedy,[12] and by the Pearson Commission in 1978.[13][14] The UK implementation differs from the version of the defence in Art.7(e) of the Directive: ... the state of scientific and technical knowledge when [the producer] put the product into circulation was not such as to enable the existence of the defect to be discovered.

The directive seems to suggest that discovery of the defect must be impossible while the UK implementation seems to broaden the defence to situations where, while it would have been possible to discover the defect, it would have been unreasonable to expect the producer to do so. This difference led the Commission of the European Union to bring legal action against the UK in 1989.[15] As there was at that time no UK case law on the defence, the European Court of Justice found that there was no evidence that the UK was interpreting the defence more broadly than the wording of the directive. This is likely to ensure that the UK legislation is interpreted to be consistent with the directive in the future, as was the case in A & Others v. National Blood Authority[16] where the judge referred to the directive rather than the UK legislation.[17] [edit]Other defences

The defect is attributable to compliance with a requirement imposed by law (s.4(1)(a)); The defendants did not at any time supply the product to another (s.4(1)(b)), for example where the product is stolen ofcounterfeited; Supply by the defendants is not in the course of business (s.4(1)(c)); The defect did not exist in the product when it was put in circulation (s.4(1)(d)), for example, where the product is damaged or altered; The supplier of a component or raw materials may plead that it was solely the design of the finished product into which his product was incorporated that was defective or that the defect in his product arose solely from compliance with the instructions of the designer of the finished product (s.4(1)(f)).

[edit]Impact of the Act The UK was one of only a few EU member states that implemented Directive 85/374 within the three year deadline.[3] There is a view that theAct "probably represents the truest implementation" of the directive among member states. The UK did not take the option of applying a ceiling on claims for personal injury and in certain respects it goes further than the directive.[18] The first claim under the Act was not brought to court until 2000, 12 years after the Act came into force and, as of 2004, there have been very few court cases. This pattern is common in other EU member states and research indicates that most claims are settled out of court. Exact information on the impact of the Act is difficult to obtain

as there is no reporting requirement similar to that under the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act.[19][20] [edit]Consumer safety Section 10 originally imposed a general safety requirement on consumer products but this was repealed when its effect was superseded by the broader requirements of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005.[21] Section 11 gives the Secretary of State, as of 2008 the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the power to make, after consultation, regulations by way of Statutory Instrument to ensure that:

Goods are safe; Unsafe goods, or goods which would be unsafe in the hands of certain persons, are not made available to persons generally; That appropriate, and only appropriate, information is provided in relation to goods.

Regulations under this section cannot be made to apply to (s.11(7)):

Growing crops and other things which are part of land because they are attached to it; Water, food, feeding stuff and fertiliser; Gas supplied under the Gas Act 1986 or the Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1996; Controlled drugs and licensed medicinal products.

[edit]Enforcement authorities Every weights and measures authority in England, Wales and Scotland and every Northern Ireland district council has a duty to enforce, as an enforcement authority, the safety provisions in addition to the law on misleading price indications though these duties can be delegated by the Secretary of State (s.27). Enforcement authorities have the power to make test purchases (s.28) and have powers ofentry and search (ss.29-30). Further, a customs officer can detain goods (s.31). There are criminal offences of obstructing an officer of anenforcement authority or giving false information, punishable with a fine (s.32) and recovery of the costs of enforcement (s.35). Appeal against detention of goods is to the Magistrates' Court, or in Scotland the Sheriff (s.33) and compensation can be ordered (s.34). There is a

further right of appeal to the Crown Court in England and Wales, the County Court in Northern Ireland (s.33(4)). [edit]Breach of regulations Breach of regulations is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by up to 6 months' imprisonment and a fine of up to level 5 on thestandard scale (s.12). [edit]Prohibition notices, notices to warn and suspension notices The Secretary of State may serve on any person (s.13):

A prohibition notice prohibiting the supply of a product; A notice to warn requiring that a notice be published at the person's expenses warning about unsafe products.

An enforcement authority can serve a suspension notice prohibiting supply of a product for up to 6 months (s.14). The supplier can appeala suspension notice to the Magistrates' Court, or in Scotland the Sheriff (s.15). Breach of any such notice is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by up to 3 months' imprisonment and a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale (ss.13(4), 14(6)). [edit]Seizure and forfeiture In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, an enforcement authority may apply to a Magistrates' Court for a forfeiture order to seize unsafe products where (s.16):

There has been a contravention of regulations; An appeal has been made against a suspension order or ... A complaint has been made to the magistrates.

In Scotland a sheriff may make an order for forfeiture where there has been a contravention of safety regulations (s.17):

On an application by the Procurator Fiscal; or Where a person is convicted of an offence under the Act, in addition to any other penalty.

Appeal against forfeiture is to the Crown Court in England and Wales, the County Court in Northern Ireland (s.16(5)), or the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland (s.17(8)).

[edit]Provision of information The Secretary of State may require information of any person in order to (s.18):

Make, vary or revoke any safety regulations; or Serve, vary or revoke a prohibition notice; or Serve or revoke a notice to warn.

Failure to provide information is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale. Provision of false information is a crime, punishable on summary conviction by a fine of up to the statutory maximum and on indictment in the Crown Court of an unlimited fine (s.18(4)). [edit]Misleading price indications The Act creates a crime of giving a misleading price indication where a person, in the course of business gives, by any means whatever, to a consumer an indication that is misleading as to the price at which any of the following is available (s.20):

Goods; Services or facilities, including (s.22):

Credit or banking or insurance services, and incidental facilities; Purchase or sale of foreign currency; Supply of electricity; Provision of parking for motor vehicles or caravans, not including permanent residential caravan sites; or It was created or will be disposed of in the course of business; or It involves the sale of a new dwelling to a resident.

Accommodation, but not an interest in land unless (s.23):

An offender can be sentenced, on summary conviction to a fine of up to the statutory maximum for Magistrates' Courts or, on conviction on indictment in the Crown Court to an unlimited fine (s.20(4)). [edit]Misleading A price indication is misleading if it conveys, or if consumers might reasonably be expected to infer, that (s.21):

The price is less than in fact it is;

The applicability of the price does not depend on facts or circumstances on which its applicability does in fact depend; The price covers matters in respect of which an additional charge is in fact made; Some person, who in fact has no such expectation, expects the price to be:

Increased or reduced, whether or not at a particular time or by a particular amount; or Maintained, whether or not for a particular period; or

The facts or circumstances by reference to which the consumers might reasonably be expected to judge the validity of any relevant comparison made or implied by the indication are not what in fact they are.

Consumer behaviour From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)

Psychology

History Subfields Basic science

Abnormal Biological Cognitive Comparative

Cultural Differential Developmental Evolutionary Experimental Mathematical Personality Positive Social Applied science

Applied behavior analysis Clinical Community Consumer Educational Health Industrial and organizational Legal Military Occupational health Political Religion School Sport Lists

Disciplines Organizations Outline Psychologists Psychotherapies Publications Research methods Theories Timeline Topics Portal

Consumer behaviour is the study of when, why, how, and where people do or do not buy aproduct. It blends elements from psychology, sociology, social anthropology and economics. It attempts to understand the buyer decision making process, both individually and in groups. It studies characteristics of individual consumers such as demographics and behavioural variables in an attempt to understand people's wants. It also tries to assess influences on the consumerfrom groups such as family, friends, reference groups, and society in general. Customer behaviour study is based on consumer buying behaviour, with the customer playing the three distinct roles of user, payer and buyer. Relationship marketing is an influential asset for customer behaviour analysis as it has a keen interest in the rediscovery of the true meaning of marketing through the re-affirmation of the importance of the customer or buyer. A greater importance is also placed on consumer retention, customer relationship management, personalisation, customisation and one-to-one marketing. Social functions can be categorized into social choice and welfare functions. Each method for vote counting is assumed as social function but if Arrows possibility theorem is used for a social function, social welfare function is achieved. Some specifications of the social functions are decisiveness, neutrality, anonymity, monotonicity, unanimity, homogeneity and weak and strong Pareto optimality. No social choice function meets these requirements in an ordinal scale simultaneously. The most important characteristic of a social function is identification of the interactive effect of alternatives and creating a logical relation with the ranks. Marketing provides services in order to satisfy customers. With that in mind, the productive system is considered from its beginning at the production level, to the end of the cycle, the consumer (Kioumarsi et al., 2009). Contents [hide]

1 Black box model 2 Information search 3 Information evaluation 4 Purchase decision 5 Postpurchase evaluation

6 Internal influences 7 External influences 8 See also 9 References [edit]Black box model ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS BUYER'S BLACK BOX BUYER'S RESPONSE Decision Process

Marketing Stimuli

Environmental Stimuli

Buyer Characteristics

Product Price Place Promotion

Economic Technological Political Cultural Demographic Natural

Attitudes Motivation Perceptions Personality Lifestyle Knowledge

Problem recognition Information search Alternative evaluation Purchase decision Post-purchase behaviour

Product choice Brand choice Dealer choice Purchase timing Purchase amount

The black box model shows the interaction of stimuli, consumer characteristics, decision process and consumer responses.[1] It can be distinguished between interpersonal stimuli (between people) or intrapersonal stimuli (within people).[2] The black box model is related to theblack box theory of behaviourism, where the focus is not set on the processes inside a consumer, but the relation between the stimuli and the response of the consumer. The marketing stimuli are planned and processed by the companies, whereas the environmental stimulus are given by social factors, based on the economical, political and cultural circumstances of a society. The buyers black box contains the buyer characteristics and the decision process, which determines the buyers response. The black box model considers the buyers response as a result of a conscious, rational decision process, in which it is assumed that the buyer has recognized the problem.

However, in reality many decisions are not made in awareness of a determined problem by the consumer. [edit]Information search Once the consumer has recognised a problem, they search for information on products and services that can solve that problem. Belch and Belch (2007) explain that consumers undertake both an internal (memory) and an external search. Sources of information include:

Personal sources Commercial sources Public sources Personal experience

The relevant internal psychological process that is associated with information search is perception. Perception is defined as "the process by which an individual receives, selects, organises, and interprets information to create a meaningful picture of the world". The selective perception process Stage Description

Selective exposure consumers select which promotional messages they will expose themselves to. Selective attention consumers select which promotional messages they will pay attention to. Selective comprehension consumer interpret messages in line with their beliefs, attitudes, motives and experiences. Selective retention consumers remember messages that are more meaningful or important to them.

The implications of this process help develop an effective promotional strategy, and select which sources of information are more effective for the brand. [edit]Information evaluation At this time the consumer compares the brands and products that are in their evoked set. How can the marketing organization increase the likelihood that their brand is part

of the consumer's evoked (consideration) set? Consumers evaluate alternatives in terms of the functional and psychological benefits that they offer. The marketing organization needs to understand what benefits consumers are seeking and therefore which attributes are most important in terms of making a decision. It also needs to check other brands of the customers consideration set to prepare the right plan for its own brand. [edit]Purchase decision Once the alternatives have been evaluated, the consumer is ready to make a purchase decision. Sometimes purchase intention does not result in an actual purchase. The marketing organization must facilitate the consumer to act on their purchase intention. The organization can use a variety of techniques to achieve this. The provision of credit or payment terms may encourage purchase, or a sales promotion such as the opportunity to receive a premium or enter a competition may provide an incentive to buy now. The relevant internal psychological process that is associated with purchase decision is integration. Once the integration is achieved, the organization can influence the purchase decisions much more easily. [edit]Postpurchase evaluation The EKB model was further developed by Rice (1993) which suggested there should be a feedback loop, Foxall (2005) further suggests the importance of the post purchase evaluation and that the post purchase evaluation is key due to its influences on future purchase patterns. [edit]Internal influences Consumer behaviour is influenced by: demographics, psychographics (lifestyle), personality, motivation, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. [edit]External influences Consumer behavior is influenced by: culture, sub-culture, locality, royalty, ethnicity, family, social class, past experience reference groups, lifestyle, market mix factors. psychological factors include an individuals motivation, perception, attitude and belief, while personal factors include income level, personality, age, occupation and lifestyle.