Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation pp 651–674Cite as

Reflections on Hans Micklitz’ Plea For a ‘Movable System’ (of Consumer Law)—Anything to Learn from the Experiences of Indian Consumer Law?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 3))

Abstract

The topic of the paper is based on a study done for GIZ, the German developmental agency concerning the improvement of consumer protection in India by the combined use of preventive and remedial justice which is possible under the Indian Consumer Protection Act (CPA) but not adequately implemented. The paper takes as a starting point Hans Micklitz’ concept of a “movable system of consumer law”, developed in the EU context whereby remedies under unfair commercial practices and unfair contract terms legislation should be applied in combination and not be separated into different “legal boxes” each following its own logic. The consequences of such an approach for rethinking Indian consumer law are presented with some reform proposals to be undertaken by the Indian legislator.

The bulk of the paper was prepared during a stay as a short term expert of the GIZ in India under the able leadership of Ms. Ruth Anna Büttner, GIZ New Delhi. It was greatly supported by the expertise of my Indian colleagues, Prof. Patil, NLSUI, Bangalore, Prof. Mittal, NLS New Delhi, Amit Gupta, LLM, NLS New Delhi. I owe thanks to all mentioned persons. Responsibility for mistakes and misunderstanding is as usual my own.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive 2005/29/EC on Unfair Commercial Practices, [2005] OJ L 149/22.

  2. 2.

    H-W Micklitz, ‘Brauchen Konsumenten und Unternehmen eine neue Architektur des Verbraucherrechts?’, Gutachten A zum 69. Juristentag (Munich, CH Beck, 2012); id, ‘Do Consumers and Businesses Need a New Architecture of Consumer Law—A Thought Provoking Impulse’ (2013) 32 Yearbook of European Law 266.

  3. 3.

    RK Nayak, ‘Consumer Protection Act 1986: Law and Policy in India’ (1987) Journal of Consumer Policy 417, 423.

  4. 4.

    D Harland, ‘The UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection’ (1987) Journal of Consumer Policy 245.

  5. 5.

    Ibid. 253 f.

  6. 6.

    Ibid. 256.

  7. 7.

    G Singh, ‘Group Actions and the Law: A Case Study of Social Action Litigation and Consumer Protection’ (1995) Journal of Consumer Policy 25.

  8. 8.

    This important innovation of Indian consumer law is used by NLSIU/Bangalore students, after having bought the falsely advertised products, to file public interest law suits alleging UTP; see AR Patil, ‘Report’ (2012) V 2 March of Consumer Law and Practice 7.

  9. 9.

    R Mittal, A Report on the Experiences of the MRPC 1969, vis-à-vis enforcement of Unfair Trade Practices in India (unpublished study, 2013).

  10. 10.

    For an earlier account, see N Reich, Staatliche Regulierung zwischen Marktversagen und Politikversagen — Erfahrungen mit der amerikanischen Federal Trade Commission und ihre Bedeutung für das Verbraucherschutzrecht (Heidelberg, Müller, 1984); id, ‘The US-American Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—A Model for Effective Consumer Protection in a Unifying European market?’ in H-W Micklitz and J Keßler (eds), Marketing Practices Regulation and Consumer Protection in the EC Member States and the US (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2002) 417.

  11. 11.

    Mittal, Report, 5.

  12. 12.

    See the references to the Indian Supreme Court case law with Mittal, Report, 9.

  13. 13.

    Mittal, Report, 23.

  14. 14.

    Ibid, 26.

  15. 15.

    Ibid, 28, 33.

  16. 16.

    Ibid, 32.

  17. 17.

    Ibid, 36.

  18. 18.

    Ibid, 44.

  19. 19.

    R Mittal, ‘§ 14 India’ in F Henning-Bodewig (ed), International Handbook on Unfair Competition Law (Munich, Beck, 2013) margin notes 21–54, 72–79.

  20. 20.

    DPS Verma, ‘Developments in Consumer Protection in India’ (2002) Journal of Consumer Policy 107, 111.

  21. 21.

    For a recent analysis see P Deepak and AJ Malik, ‘Interpretation of Medical Negligence under the CPA’ in AR Patil (ed), 25 Years of Consumer Protection Act—Challenges and the New Way Forward (Bangalore, NLSIU, 2012) 201.

  22. 22.

    National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Landmark Judgments on Consumer Protection Law (New Delhi, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2011).

  23. 23.

    MC Katare v Bombay Hospital, ibid, 287.

  24. 24.

    Ashok Kumar Upadhyay v D.N. Mishra, ibid, 275.

  25. 25.

    Ms Dhanwati Kaur v Dr SK Jhunjhunwala, ibid, 327.

  26. 26.

    2010 (2) CPR 22 (NC of 26/2/2010).

  27. 27.

    Civil Appeal No 8660 of 2009, not yet reported.

  28. 28.

    AR Patil, To study and analyse the cases in the field of misleading and unfair advertising to explore gaps of the present system of enforcement, first draft report to GIZ (October 2013) 5 ff.

  29. 29.

    (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 484.

  30. 30.

    A Singh, Law of Consumer Protection in India, 4th ed (Lucknow, Eastern Book, 2005) 154 ff.

  31. 31.

    After analyzing the cases, it can be summarized that the each forum/commission is awarding damages according to their hierarchy (like Supreme Court is awarding 1 lakh) and the particular facts of a case. If the consequence of the misleading advertisement is grave the compensation is also in the nature of exemplary, but if not the forum is awarding nominal damages. It’s all depends upon the subjective satisfaction of the presiding officer of the forum/commission. There is no straitjacket formula on which we can say the damages should be awarded, though consequential result of the misleading advertisement may be a guiding factor but it is not the only way to award damages in a case. The position of the aggrieved consumer, the position of the respondent, the overall effect of a misleading advertisement on society at large are also to be taken into account.

  32. 32.

    Report of the Working Group on Consumer Protection, Gov. of India, Dpt. of Consumer Affairs, Twelfth Plan 2012–2017, 28 referring to a total of 394,583 pending at various levels, some of them more than 10 years.

  33. 33.

    Patil, To study and analyse, 40.

  34. 34.

    2010 (2) CPR 29 (NC).

  35. 35.

    2005 (2) CPR 111 (NC).

  36. 36.

    2008 (4) CPR 313 (NC).

  37. 37.

    For a similar scheme in the EU see CJEU, judgment of 18/10/2012, case C-428/11 Purely Creative, not yet reported: It is an unfair commercial practices under Dir 2005/29/EC of informing the consumer that he has won a prize and obliging him, in order to receive that prize, to incur a cost of whatever kind profiting the advertiser.

  38. 38.

    Singh, Consumer Protection Law, 158.

  39. 39.

    Report of the Working group, 21.

  40. 40.

    Mittal, A Report on the Experiences of the MRPC 1969, 45.

  41. 41.

    See AR Patil, ‘Consumer Protection Amendment Bill 2011– An Analysis’ in AR Patil (ed), 25 Years of Consumer Protection Act—Challenges and the New Way Forward (Bangalore, NLSIU, 2012) 115.

  42. 42.

    Singh, Consumer Protection Law, 196.

  43. 43.

    Report of the Working group, 20.

  44. 44.

    GFA/GIZ Study by Chaturvedi and Thorun on ‘Recommendation for a National Consumer Protection Agency’ (unpublished, 2012).

  45. 45.

    CUTS Report on ‘Study and analyse the situation in India regarding unfair trade practices and limitations of enforcement’ (unpublished, 2013) 66; option 2 proposed ‘strengthening the institutions under the CPA’ and comes close to the recommendations voiced in this paper.

  46. 46.

    Report of the Working group, 23.

  47. 47.

    H-W Micklitz and N Reich, ‘AGB-Recht und UWG—(endlich) eine Ende des Kästchendenkens nach Perecinova und Invitel?’ (2012) Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 257; it should be admitted that the relevant parts of this paper orignated from the pen of Hans!

  48. 48.

    See for example S Orlando, ‘The Use of Unfair Contractual Terms as an Unfair Commercial Practice’ (2011) European Review of Contract Law 25.

  49. 49.

    Judgment of 15 March 2012, case C-453/10 Jana Pereničová and Vladislav Perenič v SOS financ spol. s r. o., not yet reported.

References

  • Deepak, P and Malik, AJ, ‘Interpretation of Medical Negligence under the CPA’ in AR Patil (ed), 25 Years of Consumer Protection Act—Challenges and the New Way Forward (Bangalore, NLSIU, 2012) 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harland, D, ‘The UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection’ (1987) Journal of Consumer Policy 245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H-W, ‘Brauchen Konsumenten und Unternehmen eine neue Architektur des Verbraucherrechts?’, Gutachten A zum 69. Juristentag (Munich, CH Beck, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H-W, ‘Do Consumers and Businesses Need a New Architecture of Consumer Law—A Thought Provoking Impulse’ (2013) 32 Yearbook of European Law 266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Micklitz, H-W and Reich, N, ‘AGB-Recht und UWG—(endlich) eine Ende des Kästchendenkens nach Perenicova und Invitel?’ (2012) Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht 257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, R, ‘§ 14 India’ in F Henning-Bodewig (ed), International Handbook on Unfair Competition Law (Munich, Beck, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, R, A Report on the Experiences of the MRPC 1969, vis-à-vis enforcement of Unfair Trade Practices in India (unpublished study, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Landmark Judgments on Consumer Protection Law (New Delhi, Universal Law Publishing Company, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak, RK, ‘Consumer Protection Act 1986: Law and Policy in India’ (1987) Journal of Consumer Policy 417

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlando, S, ‘The Use of Unfair Contractual Terms as an Unfair Commercial Practice’ (2011) European Review of Contract Law 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patil, AR, ‘Report’ (2012) V 2 March of Consumer Law and Practice 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, N, Staatliche Regulierung zwischen Marktversagen und Politikversagen — Erfahrungen mit der amerikanischen Federal Trade Commission und ihre Bedeutung für das Verbraucherschutzrecht (Heidelberg, Müller, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, N, ‘The US-American Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—A Model for Effective Consumer Protection in a Unifying European market?’ in H-W Micklitz and J Keßler (eds), Marketing Practices Regulation and Consumer Protection in the EC Member States and the US (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 2002) 417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A, Law of Consumer Protection in India, 4th ed (Lucknow, Eastern Book, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, G, ‘Group Actions and the Law: A Case Study of Social Action Litigation and Consumer Protection’ (1995) Journal of Consumer Policy 25.

    Google Scholar 

  • DPS Verma, ‘Developments in Consumer Protection in India’ (2002) Journal of Consumer Policy 107.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bremen, Hamburg, Germany

    Norbert Reich

Authors
  1. Norbert Reich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norbert Reich .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Law and Governance Group, Faculty of Law, Wageningen University, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Kai Purnhagen

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Peter Rott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reich, N. (2014). Reflections on Hans Micklitz’ Plea For a ‘Movable System’ (of Consumer Law)—Anything to Learn from the Experiences of Indian Consumer Law?. In: Purnhagen, K., Rott, P. (eds) Varieties of European Economic Law and Regulation. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04903-8_32

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation