Summary
A claim for premium under an REP licence governed by the 1988–1991 Exim policy could not be entertained by consumer fora. In framing a regulatory regime for foreign trade and granting export incentives, the Union did not render a consumer service. The incentives did not make the exporter a consumer or the State a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Issues
- Whether an exporter claiming REP-licence incentives was a consumer and the Union a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(d), (g) and (o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The definitions of consumer, deficiency and service did not extend consumer jurisdiction to the State’s provision of export incentives as part of its fiscal and foreign-trade regulatory policy. (¶ 12)
Held
- The Exim policy sought industrial growth, import substitution and export promotion. Providing incentives as an incident of that fiscal and regulatory policy did not constitute the State a service provider or the recipient a user of consumer services. (¶ 12)
- By analogy with the treatment of statutory examination functions in Bihar School Examination Board, the District Forum lacked jurisdiction over the REP-licence claim. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeal allowed and the NCDRC judgment dated 4 April 2012 set aside for want of consumer jurisdiction over the claim. No costs; pending applications disposed of.