Facts in the Case
- The Consumer Protection Act defines the term “consumer”.
- A question arises whether a student can be considered a consumer under the Act.
- The issue impacts the student’s right to seek protection or redress under the Consumer Protection law.
Issues in the Case
- Does the term “consumer” include a student who avails educational services?
- What type of interpretation should be applied to the term “consumer” in this context?
- How to balance the purpose of the Act with the ordinary meaning of “consumer”?
Principles Applied
1. Purpose or Beneficial Construction
- The Consumer Protection Act is a social welfare legislation enacted to protect consumers’ interests.
- Interpretation should be liberal and purposive, aimed at advancing the object and spirit of the Act.
- The term “consumer” should be construed broadly to include those who avail goods or services for consideration.
2. Broad and Inclusive Definition
- The Act defines a consumer as a person who buys goods or hires/avails services for consideration.
- A student availing educational services by paying fees can be seen as a consumer of educational services.
- Therefore, students are included in the ambit of “consumer”.
3. Judicial Precedents
Bimla Devi v. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, AIR 1995 SC 1110
- The Supreme Court adopted a liberal and purposive approach in defining “consumer”.
Mohd. Raffi v. State of Kerala (2006) 1 SCC 1
- Courts have recognized that persons availing services, including education, come under the purview of the Act.
Judgment / Legal Position
- The preferable interpretation is a beneficial and purposive construction of the term “consumer”.
- Students availing educational services for consideration fall within the definition of consumer under the Act.
- This interpretation upholds the protective objectives of the Act.
