Section 38 of CPA : Section 38: Procedure On Admission Of Complaint

Explanation using Example

Imagine that John purchased a new smartphone from an electronics store. After two weeks, the phone started having issues with its battery life and charging capabilities. John approached the store for a resolution, but they refused to acknowledge the defect or provide a replacement. Feeling aggrieved, John decided to file a complaint with the District Commission under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In accordance with Section 38(1), the District Commission admitted John's complaint and initiated the process to address his grievances. Following the procedure outlined in Section 38(2)(a), the Commission sent a copy of the complaint to the electronics store, giving them 30 days to respond with their version of the case.

The store, however, did not respond within the given timeframe. Consequently, as per Section 38(2)(b), the Commission proceeded with the case without the store's input.

Since John's complaint involved a potential defect in the smartphone that required technical analysis, the District Commission, acting under Section 38(2)(c), instructed John to provide a sample of the phone. The sample was then sent to an appropriate laboratory for testing, with the costs covered by a fee John deposited as per Section 38(2)(d).

Upon receiving the laboratory's report, which confirmed the battery defect, the Commission shared the findings with both parties as per Section 38(2)(e). The store contested the report's accuracy, leading the Commission to review their objections under Section 38(2)(f) and (g), and ultimately decide the matter based on the evidence presented.

The District Commission aimed to resolve the complaint swiftly, adhering to the timelines mentioned in Section 38(7), striving to reach a decision within three months since the complaint did not require extensive analysis or testing.

Throughout the proceedings, the Commission exercised its powers similar to those of a civil court, as described in Section 38(9), to ensure a fair hearing and proper evidence collection.

In this scenario, John's rights as a consumer were protected by the Consumer Protection Act, and the District Commission provided a platform for resolving his dispute with the electronics store in a structured and time-bound manner.