1. ABSTRACT
This article critically analyses the legislative development from COPRA to CPA 2019 in India assesses the legal transformation in consumer protection mechanisms. It considers statutory reforms in modernizing definitions, institutional designs, procedural effectiveness, digitalization, product liability, and challenges in enforcement. This article presents a detailed legal analysis comparing the two Acts with emphasis on structural reforms, legal innovations, regulatory mechanisms, and the implications for consumer justice in a digital economy.

2. INTRODUCTION
Consumer protection is one of the most important components of welfare legislation in India, intended to protect consumers' rights against exploitation, fraudulent trade practices, and sub-standard services. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was a legislative milestone that institutionalized a quasi-judicial structure for resolving consumer complaints at the District, State, and National levels of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions.
But with time, the 1986 Act was found wanting to deal with new challenges introduced by e-commerce, false advertisements, celebrity endorsements, and online shopping. With the liberalization of India's economy and the growth of e-commerce, the shortcomings of the earlier scheme became glaring considering enforcement, technological responsiveness, and consumer rights on the Net.
In light of the above advances, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was brought and implemented in July 2020. Not only does the 2019 Act maintain the essence of the 1986 Act, but it largely broadens its area. The 2019 Act establishes new notions like product liability, mediation, e-filing, unfair contracts, and a Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) with investigative powers. The legislation also gives official recognition to online transactions, making it increasingly applicable in an age of digital consumption. This article tries to assess whether the 2019 Act sufficiently remedies the shortcomings of the 1986 law, and how it meets with the constitutional requirement of safeguarding consumer rights in a fast-changing market economy.

3. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Prior to the passing of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Indian consumers were governed by general laws like the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which provided remedies against unfair trade practices, faulty goods, or sub-standard services. These laws were not consumer-specific, and they were technical in nature. They made a lawsuit long and expensive.

The international consumer movement particularly the 1962 call by U.S. President John F. Kennedy and the UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection (1985) compelled India to frame a targeted legislative regime. Internationally, consumer exploitation increasingly in a fast-growing industrial economy combined with growing awareness mounted pressure for a special enactment.

This led to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a path-breaking welfare legislation which created a three-tier quasi-judicial redressal system, incorporated consumer rights into the statute book, and streamlined complaint procedures to make them more accessible. It was one of the first Indian legislations to treat the consumer as a prime stakeholder in the economy.
With the lapse of time, however, the 1986 Act became outdated with the introduction of e-commerce, digital platforms, and complex arrangements of services. The need for updates led to the passage of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, superseding the earlier legislation with wider definitions, a stronger regulator (CCPA), product liability, mediation, and electronic grievance redressal facilities.
 

4. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was a milestone for Indian legal reform. It introduced a three-tier quasi-judicial dispute resolution system which was, District Forums, State Commissions, and the National Commission. Each was empowered to hear complaints based on the monetary value of the claim. 

Aditya Gupta, Consumer Protection in the Digital Age: A Comparative Study of India’s 2019 Act, 15 Indian J.L. & Tech. 103 (2021).

The Act broadly defined “consumer,” recognizing both buyers of goods and users of services, provided they did not engage in commercial use. It also defined key terms such as “deficiency in service,” “unfair trade practice,” and “restrictive trade practice.” Notably, the Act: 

1. Required no court fees; 

2. Allowed complainants to represent themselves; 

3. Permitted filing of complaints without legal representation; 

4. Introduced class-action complaints (Section 12(1)(c)). 

While consumer forums were meant to be fast and informal, over time they became overburdened and started resembling civil courts in terms of delay, formality, and procedure. Moreover, the Act lacked clarity on emerging issues such as digital transactions, data misuse, online fraud, and influencer advertising.

5. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

The 2019 Act was a piece of legislation that sought to address the shortcomings of the previous law. Its aim was not just to modernize the 1986 structure but to rethink consumer protection in the digital age.The Act broadened the ambit of a "consumer" to encompass online and offline purchases, seeing that digital transactions are now at the heart of the economy. Some major innovations included are:

5.1 Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)
The most notable of these was the establishment of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (Sections 10–27) which was vested with:

1. Conduct investigations

2. Order recall of products

3. Issue safety notices

4. Impose penalties for misleading advertisements

The CCPA has quasi-judicial and executive powers, making it a hybrid enforcement body akin to regulators like SEBI or TRAI.

5.2 Product Liability

The 2019 Act introduces an entirely new Chapter VI on Product Liability through which now the manufacturers, sellers, and even endorsers such as celebrities can be held liable for harm caused by defective products or misleading claims. This brings Indian law closer to U.S. and EU models of strict liability.

5.3 Unfair Contracts and E-Commerce

The Act defines “unfair contract” and allows courts to nullify one-sided terms in standard form contracts mentioned in Section 2(46). It also mandates that e-commerce platforms disclose seller information and comply with due diligence norms as per Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020.

5.4 Dispute Resolution and E-Filing

The introduction of e-Daakhil, a digital platform for filing consumer complaints, and the legal recognition of mediation cells at redressal commissions marks a major procedural reform. Mediation, given in Section 74 is now a pre-litigation option in suitable cases.

6. COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 AND 2019

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was passed to replace and update the old 1986 Act, which increasingly became unable to cater to the requirements of a sophisticated digital economy and globalized marketplace. Following is a systematic comparison of principal differences between the two enactments from a legal perspective:

6.1 Scope And Definition Of 'Consumer'

1986 Act:
The term "consumer" under Section 2(d) was narrowly defined. It applied only to buyers of goods or recipients of services for consideration and excluded those involved in resale or commercial purposes. The scope was limited to physical transactions.

2019 Act:
Section 2(7) of the new Act maintains the fundamental definition but broadens its coverage to encompass consumers making electronic purchases, teleshopping, e-commerce, and digital services. This recognizes the shift in shopping behavior and the explosion of online marketplace buying.

6.2 Introduction of the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)

1986 Act:

No central regulatory agency existed. The Act relied entirely on consumer forums to enforce it, and action was taken only upon a complaint by a consumer.

2019 Act:

The 2019 Act brings the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) under Chapter III that has proactive investigation powers. It can file class action suits, direct product recalls, and impose penalties on deceptive advertisements. This brings a regulatory and enforcement dimension that was absent earlier.

6.3 Product Liability Framework

1986 Act:
There were no explicit provisions for product liability. Consumers had to rely on contractual breaches or general tort law (negligence) for redress.

2019 Act:
Chapter VI creates a definite structure of product liability (Sections 82–87). It imposes strict liability upon manufacturers, sellers, and service providers. It gives strength to consumers to file for compensation for injury due to faulty goods or inadequate services even in the absence of a contractual relationship.

PRS Legislative Research, Bill Summary: The Consumer Protection Bill, 2019, PRSINDIA.ORG, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-consumer-protection-bill-2019 (last visited June 21, 2025).

6.4 Unfair Contracts and Terms

1986 Act:
There was no provision to cover unfair contract terms. Courts had limited scope to intervene in standard form contracts that were one-sided or exploitative.

2019 Act:
Section 2(46) for the first time gives the concept of "unfair contracts." Consumer commissions can invalidate contracts or terms which result in substantial disadvantage to consumers, such as excessive advance security, disproportionate penalization, or unilateral right of termination.

6.5 Misleading Advertisements and Endorser Liability

1986 Act:
The statute had general provisions against unfair trade practices but lacked specificity. No liability was assigned to endorsers or celebrities promoting false claims.

2019 Act:
Sections 2(28), 10, and 21 empower the CCPA to take action against misleading advertisements, including imposing penalties. Notably, endorsers can now be held liable if they fail to exercise due diligence before endorsing a product or service, addressing a critical gap in influencer marketing regulation.

6.6 Dispute Resolution and Procedural Modernization

1986 Act:
Complaints had to be filed physically. Hearings were offline and time-consuming. There was no provision for alternate dispute resolution.

2019 Act:
The 2019 law introduces e-filing of complaints, video conferencing for hearings, and the use of electronic records (Sections 35 and 36). It also mandates mediation as an alternative dispute resolution method through Consumer Mediation Cells, aiming for quicker and non-adversarial settlements.

6.7 Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Consumer Commissions

1986 Act:
The jurisdiction was lower:

1. District Forum: Up to ₹20 lakh

2. State Commission: ₹20 lakh – ₹1 crore

3. National Commission: Above ₹1 crore

2019 Act (as amended in 2021):
The jurisdiction thresholds were increased and redefined:

1. District Commission: Up to ₹50 lakh

2. State Commission: ₹50 lakh – ₹2 crore

3. National Commission: Above ₹2 crore

This change reflects inflation and increased consumer spending.

6.8 Penalties and Enforcement Mechanism

1986 Act:
There was no robust penalty framework. The Act focused on compensatory relief, with limited deterrent effect for manufacturers or service providers.

2019 Act:
The new Act provides for penalties, imprisonment, product recalls, suspension of licenses, and public disclosure of violations. Section 89 provides for imprisonment up to 2 years and/or fines up to ₹10 lakh for false or misleading advertisements, with repeat offences attracting harsher punishments.

6.9 Class Action and Suo Motu Powers

1986 Act:
Only individual complaints or complaints by recognized consumer associations were allowed. There was no scope for class actions or public interest litigation under the statute.

2019 Act:
The CCPA is authorized to make class action complaints (Section 10) and institute suo motu inquiries. This enhances systemic regulation and is advantageous to large groups of harmed consumers.

7. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS

In the absence of detailed statutory language, courts expanded the scope of the 1986 Act through progressive rulings. 

In Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha (1995), it was held by the Supreme Court of India that medical services offered by doctors and hospitals are covered by the term "service" under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, unless offered gratis. This seminal judgment greatly extended the ambit of the Act by including the medical profession within its reach, thereby enabling patients to get redressal for medical negligence at consumer forums. The Court explained that although charitable treatment given free of cost would be excluded, services where payments are made either directly or indirectly fall within the ambit of consumers. This case was pivotal in championing accountability in medical care and ensuring consumer rights in healthcare services.

In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994), the Supreme Court held that public authorities performing non-sovereign functions, like housing services, fall within the ambit of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It established that consumers could seek redress for delays, deficiencies, or arbitrary acts by such bodies. This landmark ruling expanded the scope of the Act and reinforced the principle that even government entities are accountable to consumers, an approach which strengthened in the 2019 Act.

Kandi Shailaza v. Benling India Energy & Tech. Pvt. Ltd. (2024), Following a battery explosion in an electric scooter, the Commission fined Benling ₹10 lakh, citing statutory product liability without proof of negligence. This strong real-world example fits perfectly in your Product Liability and Protective Impact sections under the 2019 Act's updated provisions. 

In Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. (2020) Zydus Wellness aired a TVC claiming that one cup of Complan equaled two cups of Horlicks in protein content. As the serving sizes were misrepresented, the Delhi HC granted an interim injunction, finding the advertisement misleading since viewers lacked adequate time to read the disclaimer. This reinforces how courts analyze the practical effect of disclaimers, relevant under your discussion on Misleading Advertisements and Regulatory Framework.

The 2019 Act codifies many of these principles, thus reducing the need for judicial improvisation. However, new provisions like product liability and e-commerce regulation are likely to generate fresh jurisprudence in the coming years.

8. CRITICAL ANALYSIS

 The 2019 Act is an improvement, but challenges of implementation continue. Political will, institutional capacity, and inter-agency coordination are necessary for the effectiveness of the CCPA. Infrastructure gaps and legal literacy affect digital enforcement in rural India. Again, although the Act covers foreign e-commerce companies operating in India, the enforcement of orders against them continues to be challenging.

 One other sector that requires focus is the intersection between the Consumer Protection Act and statutes like the Information Technology Act, 2000 and future data protection regulatory structures. There must be clarity of jurisdiction and coordination between regulators in order to prevent legal ambiguity. 

CONCLUSION

 AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 701

 Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i) (July 23, 2020).

 The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a paradigm change in the consumer justice strategy of India. It equilibrates redressal and regulation, acknowledges the evolving nature of commerce, and enables consumers and enforcement agencies. Through action on the weaknesses of the 1986 Act and the adoption of international best practices, the new law represents a forward-thinking move towards strong consumer well-being. However, effective enforcement, judicial certainty, and consumer education will be paramount to bringing out its full potential in the years ahead.

REFERENCE

1. Aditya Gupta, Consumer Protection in the Digital Age: A Comparative Study of India’s 2019 Act, 15 Indian J.L. & Tech. 103 (2021).

2. Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 3(i) (July 23, 2020).

3. Horlicks Ltd. v. Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. (2020).

4. Indian Med. Ass’n v. V.P. Shantha, (1995) 6 S.C.C. 651 (India).

5. Kandi Shailaza v. Benling India Energy & Tech. Pvt. Ltd. (2024)

6. Lucknow Dev. Auth. v. M.K. Gupta, (1994) 1 S.C.C. 243 (India).

7. Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India, Annual Report 2020–21, https://consumeraffairs.nic.in (last visited June 21, 2025).

8. PRS Legislative Research, Bill Summary: The Consumer Protection Bill, 2019, PRSINDIA.ORG, https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the-consumer-protection-bill-2019 (last visited June 21, 2025).

9. The Consumer Protection Act, No. 35 of 2019, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, pt. II, sec. 1 (Aug. 9, 2019).

10. The Consumer Protection Act, No. 68 of 1986, India Code (1986).