Dark Patterns in India: How Digital Platforms Are Deceiving Consumers and What Can Be Done?

 Digital platforms across India are increasingly employing manipulative design tactics to trick users into unintended actions, prompting urgent government intervention and raising serious consumer protection concerns.

What Are Dark Patterns?

Dark patterns are user interfaces that have been carefully crafted to trick users into doing things they originally did not intend or want to do. The term was coined by user experience designer Harry Brignull in 2010, who defined these as deceptive design patterns that manipulate users into actions like buying overpriced insurance or signing up for recurring bills.

Print Page

Whether trust can file complaint before consumer forum?

A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. To put this beyond any doubt, the word ‘person’ has also been defined in the Act and Section 2(m) thereof defines a person as follows :-

(m)    "person" includes, -

 (i)      a firm whether registered or not;

 (ii)    a Hindu undivided family;

(iii)    a co-operative society;

(iv)    every other association of  persons 

 whether  registered  under  the

Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or not

5. On a plain and simple reading of all the above provisions of the Act it is clear that a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.

  NON-REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors vs Manager, Canara Bank & Ors on 7 March, 2017

Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant

Print Page

When complaint filed before consumer forum will not be barred by limitation?

Strictly speaking, the event that caused the loss or damage to the insured
occurred on 6th August, 1992 when due to heavy incessant rain in Calcutta, the
raw materials, stocks and goods, furniture etc. of the insured were damaged. On
the very next day, the insured lodged a claim with National Insurance. In
response, National Insurance first appointed N.T. Kothari & Co. to assess the
loss suffered by the insured and a report was given by this surveyor after more
than one year. Thereafter, for reasons that are not at all clear, National Insurance
appointed a second surveyor which also took about one year to submit its report
and eventually gave an addendum to that report thereby crossing one year in
completion of its report along with the addendum. In other words, National
Insurance itself took more than two years in surveying or causing a survey of
the loss or damage suffered by the insured. Surely, this entire delay is
attributable to National Insurance and cannot prejudice the claim of the insured,
more particularly when the insured had lodged a claim well within time. To
make matters worse, National Insurance actually repudiated the claim of the
insured only on 22nd May, 2001 which is well after the complaint was filed with
the National Commission.
18. In our opinion, in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the
courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it
is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of
services or goods. It is to overcome this disadvantage that a beneficent
legislation in the form of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted by
Parliament. The provision of limitation in the Act cannot be strictly construed to
disadvantage a consumer in a case where a supplier of goods or services itself is
instrumental in causing a delay in the settlement of the consumer’s claim. That
being so, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the National
Commission was quite right in rejecting the contention of National Insurance in
this regard.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3883 OF 2007
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
VS.
HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. 
Dated:April 7, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1900

Print Page

Whether class action suits can be filed under consumer protection Act?

A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers,
having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same / identical relief against the same person. Such a complaint however, shall
not be deemed to have been filed on behalf of or for the benefit of the consumers who have already filed individual complaints before the requisite
permission in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is accorded.
Issue No. (ii), (iii) and (iv)
A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act is maintainable before this Commission where the aggregate of the value
of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed of by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and
the total compensation, if any, claimed in respect of all such consumers exceeds Rs.1.00 crore. The value of the goods purchased or the services
hired and availed of by an individual consumer or the size, or date of booking / allotment / purchase of the flat would be wholly irrelevant in such a
complaint where the complaint relates to the sale / allotment of several flats / plots in the same project / building.
Reference dated 11.8.2016
Issue No. (i)It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service which is to be
considered for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction.
Issue No. (ii)
The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Consumer Forum.
Issue No. (iii)
The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the services, as the
case may be, is to be considered, along with the compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction of a
Consumer Forum.
Issue No. (iv)
In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of
aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the
complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.
Issue No. (v) & (vi)
A complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can be instituted only by one or more consumers, as defined in Section
2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, a group of Cooperative societies, Firms, Association or other Society cannot file such a
complaint unless such society etc. itself is a consumer as defined in the aforesaid provision.
Issue No. (vii)
More than one complaints under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act are not maintainable on behalf of or for the benefit of
consumers having the same interest i.e. a common grievance and seeking the same / identical against the same person. In case more than one such
complaints have been instituted, it is only the complaint instituted first under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, with the requisite
permission of the Consumer Forum, which can continue and the remaining complaints filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
are liable to be dismissed with liberty to join in the complaint instituted first with the requisite permission of the Consumer Forum.
The individual complaints instituted before grant of the requisite permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act can
continue despite grant of the said permission but it would be open to such complainants to withdraw their individual complaints and join as parties to
the complaint instituted in a representative character. However, once the requisite permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
is granted, an individual complaint, expressing the same grievance will not be maintainable and the only remedy open to a consumer having the same
grievance is to join as a party to the complaint instituted in a representative character.
16. Before parting with the references, we would like to emphasise that considering the binding effect of a decision rendered in a complaint under
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, on all the consumers, on whose behalf or for whose benefit such a complaint is filed, even if they
chose not to join as a party to the complaint, it is necessary to exercise due care and caution while considering such a complaint even at the initialstage and to grant the requisite permission, only where the complaint fulfils all the requisite conditions in terms of Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act read with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure; as interpreted in this reference. It would also be necessary for the Bench to
either give individual notices or an adequate public notice of the institution of the complaint to all the persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit
the complaint is instituted. Such a notice should disclose inter­alia (i) the subject matter of the complaint including the particulars of the project if
the complaint relates to a housing project / scheme, (ii) the class of persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed, (iii) the
common grievance sought to get redressed through the class action, (iv) the alleged deficiency in the services and (v) the reliefs claimed in the
complaint.
It will also be necessary to hear the opposite party, before taking a final view on the grant or otherwise of the permission required in terms of
Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act.NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER CASE NO. 97 OF 2016
 AMBRISH KUMAR SHUKLA 
V
 FERROUS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN,PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,MEMBER
Dated : 07 Oct 2016

Print Page

Whether time taken for pursuing complaint under consumer protection Act can be excluded as per S 14 of limitation Act?

 Taking note of the observations of the Division Bench of
this Court and of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, the fact that
time taken to pursue a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act
can be excluded in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is
no longer res integra and, as such, the contention of Mr. Tamba,
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 to 5 that such time
cannot be excluded, cannot be accepted. In such circumstances, the
fact that the proceedings were bonafide are apparent in the context that
the proceedings were diligently pursued by the appellants before the
State Commission and, in fact, on perusal of the Judgment of the 
learned State Commission, it is clearly held that the appellants were
granted leave to pursue their claim by filing a civil suit. As such, the
suit filed by the appellant is within the period of limitation in terms of
Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The first point for
determination is answered accordingly.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
FIRST APPEAL NO. 206 OF 2009
WITH
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 182/2015
Shangrilla Apartments Co-op.
Housing Society Ltd.
 Versus
M/s. Rivin Builders,
 CORAM :- F.M. REIS & K.L. WADANE, JJ.
 Date : - 08/07/2015.
Citation:2016(2) MHLJ 939

Print Page

Whether second consumer complaint is maintainable after dismissal of first complaint?

Our attention has been drawn to a decision of this
Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Srinivasan
[(2000) 3 SCC 242] wherein this precise question had
arisen as mentioned in paragraph 5 of this decision. It
is mentioned in that paragraph that the only question is
that in view of the dismissal of the first complaint
filed by the respondent therein, a second complaint on
the same facts and cause of action would not lie and it
ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable.
While dealing with this issue, this Court held in
paragraph 16 as follows:
“This Rule [Rule 9(6) of the Tamil Nadu
Consumer Protection Rules, 1988] is in
identical terms with sub-rule (8) of Rule 4 and
sub-rule (8) of Rule 8. Under this sub-rule,
the appeal filed before the State Commission
against the order of the District Forum, can be
dismissed in default or the State Commission
may in its discretion dispose of it on merits.
Similar power has been given to the National
Commission under Rule 15(6) of the Rules made
by the Central Government under Section 30(1)
of the Act. These Rules do not provide that if
a complaint is dismissed in default by the
District Forum under Rule 4(8) or by the State
Commission under Rule 8(8) of the Rules, a
second complaint would not lie. Thus, there is
no provision parallel to the provision
contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which
contains a prohibition that if a suit is
dismissed in default of the plaintiff under
Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause
of action would not lie. That being so, the
rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule
9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings
before the District Forum or the State
Commission. The fact that the case was not
decided on merits and was dismissed in default
of non-appearance of the complainant cannot be
overlooked and, therefore, it would be
permissible to file a second complaint
explaining why the earlier complaint could not
be pursued and was dismissed in default.”
We have also not been shown any rule similar to Order
IX, Rule 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That
being so, and in view of the decision rendered by this
Court, with which we have no reason to disagree, we are
of the opinion that the second complaint filed by the
appellant was maintainable on the facts of this case.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19618 of 2013)
INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY APPELLANT(s)
 VERSUS
M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD. RESPONDENT(s)
Citation;(2016) 3 SCC689

Print Page