Further, the bill deals with Product Liability as manufacturers or product service providers or product sellers will now be responsible to compensate for injury or damage caused by defective product or deficiency in services.
"Since 90 per cent of cases are coming to district consumer commissions, the compensation have been increased to Rs one crore, and Rs 10 crore for state level commissions, while the compensation for above Rs 10 crore has been kept for national commission," he said.
The proposed CCPA would make interventions to prevent consumer detriment arising from unfair trade practices. The agency can also initiate class action, including enforcing recall, refund and return of products.
The Bill also envisages simplified dispute resolution process and has provision for mediation and e-filing of cases. The consumer will be able to file cases in the nearest commission under the jurisdiction of which he resides.
On maximum retail price (MRP), Paswan said many restaurants were overcharging but when it tried to intervene, the matter was challenged in court.
He said MRP should be displayed prominently on products apart from date of expiry, date of manufacturing and complaints redressal mechanism.
He observed that there is no concept of levying a service charge globally and the government advised restaurants to make it voluntary.
Paswan urged the state governments to pay more attention to consumer awareness programmes like Jaago Graahak Jaago.
Participating in the debate, K C Ramamurthy (Congress) supported the bill but called for action against unfair trade practices as defined by the Bill and punitive measures thereof, saying the issue is being dealt by the Competition Commission also.
He demanded action against celebrities and others who promote such false advertisements.
Vijay Goel (BJP) suggested that a Ministry of Moral Responsibility or Moral Education be also set up to ensure that lawmakers follow certain rules. He cited the example of Ministry of Loneliness set up in UK and Ministry of Happiness in Bhutan.
He said the bill first came in 2015 but could not be passed by Rajya Sabha even after Lok Sabha approved it. The Bill has also been sent to two Stranding Committees, he noted.
Derek O'Brien (TMC) said sending the bill to a select committee is not a delaying tactic by the opposition but for ensuring that legislations are properly scrutinised.
He alleged that through this bill, the central government is "snatching" away the rights of states.
"All executive powers are retained by the Centre, but the financial burden of setting up consumer commissions lies with the states. The states federal powers have been taken away," he noted.
O'Brien quoted Dr B R Ambedkar who had stated that "there is a majority and there is a minority and the rights of minorities should be protected".
Earlier, Paswan noted that it is a long pending legislation and except five, all recommendations of a parliamentary standing committee have been included in the bill.
He said this "non controversial" bill among other things, proposes setting up of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and forums at the district, state and national levels for adjudicating consumer complaints.
"This bill is a must in the current juncture but takes away the states powers. What is the reason for taking away the states powers indirectly in every bill?," DMK member Tiruchi Siva questioned in Rajya Sabha.
He pointed to to a provision in the bill wherein members of the state and district level consumer disputes redressal forums will be appointed by the central government, "usurping the powers of the state".
While proposing that the bill be referred to a select committee, Siva said the disputes redressal forums proposed in the bill do not have members from judiciary.
"How can it be called a quasi-judiciary body? It is a pseudo-judiciary body," he said.
Echoing the views, CPI(M) member K K Ragesh alleged it was a "sabotage of federalism" and centralisation of powers". He said states' powers to frame rules has been snatched away.
Supporting the bill, RJD member Manoj Kumar Jha noted, "In this session of Rajya Sabha, there was a pattern to reduce the position and powers of states. BJP has always been concerned about federalism. I don't know where those concerns have gone now."
He urged the government to take steps against advertisers on financial instruments and mutual funds to ensure the advertisements are clear to consumers.
Claiming that the bill is not "foolproof" and has many "drawbacks", TRS member K Keshava Rao said the government has not accepted the 11 recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee that vetted the draft law.
He also said it challenges the federalism as members of the state and district forums will be appointed in consultation with the central government.
Rao also pointed that the bill has not been drafted in a "simple language" for the benefit of consumers. The definition of consumer rights is written in a complicated way, he said.
Speaking in favour of the bill, Ravi Prakash Verma (SP) demanded that the government create a consumer-friendly ecosystem in the country and create more awareness about consumer rights.
Amar Patnaik (BJD) said the bill is good but several things need to reconsidered, especially definition of consumer should be broadened. He welcomed the provision on class action.
Supporting the bill, Kahkashan Perween (JD-U) shared her bad experience of buying diabetes medicine from an online platform.