Consumers’ Rights Protection Mechanism in Bangladesh: Evaluatingthe Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009

Abstract

This paper critically interrogates the effectiveness of consumer protection regime established by the Consumer Rights Protection Act, 2009 (CRPA 2009) arguing that the Act's progressive statutory framework has not been matched by an equally effective system of enforcement and consumer redress. The Act is critically examined in this article to determine whether its institutional framework, remedial provisions, and enforcement mechanisms are sufficient to safeguard Bangladeshi consumers' rights. The study argues that CRPA 2009 is structurally weakened by procedural barriers like the 30-day complaint limit under section 60, the 90-day charge-sheet requirement under section 61, and the prohibition on direct court access under section 71, which collectively make the enforcement process inaccessible to regular consumers. Additionally, the Directorate of National Consumer Rights Protection (DNCRP) lacks the operational capacity to carry out its duty because it only employs 90 officers to service a population of nearly 180 million. Operating with poor independence and inherent conflicts of interest, the National Consumer Rights Protection Council (NCRPC) is primarily composed of 18 ex-officio government bureaucrats under section 5 without legal expert representation. Despite having extensive powers under section 21, the Director General rarely uses them and is nonetheless subject to removal without cause under section 20. Most significantly, a two-track system that prioritizes procedural delay above consumer redress is created by compensation provisions under section 76, which restrict the complainant's share to just 25% of any
administrative penalties, and civil remedies under section 66, which are dependent on previous criminal proceedings. Therefore, based on comparative frameworks from India's Consumer
Protection Act 2019, the EU's General Data Protection Regulation, and the UK's Competition and Markets Authority model, this study suggests comprehensive legislative reform that includes independent oversight mechanisms, increased staffing, a dedicated consumer tribunal, direct court access, and stronger compensation provisions.