PERLINDUNGAN KONSUMEN TERKAIT TIDAK DIPENUHINYA BARANG YANG TELAH DIJANJIKAN OLEH PELAKU USAHA (STUDI KASUS PUTUSAN 257 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2019)

Abstract

In everyday life, buying and selling transactions conducted by consumers with business actors often cause disputes due to losses suffered by consumers. Consumer Dispute Resolution itself can be done in two ways, namely in court or outside the court. Finally, consumers make complaints to BPSK. In its decision, BPSK granted the consumer's request. However, the appeal and cassation against BPSK's decision submitted by business actors canceled the BPSK's decision because BPSK was deemed not to have the authority to decide on the dispute because in the contract / agreement made by the parties it was agreed that if a dispute arises it would be resolved to the Lubuk Pakam District Court. The author is interested in conducting a case study on the authority of BPSK in resolving consumer disputes as well as legal remedies that can be done by consumers regarding not fulfilling the promised goods. The method that I use is a normative approach based on laws and regulations, books and legal journals. Based on research conducted, the authors conclude that based on the Consumer Protection Act, the Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency (BPSK) has the authority to decide on consumer disputes between Lambok Budiman Hutagalung Consumers and Business Actors of PT. Grha Kirana Garden, but because in the agreement between the two parties the choice of forum was mentioned, namely through the District Court in the event of a dispute, the decision of the BPSK was canceled because it was deemed not to have the authority to adjudicate and decide upon the dispute and the consumer could claim the loss he suffered through the Court. Negeri Lubuk Pakam and this does not violate the principle of Ne Bis In Idem.

 

Keywords: Consumer Protection, BPSK , UUPK