|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An amendment to the Consumer Protection Act makes it possible for the consumers to ask for the speedy disposal of complaints, writes Pushpa Girimaji In order to cut down on delays and ensure speedy resolution of consumer disputes, the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs specifically prohibited, through an amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, adjournments in the consumer courts. The amendment came into effect on March 15, 2003. A year hence, the courts supposed to uphold the law, are violating it. Following complaints from consumers and consumer groups that repeated adjournments and complicated procedures adopted by the consumer courts were delaying considerably, the process of consumer justice and turning the consumer courts into civil courts, the government introduced several amendments aimed at eliminating procedural delays. These formed part of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, that came into force from March last year. The amendment to Section 13 of the Act, pertaining to the procedure before these courts, says that "Every complaint shall be heard as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to decide the complaint within a period of three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party where the complaint does not require analysis or testing of commodities and within five months, if it requires analysis or testing of commodities`85.." Then it goes on to say that "Provided that no adjournment shall be ordinarily granted by the District Forum unless sufficient cause is shown and the reasons for grant of adjournment have been recorded in writing by the Forum." "Provided further that the District Forum shall make such orders as to the costs occasioned by the adjournment as may be provided in the regulations made under this Act" The amendment also specifies that where the disposal of the complaint takes more than the time limit specified under the Act, the court has to record in writing, the reasons for such delay. In other words, besides specifying the time limit for dispute resolution, the Act clearly says that no adjournment shall be given. And where it is given in the rarest of rare cases , the court should justify it by recording in writing, the reasons for granting such an adjournment. That’s not all. Keeping in mind the time and the money wasted by the complainant (studies have shown that usually it is the opposite party which seeks adjournment) as a result of such an adjournment, the law also provides for costs to be awarded to the complainant (or to the opposite party as the case may be) on account of such an adjournment. Unfortunately, most complainants are unaware of this provision. The lawyers who appear for the opposite parties or even the complainants would know of this provision but would find it convenient to pretend ignorance. Take the case of R.M. Hegde, a resident of Kumta in Karnataka , who filed a complaint against the Konkan Railways before the Karwar District Forum in Karnataka. His complaint was adjourned, at the behest of the Railways’ counsel, six times! From March 3 to April 6, then to 16, to 28, to May 17 and May 25. Even for issuing the order, the court fixed a date and then postponed it . This is just one example. If a study were to be conducted on this , blatant violations of this particular amendment will come to light from almost all parts of the country. There is therefore an urgent need for the Ministry of Consumer Affairs as well as the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to write to the Presidents and members of all District Forums in the country, asking them to strictly follow the provisions of the law. As far as consumers are concerned, I would suggest that they pick up a copy of the bare Act and read the provisions of the law. In fact, that’s a must before they file a complaint. And whenever they find the opposite party seeking an adjournment or the court granting one, they must protest and quote the amendment to Section 13 of the Act. They must also bring all such violations to the notice of the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the union ministry of consumer affairs. |
