|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The occasion was the annual day celebration of the apex consumer court. The venue was the Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi. To mark the event on August 17, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had called a meeting of the presidents of the state Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions in the country as well as the Secretaries in the Department of Consumer Affairs in all the states. On the agenda were several issues pertaining to the working of the consumer courts in the country as well as the infrastructure facilities provided to these courts by the state governments. For the inaugural session, the invitees included representatives of consumer groups and lawyers. The presence of lawyers was adequate to irritate consumer activists, who have for long been expressing concern over the dominance of lawyers in consumer courts. What added insult to injury was the presence of the NCDRC Bar Association president on the dais, along with other speakers who were to address the inaugural session, including the present and the past presidents of the NCDRC, the Union Minister for Consumer Affairs and the Secretary in the Department of Consumer Affairs. There was no representative of consumers on the dais. Sure enough, some of the representatives of the consumer groups interrupted the meeting to protest over the increasing importance being given to lawyers by consumer courts. They also wanted to know why lawyers were being allowed to participate in the subsequent sessions, while consumer activists were only invited to the inaugural session. One of the members of the NCDRC quickly allayed such impression and said even lawyers were not invited to the proceedings. This quietened them down, but not completely. Consumer groups’ opposition to the predominance of lawyers in consumer courts is not new. On the ground that they converted the simple summary procedure before the courts into complicated legal disputes and also constantly sought adjournments, thereby delaying the process of consumer justice, consumer groups have for long lobbied for the exclusion of lawyers before the consumer courts. When the CP Act came into being, what was promised was a quick, simple and inexpensive consumer dispute resolution mechanism that allowed consumers to present their complaint without the help of a lawyer. However, consumers found the reality to be vastly different. Complainants soon found that lawyers dominated the consumer forums. They not only turned the procedure highly technical, but also began to seek and get repeated adjournments, thereby delaying the process of justice. A comprehensive study sponsored by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs and conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration in 1994 on the functioning of these forums also confirmed the worst fears of consumers. The IIPA found that these courts were granting too many adjournments at the request of advocates. Technical and time-consuming procedures were adopted by the courts, once again because of the lawyers. Thereafter, the government saw sense in limiting the presence of lawyers and introduced, in the comprehensive Consumer Protection (Amendment) Bill, a clause that sought to restrict the appearance of lawyers before the consumer courts. The lawyers, however, have a strong lobby and eventually they managed to have this particular clause removed from the Bill before it was passed in Parliament. This was certainly a victory for lawyers, but they are yet to win consumers on their side. And that will come about only when they make an effort to understand the reasons for consumer opposition to their presence in consumer courts and ensure that they did not contribute to delays in the process of adjudication before these courts. |
