|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THERE may be a significant jump in the number of cases being filed before the consumer courts, but side by side there is also an increase in the number of complaints filed against the consumer courts themselves. The reasons are obvious. Those who sit in judgement over complaints should not only be persons of integrity but should also seem to be so. In fact their orders are like writing on the wall. They clearly show up the person for what he or she is. And in many cases, the orders have shown that consumer court members too could be susceptible to temptations. And when cases involve large corporations whose reputations are at stake, the temptations could, well, be irresistible. Corruption in the consumer courts, however small the percentage, does not augur well for the consumer justice system. However one can take solace in the fact that consumers are not keeping quiet and have begun to complain. And this has got the government as well as the apex consumer court thinking about using the consumer protection law to cleanse the consumer courts of corrupt and inefficient members and presidents. In fact in August last, at a conference called to discuss the functioning of consumer courts, the president of the apex consumer court, Justice M.B.Shah, came out quite strongly on the issue. Saying that a large number of complaints were being received against members of consumer courts at the district and the state level, where serious allegations of corruption were being made, he called for a resolution to suspend such members immediately and to disallow them from continuing their work. "A procedure,"he said, "should be evolved for discontinuing presidents and members of the district forums, whose contribution is far from achieving the object of speedy disposal under the CP Act." He in fact suggested a two-pronged strategy to completely rid the consumer courts of undesirable people. If the complaints were against the members or the president of the District Forum or the members of the State Commission then the president of the State Commission could hold an ex-parte inquiry. And if the allegations were found to be correct, issue a show-cause notice and eventually recommend his removal to the state government (consumer courts do not have the power to terminate the services of members and presidents). Till such time as the government terminates his service, the President could pass an order preventing him from functioning as a member. However, if the complaint is against the President of the State Commission, a similar procedure would be followed by the National Commission, Justice Shah said. However, this is easier said than done. In many cases, proving charges of corruption may be difficult. So Justice Shah has suggested that there should also be a review of the work of members and presidents once in two years and those whose work is not up to the mark, or those who are guilty of misconduct, should be removed from service. The second suggestion could very effectively rid the consumer courts of members and presidents guilty of misconduct, provided the apex consumer court formulates a set of standards against which the work of the members and presidents are measured. Interestingly, Justice Shah referred to complaints of "misconduct’ and said misconduct included (a) inability to function efficiently and (b) doubtful integrity. The apex court needs to expand this definition further. For example, some of the presidents and members of consumer courts exhibit scant respect for the law that they are supposed to enforce. In fact they violate the law with impunity. The law clearly prohibits adjournments and allows it only in the rarest of rare cases, but adjournments after adjournments are given to help the opposite parties’ lawyers. Then there are also complaints of presidents treating consumers or complainants with disrespect, making disparaging remarks and writing orders that are patently unjust and illegal. For example, some years ago, a consumer who had filed a case against a shoe company for selling a defective shoe was told by the President of a District Forum that he perhaps did not know how to walk in those shoes — the disparaging remark had hurt the consumer badly — and he had remarked that the consumer courts were not for poor people like him. And eventually he did not get justice. So there should be a regular scrutiny of orders of presidents and members, as they are a clear barometer of their integrity and honesty. In fact such review, undertaken by an independent and impartial group appointed for the purpose, would automatically instil the fear of the law in those who are administering the Consumer Protection Act.
|
