|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While introducing the Consumer Protection Bill of 1986 in Parliament, the government had explained that the law was compensatory and not penal in character. This very nature of the law would limit the time taken for settling a dispute, while at the same time promoting a healthy respect for consumers among manufacturers, traders and service providers, the government had said. Two decades hence, neither of those has happened. The process of dispute redressal continues to be slow, terribly slow, thanks to repeated adjournments given by the courts, despite the fact that the law specifically bars it. The amount of compensation awarded in most cases is so paltry that it neither fully satisfies the consumer—-particularly when it comes after a long wait—-nor does it act as a deterrent. The Supreme Court, in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs MK Gupta, had said that the compensation awarded by these courts should serve the dual purpose of recompensing the individual while simultaneously bringing about a qualitative change in the attitude of manufacturers and service providers towards consumers. But for that to happen, compensation should be large enough to make an impact and the award should come fast. But look at the reality. In the case of S.Somasundaram vs Sri Chakravarthy International Matriculation Academy, for example, where the parents had lost their only child on account of the negligence of the school in leaving a septic tank open (the child had fallen into it and died), the state commission had awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000. Even governments do not give such a small ex-gratia in cases of accidental deaths. The apex court in this case chastised the lower court and increased the compensation to Rs 2 lakh. But even this is a small amount for the loss of a child. Similarly, in another case where a consumer, Mr D.D.Trikha, suffered irreparable damage to his urinary bladder due to negligence on the part of doctors, the compensation awarded by the lower ourts was a measly Rs 20,000. Finally, this was increased to Rs 1.20 lakh by the national commission. Another case that comes to mind is that of Mr Ashok Kumar Arora—-thanks to a defective lift and the resultant fall. He suffered fractures in his legs that left him incapacitated for seven months and even after he recovered, it left him with 29.5 per cent permanent disability. Yet, the state commission awarded a compensation of Rs 50,000. While increasing the compensation to Rs 2.5 lakh, the apex court said the lower court had failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. Again, when the Maharashtra State Electricity Board cut off power supply to a consumer without any valid reason and forced him and his family to live without electricity for over two months, the consumer courts at the state and the district level thought it fit to award him Rs 5,000 for the suffering undergone for two months for no fault of theirs. Describing it as "miscarriage of justice", the apex court increased the compensation to Rs 33,500 at the rate of Rs 500 for every day the consumer remained without power supply. It also awarded Rs 5,000 as costs to the consumer and said the entire amount paid to the consumer should be recovered from the employees of the electricity board responsible for the negligent service. In many of these cases, while revising the compensation amount, the apex court told the members of the lower courts to put themselves in the position of the consumer, while deciding on compensation. Only then will one understand the misery and suffering undergone, the national commission said. But unfortunately, not many courts are following this advice, forcing consumers to file appeals before the apex court for revision of compensation, thereby prolonging further their misery. In fact in many cases where consumers have suffered physical injuries as a result of accidents (caused by the negligence of the service provider or the manufacturer) or as a result of medical negligence, the families eagerly await the compensation amount so that they can utilise it for medical expenses or to provide the required paramedical support. But, unfortunately, such hopes are belied by the long adjudication process. If consumer justice is to become meaningful and the law is to serve the purpose for which it was meant, then two things should happen: one, the process of dispute redressal should become quick. The law provides for resolution of complaints within 90 days and this should become a reality. Two, the compensation awarded by these courts should be more realistic and in line with the objective of the Consumer Protection Act.
|
||
|
|
||
