|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Friday, December 24, the whole of India celebrated the National Consumer Rights Day to commemorate the day the consumers got what was believed to be a law that would empower them like never before and “better protect their interests.” It was on this day in 1986 that the Consumer Protection Act, codifying the six rights of consumers and providing an alternate system of redress, got the President’s assent and became a law. But 24 years hence, as I look back, I wonder whether people have much to celebrate. The parallel justice system provided under the law was meant to give the customers a system of complaint resolution that was simple, quick and inexpensive. But today the process is anything but simple. Nor is it quick or inexpensive. Then, of course, the scant respect shown by courts to the aggrieved persons or their suffering is seen in the computation of compensation, which is so miserly that in most cases, it hardly meets the ends of justice. The law provides for award of costs and also punitive damages, but these are again so poorly used or unused that they defeat the very purpose for which they were provided. While costs are meant to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the person concerned in filing the complaint, punitive or exemplary damages are meant to be a deterrent and send out a clear message to the offender that such practices will not be tolerated. It is no wonder that today, the trade industry does not fear courts. On Friday morning, I was at a private radio station that had a special programme to mark the National Consumer Rights Day. The questions that came from the listeners spoke volumes about the functioning of courts. One of the first question, for example, was from a person who wanted to know if he can sue the chairperson of a district consumer disputes redressal forum for not writing the order even five years after the completion of hearing! As on September 6, 2010, a total of 3456508 cases have been filed before these courts (district forums, state commissions and the national commission) set up under the Consumer Protection Act, out of which 3087752 cases have been disposed of and 368756 cases are pending. There is no information on how many cases were resolved within the period of 90 days stipulated under the law for resolution of disputes. If the celebration is to be meaningful, if the law is to empower the consumers, then the government has to take certain immediate steps to make courts function the way they should. First and foremost, the authorities should prohibit advocates from appearing before these courts. In the amendments to the law that were incorporated in 2003, an attempt was made to do this, but without success. The lawyers’ lobby prevailed over the consumers’ lobby. Second, there should be independent committees to closely monitor the functioning of these courts and correctives should be applied constantly to ensure that the procedures before these courts are absolutely simple and quick. For example, some years ago, all the states had been asked to report on how many cases were decided within the time stipulated in the law — 90 days — and in cases where there were delays, to state the reasons for such delays. Unfortunately, in recent times such information is not even being collected, or even if it is collected, it is not made public. Courts were meant as an alternate system of dispute resolution. It is ironic that today we are forced to find other alternate means of redress! In several states, the courts themselves are promoting Lok Adalats as a simple and quick method of complaint redress and asking complainants to take recourse to Lok Adalats. Now, the Delhi Government has set up mediation centres attached to every consumer court in Delhi and is trying to persuade people to seek that track for dispute resolution instead of going to the court. If December 24 celebrations have to have a meaning, then the Consumer Protection Act should be enforced in letter and in spirit. Let me conclude by quoting this case that explains the situation best. Following loss of yield during the sowing season of 1993 due to defective hybrid cotton seeds sold to them, 130 farmers from Maharashtra filed a class action suit before the court. By the time they won the case, 14 years had passed and 10 farmers had died (suicide?).
|
|||
|
|
|||
