Consumer Protection Act of 1986 ("Act") is a benevolent piece of social legislation. The Act was enacted so that it could be developed into a very useful social legislation that safeguards the rights and protection of the consumers. The Act aims to provide speedy, inexpensive and summary redressal of consumer disputes by superseding traditional common law rule of 'CAVEAT EMPTOR' (i.e. Let the buyer be aware) and adopting 'CAVEAT VENDATOR' (i.e. Let the vendor be aware). This is an attempt to shed light on the present scenario of the consumers in India.
The Act provides four-tier structure consisting of the Supreme Court, National Commission, State Commission and the District Forum. These authorities have readily interpreted consumer usage terms in favor of consumers. The Act also helps to curb anti-consumer activities like misleading advertisements and fraudulent Multi Level Marketing (MLM) schemes. It is noteworthy that investors are taking assistance of this Act as an effective tool to file cases against defaulter banks, financial institutions rather than concentrating on traditional remedies. It can be seen that the consumer courts have held directors of such defaulter banks and financial institutions as jointly and severally liable. Hence, it can be said that the Act has accomplished its object in one sense, but still has long way to go to acieve its objective due to its lack of speedy remedy etc.
Currently, there are 604 District Forums, 34 States Commissions, and a National Commission. However, these are underfunded and more so, overburdened. According to the National Commission report, 87.51% cases were disposed in National Commission, 78.98% in State Commission and 91.23% in District Forum until September 6, 2010. However, 8223 cases are still pending in National Commission, 1,08,384 in State Commission and 2,52,149 in District Forums. Statistically, it would take many years to dispose all the pending cases.
Recently, the Supreme Court expressed its concern over the 3.5 Crore cases pending across all categories in the country and also mentioned that filing of cases has grown by 28% in the past few years. Although the Government makes the consumer aware of their rights through various activities like 'Jago Grahak Jago', however there is a lack of basic requirements like funding to ensure smooth disposal of cases.
Until now, there is no strict procedure for filing complaint. A simple letter containing details of the grievances are treated as a complaint in front of the Consumer Court. In fact, the consumer is required to give a brief about the grievance which should include important clauses like limitation and jurisdiction. Therefore, a common man is compelled to appear through his advocate. Moreover, it has been observed that additional staff from the Food and Drug Adulteration departments are moved to the Consumer Courts and they are not well versed with the consumer redressal procedure.
My hearsay experience is that in 2008, there were numerous cases filed in the District Forums, but they are still pending in their preliminary stages. Due to the heavy burden of pending cases, the Court grants a minimum of 3 months adjournment. Respondents also do not take the summons of Consumer Courts seriously. Ultimately the Courts have to give a reasonable opportunity of 2-3 dates to appear and file his "version" (1) of the case, or give an ex-parte decision. As a result, in many cases, the actual hearing starts only after a year from the date of filing the complaint. However, the Act says that the decision has to be pronounced within 90 days from date of the filing of the complaint.
Few pointers if taken as a suggestion can bring a change to the whole consumer redressal system:
- Consumer Courts should be empowered to execute Power of Attachment and Sale of Property for an order made under Section 25 of the Act. Currently, these powers fall within the purview of the District Collector. Although, the consumer has the order of Court in his hand, he still has to wait for several years for its execution, which leads to disappointment amongst consumers.
- The provision of the Circuit Bench should be made at a District level where huge numbers of cases are pending. Currently, the Circuit benches are available only at the State level.
- Consumer Courts should be empowered to take cognizance of any misleading advertisement, hazardous goods suo-moto within its jurisdiction and in absence of actual complainant.
- There should be a provision made for interim damages, where the respondent admits claim. However, a final decision on the quantum of compensation and damage should be ascertained later on
- The President of District Forum should be appointed with the same powers as that of an Additional District Judge.
- The President and other members of the District Forum should be provided compulsory training that is provided to the newly appointed Judges through the Judicial Academy, so that they appreciate the plight of the consumers.
Speedy remedy was a paramount object of Consumer Protection Act. However, at this present juncture, the social legislation is not properly executed due to various hurdles in the judgment delivery system.
(1) 2002 Amendment of Section 13 from Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
References:
1. http://ncdrc.nic.in/statistics.html
2. Consumer Protection Act,1986
Research for this blog is courtesy: Kamlesh Limaye
Measuring all these dimensions and tagging that to specific customers / households (especially social media influencing behavior of the primary & members of the household) will represent a technical challenge. Also relevant is to keep in mind how much shoppers would like to open up their social media behavior for loyalty marketing activities (my assumption is that it depends on how aspirational + trustworthy the brand is as perceived by the shopper)
