When the Consumer Protection Act came into effect in 1987, consumer courts were informal and even complaints sent on a post card were accepted and orders passed. But as years have gone by, consumer courts are slowly turning into civil courts, by becoming more and more formal. There are now rigid formats in which to file complaints. Affidavits have to be given swearing that what you have said in your complaint is true. These affidavits have to be signed either before a notary or a court officer. The response of the opposite party to your complaint has to be in the form of an affidavit and your rebuttal of his reply again has to be in the form of an affidavit. All this formality is driving more and more complainants to hire lawyers to argue their cases thus defeating one of the main purposes of the Consumer Protection Act, namely, to make the procedure so simple that complainants can argue their own cases and get relief without having to hire legal help. The reason for the growing formalization of consumer courts may be the fact that all consumer fora are headed by retired district judges and most of them insist on following the Civil Procedure Code which applies in district courts.
But relief to harried consumers seems to be on the way. In a recent decision (I (2008) CPJ 411 (NC)), the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has come down on this trend of converting consumer courts into civil courts. It has reiterated that under the CP Act, technicalities are not be encouraged. It has said that complaints can be entertained merely on the receipt of a letter stating sufficient facts and cause of action. It has disapproved adherence to the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, including filing of affidavits. It has said that the Civil Procedure Code is to be followed only for the procedure to be followed when one or more consumers file a complaint on behalf of other consumers with the same interest and to determmine what should be done when a complainant or an opposite party dies during the pendency of the complaint. Other than these two exceptions, the National Commission has held that OPERATION OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IS EXCLUDED IN CONSUMER COURTS.
In this important decision, the National Commission has also clarified that PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CONSUMER COURTS ARE INQUISITORIAL AND NOT ADVERSARIAL. In ordinary courts, the judges go only by what the opposing parties (or their lawyers) say at the hearings. In this adversarial system, even though truth may not be on his side, a party can win a case if he presents his case more skilfully than the opposite party and manipulates the truth better. Real justice is obtained only when both parties are equally skilled. This problem of the adversarial system is largely absent in the inquisitorial system in which the judge takes a very active role in eliciting facts from both parties. The decision of the National Commission has made it clear that this is the way consumer courts should be run.
It is hoped that alll consumer courts will follow the order of the National Commision, cut down on formality and become more people-friendly.