Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide the common man a fast and inexpensive way of obtaining justice in consumer disputes. Consumer courts were meant to be very informal, (unlike the regular courts) where consumers could argue their cases themselves. They did not have to know a great deal about law and could argue (and win!) based only on common sense.
But this intent was not properly communicated to the judges who were appointed to the consumer courts. Since the presiding judges were appointed to consumer courts after long stints as judges in the regular courts, they tended to continue the same formalities and very soon consumer courts became the same as civil courts. One case in Mysore District Consumer Forum took 6 years and 105 adjournments to decide. This was despite the fact that the CPA states that adjournments should not be ordinarily granted and cases should be decided as far as possible within 90 days.
There are numerous judgments of the higher consumer courts which are binding on the lower consumer courts, but they are routinely ignored. For example, the National Consumer Commission has repeatedly ruled (e.g., III (1996) CPJ 77 (NC)) that an appeal can not be dismissed without entering into the merits of the case merely on the ground that the appellant was not present when the case was taken up for hearing. But State Consumer Commissions ignore this ruling routinely, to the detriment of the consumers.
Observing that many of its directives were being ignored by lower consumer courts, the National Consumer Commission codified them in the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 which were gazetted on 31-5-2005 . It is not clear if all consumer courts are aware of these Regulations because they are also being violated very often. As a result, consumer courts have become regular courts with too much emphasis on formalities. It has become very difficult for a common man to argue his case before consumer courts. He is being forced to hire lawyers. This goes against the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, namely, providing speedy, inexpensive and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
Here is a sample of Consumer Protection Regulations which are being commonly flouted by consumer courts:
1. Sec. 11(1) of the Regulations mandates that all proceedings before consumer courts are conducted as expeditiously as possible and as per the requirements of the CPA. But adjournments are commonly given and cases frequently take more than 3 months to decide.
2. To discourage adjournments, Sec. 11(3) of the Regulations mandates that the party asking for an adjournment has to pay a minimum of Rs. 500 as costs. But this is not being enforced in many cases. If the costs are imposed, the opposite party is not getting a part of it in many cases.
3. Sec. 13(1) of the Regulations mandates that all arguments should be as brief as possible and to the point at issue. This is not being uniformly enforced leading to avoidable delays. According to Sec. 13(3) of the Regulations, advocates have to file their briefs two days before the hearing, failing which they should be fined a minimum of Rs. 500. This is rarely enforced again leading to delays.
4. Sec. 18(5) of the Regulations mandates that all orders of a consumer court should be short and precise. But consumer courts often give lengthy orders which take valuable time to prepare.
5. Sec. 26(1) of the Regulations strongly recommends that provisions of Civil Procedure Code should be avoided. But many consumer courts still insist on the formalities of CPC making it very difficult for non-lawyers who wish to argue their own cases and also causing delays.
Thus despite all efforts by the parliament, the government and even the National Consumer Commission to make consumer courts more consumer-friendly, this goal is still far from being realized.
But this intent was not properly communicated to the judges who were appointed to the consumer courts. Since the presiding judges were appointed to consumer courts after long stints as judges in the regular courts, they tended to continue the same formalities and very soon consumer courts became the same as civil courts. One case in Mysore District Consumer Forum took 6 years and 105 adjournments to decide. This was despite the fact that the CPA states that adjournments should not be ordinarily granted and cases should be decided as far as possible within 90 days.
There are numerous judgments of the higher consumer courts which are binding on the lower consumer courts, but they are routinely ignored. For example, the National Consumer Commission has repeatedly ruled (e.g., III (1996) CPJ 77 (NC)) that an appeal can not be dismissed without entering into the merits of the case merely on the ground that the appellant was not present when the case was taken up for hearing. But State Consumer Commissions ignore this ruling routinely, to the detriment of the consumers.
Observing that many of its directives were being ignored by lower consumer courts, the National Consumer Commission codified them in the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 which were gazetted on 31-5-2005 . It is not clear if all consumer courts are aware of these Regulations because they are also being violated very often. As a result, consumer courts have become regular courts with too much emphasis on formalities. It has become very difficult for a common man to argue his case before consumer courts. He is being forced to hire lawyers. This goes against the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, namely, providing speedy, inexpensive and simple redressal to consumer disputes.
Here is a sample of Consumer Protection Regulations which are being commonly flouted by consumer courts:
1. Sec. 11(1) of the Regulations mandates that all proceedings before consumer courts are conducted as expeditiously as possible and as per the requirements of the CPA. But adjournments are commonly given and cases frequently take more than 3 months to decide.
2. To discourage adjournments, Sec. 11(3) of the Regulations mandates that the party asking for an adjournment has to pay a minimum of Rs. 500 as costs. But this is not being enforced in many cases. If the costs are imposed, the opposite party is not getting a part of it in many cases.
3. Sec. 13(1) of the Regulations mandates that all arguments should be as brief as possible and to the point at issue. This is not being uniformly enforced leading to avoidable delays. According to Sec. 13(3) of the Regulations, advocates have to file their briefs two days before the hearing, failing which they should be fined a minimum of Rs. 500. This is rarely enforced again leading to delays.
4. Sec. 18(5) of the Regulations mandates that all orders of a consumer court should be short and precise. But consumer courts often give lengthy orders which take valuable time to prepare.
5. Sec. 26(1) of the Regulations strongly recommends that provisions of Civil Procedure Code should be avoided. But many consumer courts still insist on the formalities of CPC making it very difficult for non-lawyers who wish to argue their own cases and also causing delays.
Thus despite all efforts by the parliament, the government and even the National Consumer Commission to make consumer courts more consumer-friendly, this goal is still far from being realized.
C.V. Nagaraj, Mysore Grahakara Parishat