MGP has been receiving several complaints about the delays in getting decisions from the Mysore District Consumer Forum (DCF). To check these complaints, MGP filed an RTI application with the registrar of the Mysore DCF asking for details about the cases decided by the Forum in the eighteen month period between 1-1-10 and 30-6-11. Based on the information provided, we notice several violations of the laws, rules and regulations which has caused avoidable harassment to the consumers.
Sec. 3A of the Consumer Protection Act mandates that every effort must be made by the DCF to decide a complaint within three months. But it appears that the Mysore DCF is not following this direction. Of the 1202 cases decided, only 650 (54%) were decided within 3 months. 482 cases (40%) of the cases took between 3 months and 6 months to decide while 70 cases (6%) took more than 6 months to decide. These delays are causing needless inconvenience and expenditure to the public causing them to lose faith in the consumer courts.
Sec. 3A of the Consumer Protection Act also mandates that adjournments are not ordinarily given. It again appears that the Mysore DCF is violating this direction. Of the 1202 cases decided, NONE were decided without adjournments (which is definitely against the intention of the law). 116 cases (10%) took 1-3 adjournments, 526 cases (44%) took 3-10 adjournments and 560 cases (46%) took more than 10 adjournments. So 90% of the cases before the Mysore DCF take more than 3 hearings and nearly half the cases take more than 10 hearings to be decided. One case against MUDA has taken 30 hearings. Such delays defeat the whole reason for enacting the CP Act, namely, speedy justice.
Sec. 11 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 makes it clear that if a party asks for adjournments, the DCF should levy a fine of not less than 500 Rs., except in very rare cases in which it can be reduced to 100 Rs. But in no case, can the cost of an adjournment be less than 100 Rs. It again appears that the Mysore DCF is violating these directions. Of the 1202 cases (i.e., all the cases that were before the DCF) which had at least one adjournment, costs were levied only in 318 cases (29%). Even in these cases, the directions given by the Consumer Protection Regulations were not followed. The cost was Rs. 500 or more only in 40 cases (13%). In 250 cases (79%), it was Rs. 50 which is clearly forbidden by the Regulations. What is surprising is that the party asking adjournments in all the 250 cases in which Rs. 50 was levied as the cost of adjournment was the same defendant, namely, Chanakya Finance Corporation.
It is the intention of the Consumer Protection Regulations that a portion of the cost imposed for asking an adjournments should go to the DCF (to be deposited in the deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account) and the remaining portion given to the other party to defray his expenses. But in Mysore DCF, this is rarely done.
We have also received complaints that some parties against whom the DCF has passed orders are not obeying these orders, but the DCF is not exercising powers given under Secs. 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act to punish them. Such lenience will encourage more people to violate the orders of the DCF and make real consumer protection a mirage.
Let us give some specific anti-consumer actions by the Mysore DCF given recently based on certified copies of order sheets obtained from the DCF.1. Case No. Ex.Cr. 79/2010 (Original Case CC 79/2009)
2. Case No. CC 1070/2010The DCF took nearly 30 hearings to give a decision. Adjournments were given to the defendant regularly, but after the 3rd hearing, the DCF stopped giving costs to the complainant. So the complainant had to appear for more than 25 hearings at his own cost. The defendant disobeyed the DCF's order and also did not attend the hearings of the execution (criminal) proceedings in spite of being served 3 non-bailable warrants. Instead of holding the defendant personally responsible and imposing a jail sentence for this gross contempt, the DCF imposed a fine of just Rs. 2500. The defendant has again ignored this order. The fine is yet to be paid.
3. Case No. Ex.Cr. 131/2010 (Original Case CC 601/2010)After holding nearly 30 hearings, the DCF declared that the complainant (who was an old illiterate widow who had complained that she had not obtained an Ashraya house 8 years after her late husband had paid the deposit) was not a consumer since she was getting the house at a concessional rate. It is not clear why it took the DCF 20 hearings to even decide if the complainant was a consumer. Further the reason given by it to declare her a non-consumer is wrong since, the Consumer Protection Act bars only free goods and services from the purview of the Act and not goods and services given at a concessional rate. An appeal against this decision of the DCF is pending before the State Commission for the last 5 months.
4. Case No. Ex.Cr. 126/2010 (Original Case CC 231/2010)The opposite party did not appear in spite of several non-bailable warrants. The DCF concluded the hearings several times by recording the last hearing as "final", yet no decision was given at the next hearing. After nearly 20 hearings, the case was closed on 18-1-2012 by compromise between the parties.
Sreemathi Hariprasad, President, Mysore Grahakara ParishatThe DCF ordered the opposite party to pay Rs. 47,000 and he paid Rs. 7,500 after 12 hearings. The case dragged on and the he paid another installment of Rs. 10,000 after 20 hearings. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but the opposite party escaped arrest by posting bail. The money due from the opposite party is increasing. The DCF does not give costs for execution proceedings and so the cost of attending the hearings is also increasing for the complainant. The case is still going on and there are no signs that the opposite party will ever fully obey the order of the DCF. The case is now posted for 21-2-2012.