In a recent decision (I(2014) CPJ 6(NC)), the National Consumer Commission has said that consumer courts are bound to give "speaking orders" in their decisions. They should carry out a detailed analysis of the facts on record and then give cogent and convincing reasons for arriving at their conclusion. From the consumer viewpoint, this decision is quite welcome.
Judicial orders which define what the issues before the court are, decide these issues clearly and give reasons for deciding the issues in that particular way are called "speaking orders". All courts are supposed to give speaking orders in every case before them. In Swaran Lata Vs. Harendra Kumar (AIR 1969 SC 1167), the Supreme Court of India has said "In a judicial trial, the Judge not only must reach a conclusion which he regards as just, but, unless otherwise permitted, by the practice of the Court or by law, he must record the ultimate mental process leading from the dispute to its solution. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute is no judgment at all. Recording the reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest; it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just."
Because presidents and members have not been appointed, many consumer courts in the country are working only part time. They are having a difficult time handling the caseload before them.With this background, it is to be seen if they can effectively follow the directions of the National Commission to give speaking orders in all cases before them.
B V Shenoy, MGP