Mumbai: In the course of our daily lives there are several situations in which each of us act as consumers, either for goods or services. But while many of us carry out these transactions unthinkingly, and are often inconvenienced by some, very few people have a proper understanding of the redressal and relief mechanism available for the ordinary citizens.
On the occasion of World Consumer Rights Day, the V Citizens Action Network (VCAN), an NGO that promotes transparency and accountability by organising dialogues between citizens and government officials, brought together the chiefs of the two most crucial grievance redressal authorities — the Lokayukta and the State Consumer Redressal Commission. Justice M L Tahaliyani (retd) and Justice A P Bhangale (retd) spoke on Wednesday at an event at the Royal Yacht Club in Colaba that was also live streamed for an audience both in India and abroad.
World Consumer Rights Day is organised by Consumers International (CI), an organisation which is considered an authoritative global voice for consumers and has over 220 member organisations across 115 countries. Every year a theme is chosen for this day, and this year it is ‘Building a digital world consumers can trust’.
Trust issues
Addressing the gathering first, Justice Bhangale acknowledged that the main challenge in building a digital world that consumers could trust was the problem of ensuring privacy. “We know that the main danger is that anybody with a Google account can potentially access any information about anybody. So I think the government should take a call and before we go completely digital we should have a widespread discussion with the citizens of India,” he said. He added however, that a digital system for consumer redressal would be more effective since complaints could be disposed off faster. “In Maharashtra now we have granted provisional permission for a private agency to put up all our data online,” Justice Bhangale said.
Justice Tahiliani on the other hand began with a discussion about the Lokayukta and how citizens may approach the forum. “It is true that not much is known about the office of the Lokayukta despite it being there for 43 years,” he said. “Maharashtra was in fact the first state to set up the office of a Lokayukta. Many people think of it however as being basically an ombudsman against corruption but it is also an office that takes up allegations and grievances against public servants if they are not acting toward addressing the best interests of the citizens,” he said.
No strict requirements
Following the opening remarks by the speakers, the event was thrown open to questions from both the audience as well as through Facebook, Twitter and messages from the watching online audience. To a question on what is the mechanism to approach the Consumer Redressal Commission, Justice Bhangale said that unlike civil courts, the commission was not bound by strict technical requirements.
“The complaints should mention the identity and other details like address of the complainant and of the opposite party. It should then detail chronologically the happenings that gave rise to this cause of action. This does not require technical language and no such requirements are prescribed in the Act under which this body is set up,” he said. He added however, that the complainant should be clear in specifying what sort of compensation he seeks and under what grounds.
Members of the audience and online then asked Justice Bhangale to address a variety of potential situations under which they could file complaints. To a question on whether consumers could file complaints against airlines that cancelled flights at the last minute, he said that if the airline in question made no provisions to provide food or accommodation to guests who were made to wait endlessly then there was a definite case for a complaint to be made. In case a product was being sold over MRP he even recommended that consumers could take a video of the transaction that could be used as evidence.
On the question of whether the commission could address false claims being made in advertisements however, Justice Bhangale said that a new consumer protection Act, introduced in 2015, was still awaiting clearance by Parliament that would allow this. On the question of differential pricing of products, say in malls or airports, he suggested humorously that perhaps it was an issue for the Lokayukta to look into.
Justice Tahiliani then explained an important difference in the way the two organisations work. “If you were to file a complaint to the Lokayukta you could say, for instance, that you have written to a public official about the problem but he is not addressing it. As long as there is a public official who is not addressing your grievances, you can come to me,” he said.
Suo moto action
In response to another question, Justice Tahiliani said that the Lokayukta can also take suo moto action against officials based on newspaper reports. He said that on several occasions this had been effective but urged people to come forward with complaints more often in the matter of corrupt public officials.
“I urge everyone in this room to read the Lokayukta Act and in it you will find there are a great many things that you may be troubled by and about which you can approach the Lokayukta. Come to us and we can help you,” he said.
Indrani Malkani, managing trustee of VCAN, suggested the group should make a chart about which forum can entertain complaints about which agencies. She said this would help citizens as well as ensure that courts were not burdened.
