One of the greatest achievements of the Indian consumer movement is the enactment of the dynamic consumer law — Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This has brought about a sea change in the life of consumers. It provides for an exclusive system of consumer justice.
The Act emphasises on an endeavour to decide complaints within three months from the date of receipt of notice by the opposite party and if the complaint requires testing of commodities, then it should be decided within five months.
However, today, there is inordinate delay in disposal of cases in Consumer Fora, and if this were to continue, it will weaken the very edifice of consumer justice in India.
For instance, a doctor, represented by his advocate, fought a case of medical negligence against him for eight years in the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Though he died recently, the case still continues!
The filing of cases is increasing manifold, whereas the disposal is happening at a very slow pace. In the words of Chief Justice of India K. G. Balakrishnan, “the peoples’ faith in the judicial system will begin to wane, because justice that is delayed is forgotten, excluded and finally discharged...”
When the fora have held that delay in providing services constitutes deficiency, it should be construed that delay on their part to dispose of cases also amounts to deficiency, and the complainants are entitled to compensation for any loss or injury caused due to such delays.
The reasons for such delays are many. First and foremost is the adjournments given. Though the CP Act specifies that no adjournment should be ordinarily granted by the Fora unless sufficient cause is shown, and the reasons for granting the same be recorded in writing, the procedure of granting discretionary adjournments is rampant, resulting in undue delays. To avoid this, an amendment to the Act, restricting the number of adjournments to a maximum of three or four for both parties may be made, and a system of levying heavy costs on the party seeking adjournment implemented. This will have an impact on speedy disposal of complaints.
Few other reasons are the inadequate number of Consumer Fora to tackle the burgeoning complaints, vacancies and the lack of proper infrastructure in the existing Fora. It is important that the Government take appropriate steps in providing proper infrastructure and appoint competent persons as members at all levels, so that the Act is properly put into practice and the legislative purpose of providing alternative, efficacious, speedy and inexpensive remedy to consumers is not defeated. Similarly, many Fora resort to complicated procedures, thereby delaying the adjudication process, resulting in delayed justice to the affected. It is high time homogenous techniques are followed by all Consumer Fora that would help consumers to understand the law and file complaints in a proper manner.
In spite of all the above mentioned inadequacies, consumer justice in India is still one of the best in the world and many thousands of people have benefited over the years. However, to make it wholly effective and serve the purpose for which it was enacted, the procedure and the time limit prescribed under the CP Act and the Rules should be adhered to. Then, delay in disposal of complaints can be largely avoided.
(The writer works with CAG, which offers free advice on consumer complaints to its members. For membership details/queries contact 24914358/24460387 or helpdesk@cag.org.in)
