DH ILLUSTRATION
Less than 10% of consumer cases filed in district Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (CDRCs) have been resolved within the legally mandated 90 days. This statistic clearly shows the urgency to improve the functioning of these forums.
CDRCs were established in each district as a result of Parliament adapting the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA) in 1986. In 2019, COPRA was replaced to reflect the changes since then and it was also mandated to settle the cases in less than 90 days.
Reams of critical articles have been written of the way the presidents of these consumer forums have converted them into veritable civil courts. Unfortunately, the media also often refers to them as courts, which makes the situation worse. When one enters the room where they function, even an activist like myself who knows the true nature of these forums gets intimidated.
Members of the forums are seated on a raised platform, when it is expected that they should be more or less at the same level as aggrieved consumers. Hall full of lawyers (who, for the most part, are not needed as per the Act) in their robes adds to the aura of a court. Finally, the way the president starts the proceedings and talks to the consumers, only the bravest will not get intimidated.
In the light of the above observations, my sincere recommendation is that there is an urgent need to go out of the way to remove any semblance of a court environment in the room where proceedings take place.
As per Dr P D Shenoy’s Report, there was a recommendation made to offer a 15-day training programme to members of CDRCs. On paper, this looks like a good development. But the report deals more with the specifics of ensuring formalities. There was no emphasis or discussion on how to train the presidents and members to hold summary trials without the elaborate process of civil courts or writing judgments, again, in summary style.
When one looks at the current functioning of these forums, it becomes obvious that the current training programmes have added little to no value.
Most of the time during the proceedings, two members of the forums keep silent when they have as much right and responsibility to take part. Have they been trained to participate? Therefore, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs should redesign the entire training programme and, if needed, extend it to three weeks by taking help of experts who are familiar with the COPRA, 1986.
Adjournments have become the norm and hardly any case is settled without giving a few adjournments – a hangover from the civil courts. Though there is a suggestion to impose a penalty on those seeking adjournments, this is not applied in most cases.
This is a low hanging fruit to improve the functioning. Statistics on adjournments should be collected regularly and forums should be warned if they are numerous and fines are not imposed. This aspect should be stressed during the training.
If there is a sincere desire on the part of CDRCs, most (90 to 95%) cases could be resolved in less than 90 days.
Routine consumer complaints like over-charging by violating MRPs, adulteration (once there is credible proof), complaints against banks’ refusal to accept checks, misuse of credit/debit cards, etc., over-billing because of faulty meters by water supply companies and power companies, complaints against airline companies and defective household goods are not complex to decide. These can be settled in one hearing.
The unnecessary process of getting evidence, examining and re-examining - again hangovers from the civil courts - is not necessary. It should be possible to resolve the case in one hearing without compromising the ‘noble’ principle of natural justice, which is often quoted to justify the long and delayed process.
It is time we argue that as a result of such delays, many complainants give up and most do not even want to file cases. As a result, we punish many innocent consumers to ensure one innocent vendor/government official is not found guilty. Is this natural justice?
Is there a need to write an elaborate judgment, like in a civil court, to resolve a case? Let us take the example of a shop owner charging a few paises over the MRP.
What is the need to write a two-page or sometimes an even longer judgment? Just one sentence imposing the fine should be enough. In short, if one really applies logic and is interested in helping the consumers, as intended by COPRA, 90 to 95% of the cases can be settled in one hearing with a short write-up. This is the true spirit of summary trial and judgment.
With the advent of the Internet, filing and hearing of cases can be even more simplified and expedited. Yes, there could be some cases where people have no access or no familiarity. In such cases, which are likely to be very few, the old system can be applied.
A study should be instituted on
how modern technology (more than likely AI can also be used where possible with great advantage) can be adapted to streamline the entire process, from filing to giving judgements in these forums.
As we observe this year’s National Consumer Day on Dec 24, instead of having the usual ritual of talks by the presidents of CDRCs, consumer protection activists should organise a meeting with them to find ways of implementing the true spirit of COPRA by adapting the recommendations of this article.
In conclusion, what is needed is a desire to imbibe the true spirit of COPRA: to accept that it is not only possible
but also needed to give a speedy judgment with no adjournment and to have a firm resolve to overcome any potential obstacle.
(The writer is an IITM alumnus and founding working president of Mysuru Grahakara Parishat)