Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Practical issues

 

Here is a good write up in Business standard of 10 August 2020 about how the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 would mitigate against quick disposal of cases at District Forums.

 

To get a perspective, let us consider the scenario under the old Act. The District Consumer Forums, with a pecuniary limit of INR 20 lakh, are located mostly in premises that are too small, especially in urban areas where more cases are filed and there is a scarcity of space. So, files spill over into the corridors and there is hardly any place for movement. The Forum is manned by just one or two clerks, who find it difficult to cope with the workload of accepting complaints, scrutinising them, preparing and dispatching notices, accepting deposits and investing the money during the pendency of appeals, issuing certified copies of orders, etc. Similarly, there is just one stenographer who has to take dictation of judgements get the judgment even after the case has been argued. Besides, when the clerk or steno proceeds on leave, there is no substitute to attend district level.

 

Even though the Act stipulates that cases must be decided within three months, or within five months if laboratory testing is required, the reality is that it takes between four and 10 years, and sometimes even longer, for a consumer complaint to be decided, especially in cities.

 

With a five-fold increase in pecuniary jurisdiction under the new Act, it is likely that a case may now take 15 to 25 years to get decided. A consumer whose fridge or television is defective cannot wait so long for his grievance to be redressed. He will prefer to abandon his rights rather than fight for them for so long.

 

The article also describes the difficulty in getting judgements enforced under the new dispensation.

 

Under the old Act, initially the procedure for enforcing orders was the same as that applicable to decrees of civil courts. It required the filing of a separate application before the Civil Court for attachment of property by the bailiff, publishing of newspaper advertisement for auction of property, etc. making it a tedious as well as costly procedure, and often not worthwhile for realising a paltry sum. The Act was amended in 2003 to make recovery proceedings simpler by adopting the procedure laid down for recovery of arrears of land revenue by the collector or other competent authority. Even though this procedure was working well, the new Act surprisingly reverts to the civil court procedure for execution.

 

The effectives of mediation, it has been felt, would be very little due to the fact of not allowing cases like medical negligence for mediation.

 

The new Act provides for mediation. There will hardly be any scope to mediate in a dispute pertaining to defective goods or services, which would have been filed only after attempts to redress the grievance failed. Mediation could be helpful in resolving cases where there are high claims for compensation, such as those dealing with medical negligence. Yet matters relating to medical negligence resulting in grievous injury or death are prohibited from being referred to mediation.

 

These changes in the law would, it appears, make it more tedious for the consumer to approach the forum. If cases were to take so long to dispose, only habitual litigants might use the provisions and the common man would not be able to get justice.