Consumer needs protection

After deliberations spread over five long years, the Consumer Protection Bill was introduced in the Parliament in January 2018 and has been recently passed by the Lok Sabha. 

In the light of the experience of working of entities under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the need for a revision was starkly felt by all stakeholders. 

Lengthy deliberations, which preceded the introduction of the Bill had raised hopes of having, if not a magic remedy, at least something which would address all concerns expressed by the stakeholders and make the mechanism of grievance redressal more potent.

The Bill is true to the reputation of our lawmakers to pack old wine in new bottle, add a superfluous freebie and provide more chairs for seating favoured ones in form of Consumer Protection Authority, while also retaining Consumer Protection Councils.

The idea is to garner more power for the executive, by leaving it to the Central Government to prescribe modalities of appointing even presidents and members of Commissions.

There are also some cosmetic changes, like re-christening ‘Fora’ as ‘Commissions’. The Consumer Protection Authority could prove extremely useful in processing class actions by directing the collector to file complaints. The authority is vested with powers to impose huge penalties. 

The Bill, however, believes that the parties ordered to so pay would comply. The only provision to force compliance is section 88 of the Bill, which prescribes punishment for non-compliance.

Cognizance of the offence can be taken only upon a complaint by the authority, presumably by regular criminal courts. Thus the existing overburdened apparatus of criminal courts is added with one more criminal activity to be tried. On the positive side, there is the provision in Section 34 of the Bill permitting a consumer to file a complaint even in the Commission within whose jurisdiction the consumer resides or works for gain.  Section 35 of the Bill, enables e-filing of complaints. It is hoped that the provision will be backed up by creating infrastructure, enabling an aggrieved consumer to file a complaint from the comfort of his home, even from a smartphone. 

A specific provision enabling ‘hearing’, whether preliminary for admission of a complaint, or final, via video call, could have helped the consumer as well the opponent to obviate physical visits to the Commissions. 

This would have not only have saved time and money, but would have ensured more efficient time management in the ‘Commissions’ by allotting specific time slots for hearing, saving time for the Commissions in waiting for parties or their representatives, apart from generally reducing pressure on transport, roads, parking and most importantly, security at the venues. 

Such a provision is not just desirable, but a dire necessity since the Bill seeks to enable consumers to file complaints, not necessarily at the place where the vendor/service provider resides or works for gain, but at the place where the consumer resides. 

If the authorities were to imagine all vendors or service providers to be big guns capable of defending themselves anywhere in India, they only have to look at small vendors, say a lady from Assam selling fabric as a part-time business from her home on e-commerce websites or even on YouTube and other social media platforms, or to a purchaser from Kerala, and imagine if the lady in Assam could defend, say, a mischievous complaint. The absence of provision for virtual appearance will help big guns in business to force these small vendors to shut shop.  Section 34, which also enables district commissions to hold sittings at places other than headquarters, is a welcome step, but given the present woeful infrastructure provided to State commissions and district fora, it is doubtful if states would provide necessary facilities for circuit benches.

The power of review given to the Commissions by sections 40 and 50, may be useful if it is restricted to orders passed without hearing. Otherwise, it will lead to a never-ending shuttling from one order to the other.

A whole new chapter, comprising sections 74 to 81, providing for mediation has been inserted in the hope that disputes are resolved by mediation. Though this is a salutary step, unless backed up by a team of trained mediators working free at each centre, this provision will result in only pushing consumers wearied by delays to accept unjust compromises. The biggest disappointment comes from the re-iterated confidence in the existing mechanism for execution of orders of the Commissions. 

These provisions have been left unchanged, leaving a consumer who has an order in his favour to recover compensation awarded from a civil court or getting the disobedient punished by invoking magisterial jurisdiction of the Commissions. 

Lawmakers ought to be asked to try and execute money decrees in civil courts or try to invoke a criminal process, which does not end with a conviction by the trial forum, but drags on in appeals and revisions. 

They ought to have placed on the parties ordered to comply the burden of reporting compliance, which could be checked with the complainant, failing which the Commissions could have been authorised to initiate penal proceedings for compliance. 

While presiding over the Maharashtra State Commission, a grateful Army colonel profusely thanked the bench for delivering an order directing a famous transporter to pay compensation in a decade-old appeal about damage to his household effects being transported on his transfer. 

I told the colonel that after actually getting the order executed, he may come to the commission for being felicitated by me. Let us hope that the new law does not leave consumers like the old colonel frustrated.

Author is former president of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission