CONSUMER PROTECTION

Cosumers’ protection law not effective
Consumer as victim of globalisation
By Sanjog Maheshwari

Twenty years and three Amending Acts later, the Consumer law has less bite and more cosmetic power. While certain provisions in the Amending Acts of 1991, 1993 and 2002 such as disposal of complaint and appeal within 90 days, establishment of branches and circuit courts, not allowing the opposite party to engage a legal practitioner if the complainant has not engaged one still remain on paper, the consumer-hostile provisions such as unilateral dismissal of the complaint where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing, introduction of fee for filing the complaint, etc. that are detrimental to the interests of the consumers have already been enforced.

Consumer Protection Act has not so far conferred any power on the Redressal Forums to pass interim orders. The government and its instrumentalities find it most convenient to file appeal against each and every order passed by a lower court. In this three tier justice delivery system, an appeal against the orders of a District forum can be filed in the State Commission, against whose orders in turn it would lie with the National Commission and then the matter can go up to the Supreme Court. For an ordinary litigant-consumer it becomes an interminable legal battle against the government that has unlimited resources in the form of taxpayers’ money.

The officials of the Government and its instrumentalities routinely flout the Court’s orders when finally passed. They hold them in utter contempt and wait for the initiation of enforcement proceedings. Evading presence to respond to the court’s queries, frequently seeking adjournments, seeking refuse in myriad technicalities and resorting to other delaying tactics are the other bureaucratic indulgences that add to the endless woes of a litigant consumer. The professional lawyers engaged by the government wield lot of clout in these fora. They manage to get adjournments at will. The myriad technicalities and loopholes in the law also come handy to them for dragging on even a hopelessly indefensible case. However, if the litigant-consumer happens to be somebody, not only does he get speedy justice but also reasonable compensation. He does not have to contest the Appeals and Applications that are routinely filed when Mr. Nobody is the Complainant. Sample this case: Omesh Saigal verses BSES Rajdhani Power Limited, as reported in a National Daily:-

Retd. Chief Secy wins bill fight against distcom.—Hindustan Times, May 9, 2005

A consumer court has ruled that the distcom BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. is guilty of harassing a senior citizen for more than two years by sending him false, inflated bills. Omesh Saigal is a former chief secretary of Delhi. Saigal was asked to pay huge sums for faulty bills. When he protested was threatened with disconnection of the supply,” said the district consumer court of South Delhi.

It directed BSES Rajdhani to pay Saigal Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental tension, agony and physical harassment. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded as cost of litigation.

Saigal told the court that BSES Rajdhani sent him wrong bills repeatedly. The amount exceeded more than Rs one lakh and his attempts to correct the bills failed.

The court found BSES Rajdhani guilty of unfair trade practice and poor service. It also directed the company to withdraw old bills and issue new ones on the basis of actual consumption.

Everybody is not a Chief Secretary of a State Government to be thus rewarded. In all other similar cases, the hapless aggrieved consumer-litigant struggles in vain in quest of justice.

The menace of delayed justice can be countered if (a) the government and its utilities shed their penchant for filing appeals in each and every case, (b) the Government officials promptly implement the court orders instead of waiting for the initiation of the Order Enforcement Proceedings against them, (c) Exemplary punishment is meted out to the bureaucrats resorting to the delaying tactics and circumventing the court’s orders, (d) it is made mandatory to implement each and every order passed by a lower court in the first instance before going in appeal against it, (e) ban appearance of the professional lawyers in the consumer courts to contest consumer related disputes and (f) the Hon’ble Courts bear it in mind that they have been created to protect and safeguard the consumers’ interests and not the other way round.

The Act needs to be urgently amended to make it consumer-friendly. In its present form, it miserably fails to provide any relief to an aggrieved consumer against the wrongs done to him by the government owned service providers.

The aim should be to provide hassle-free, speedy and, if possible, time-bound justice to the litigant consumer.

(The writer can be contacted at C-1 A/42B MIG Flats, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.)