Evaluation of Efficacy of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies in India Prof. Prakash N. Chaudhary Vice Principal, Associate Professor& Head, Dept. of Business Laws, Ness Wadia College of Commerce, Pune 411 001. Email: pncwadia@gmail.com Contact No.: +91-779 888 3419 ABSTRACT Consumerism is getting momentum in India. The enactment of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is the landmark legislation to protect the consumers. The paper attempts to evaluate efficacy of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies in India. Though these agencies are striving hard to dispose the cases, still large number of cases is pending in Consumer Courts in India. Certain immediate measures through improvement in existing functioning of these agencies and by evolving new model or alternative by using information technology tools are needed. All stake holders should be proactive to resolve the consumer problems so as to make business world the place of worth trading and transacting. Key Words: Consumerism, consumer forums, grievance settlement machinery, justice, pendency of cases Introduction: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is enacted to protect the interests of consumers in a better manner. It gives power to helpless consumer to fight for his rights as against powerful business organizations. The Act intends to give simple, speedy and inexpensive redressal mechanism to the consumers for resolving their grievances. The Consumer Protection Act has liberalized rigid procedural requirements and introduced simple and easy methods of access to justice. Even a simple letter addressed to the consumer forum draws enough attention to initiate legal action. Even one can plead his own case in the consumer forum without even engaging a lawyer. Knocking the doors of civil courts and trying to get justice was not a simple task for an ordinary consumer. Huge pendency of cases in the civil courts would have created agony in the minds consumers and justice delayed justice denied would have become unpleasant truth of our legal system. Consumers Disputes Redressal Agencies in India: The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks to protect the interests of consumers and tries to prevent exploitation of consumers. It provides three tier machinery which consists of District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission and National Consumers Disputes Redresssal Commission. The most important feature of the Consumer Protection Act, is the provision for setting up machinery for resolution of consumers disputes. This quasi-judicial machinery is generally called as consumer courts. This three tier machinery is at National, State and District level. The National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (i.e. National Commission), is the apex authority situated at Delhi. In each State, State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission (i.e. State Commissions), and in each District, District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (i.e. District Forum) have the responsibility to dispense justice to the consumers.though the Consumer Protection Act enacted in the year 1986,for actual functioning of consumers fora started in the year 1990. ISSN : 2230-9667 Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research 6
Statement of Problem: Consumer Protection Act, guarantees speedy, in expensive and simple justice to the consumers through consumers disputes redressal agencies. It was expected that through this alternative disputes redressal mechanism, consumer avail justice. Hence, it is pertinent to analyze, whether this alternative quasi-judicial justice delivery system for consumer is successful in its endeavor. Success of Consumer Protection Act is dependent upon its effective implementation. 25 years is the reason able period or a right period for investigating present status of consumerism in India. Objectives: 1) To analyze the number of cases filed / disposed-off at National, State and District Level. 2) To compare the efficacy of these forums among themselves. Research Methodology: The method used for this study is investigative in nature and it examines the performance of consumer disputes redressal agencies functioning at National, State and District Level in India. The objective of the present research is to analyze the number of cases filed / disposed and compare their performance of such forums at National, State and District level. The study is based on secondary data collected from Annual reports, journals, books published by various institutions / government and through websites, articles etc. Analysis and interpretation: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies created by Consumer Protection Act in India have proven to be effective in disposing of thousands of cases with few legal formalities and trying to lead towards the well-founded consumer jurisprudence in India. Besides substantial disposal of cases by consumer fora, the huge backlog of pending cases exists and it has become a matter of concern for Indian legal system to have even further improvement in the existing system and if necessary to think about even alternatives for speedy disposal of consumer cases. Analysis of cases filed / disposed at various consumer disputes redressal commission: Table A Statement of Filed / Disposed-off / Pending in the National Commission and State Commissionss (Update on 31.03.2014) Sr. No. Name of State filed since inception Disposed-off Since Inception Pending % of Disposal As on National Commission 88166 76731 11435 87.03 31.03.2014 1 Andhra Pradesh 30404 29087 1317 95.67 28.02.2014 2 A & N Islands 42 38 4 90.48 31.01.2014 3 Arunachal Pradesh 68 66 2 97.06 31.01.2014 4 Assam 2653 2293 360 86.43 28.02.2014 5 Bihar 17332 12087 5245 69.74 31.12.2013 6 Chandigarh 13032 12912 120 99.08 31.12.2013 7 Chhattisgarh 9379 8697 682 92.73 28.02.2014 8 Daman & Diu and Delhi 25 20 5 80.00 31.03.2011 9 Delhi 37005 34363 2642 92.86 28.02.2014 10 Goa 2486 2441 45 98.19 28.02.2014 11 Gujarat 47867 43953 3914 91.82 28.02.2014 ISSN : 2230-9667 Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research 7
12 Haryana 43999 43644 355 99.19 28.02.2014 13 Himachal Pradesh 8381 8134 247 97.05 28.02.2014 14 Jammu & Kashmir 6727 6170 557 91.72 31.03.2013 15 Jharkhand 5271 4774 497 90.57 31.12.2013 16 Karnataka 46699 42847 3852 91.75 28.02.2014 17 Kerala 26815 25160 1655 93.83 28.02.2014 18 Lakshadweep 18 16 2 88.89 28.02.2014 19 Madhya Pradesh 44813 38835 5978 86.66 28.02.2014 20 Maharashtra 58904 45091 13813 76.55 30.06.2013 21 Manipur 139 96 43 69.06 30.09.2008 22 Meghalaya 262 175 87 66.79 31.10.2012 23 Mizoram 207 201 6 97.10 31.12.2013 24 Nagaland 25 6 19 24.00 31.12.2011 25 Orissa 22360 16036 6324 71.72 30.09.2013 26 Pondicherry 975 955 20 97.95 31.01.2014 27 Punjab 30377 24737 5640 81.43 30.06.2013 28 Rajasthan 54042 49413 4629 91.43 31.01.2014 29 Sikkim 42 41 1 97.62 31.12.2012 30 Tamilnadu 25212 22866 2346 90.69 31.01.2014 31 Tripura 1559 1456 103 93.39 28.02.2014 32 Uttar Pradesh 70955 43262 27693 60.97 31.01.2014 33 Uttaranchal 5034 4110 924 81.64 31.01.2014 34 West Bengal 19224 16926 2298 88.05 30.06.2013 Total 632333 540908 91425 85.54 Table B Statement of filed/disposed-off/pending in District Fora (Update on 31.03.2014) Sr. No. Name of State filed since inception Disposedoff Since Inception Pending % of Disposa l As on 1 Andhra Pradesh 196628 190457 6171 96.86 28.02.2014 2 A & N Islands 330 301 29 91.21 31.03.2006 3 Arunachal Pradesh 408 348 60 85.29 31.01.2014 4 Assam 13704 11976 1728 87.39 31.08.2010 5 Bihar 94345 81161 13184 86.03 31.12.2013 6 Chandigarh 48859 47686 1173 97.60 31.12.2013 7 Chhattisgarh 39209 36110 3099 92.10 28.02.2014 8 Daman & Diu and 162 144 18 88.89 Delhi 31.03.2011 9 Delhi 249505 234740 14765 94.08 31.12.2012 10 Goa 6617 6158 459 93.06 28.02.2014 11 Gujarat 183958 172909 11049 93.99 28.02.2014 12 Haryana 229221 215053 14168 93.82 28.02.2014 13 Himachal Pradesh 59217 56154 3063 94.83 31.01.2014 14 Jammu & Kashmir 20792 18855 1937 90.68 31.12.2007 ISSN : 2230-9667 Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research 8
15 Jharkhand 35437 31628 3809 89.25 30.11.2013 16 Karnataka 164258 157606 6652 95.95 28.02.2014 17 Kerala 187739 178721 9018 95.20 28.02.2014 18 Lakshadweep 77 65 12 84.42 28.02.2014 19 Madhya Pradesh 195980 181727 14253 92.73 28.02.2014 20 Maharashtra 265476 241398 24078 90.93 30.06.2013 21 Manipur 1037 1012 25 97.59 30.09.2008 22 Meghalaya 847 750 97 88.55 31.10.2012 23 Mizoram 3466 2819 647 81.33 31.12.2010 24 Nagaland 290 266 24 91.72 31.12.2011 25 Orissa 96218 88912 7306 92.41 30.09.2013 26 Pondicherry 2983 2743 240 91.95 28.02.2014 27 Punjab 158946 153479 5467 96.56 30.06.2013 28 Rajasthan 310192 279489 30703 90.10 31.01.2014 29 Sikkim 296 280 16 94.59 31.12.2012 30 Tamilnadu 106274 99768 6506 93.88 31.01.2014 31 Tripura 3018 2904 114 96.22 28.02.2014 32 Uttar Pradesh 595574 519542 76032 87.23 31.01.2014 33 Uttaranchal 36357 33765 2592 92.87 28.02.2014 34 West Bengal 90611 85263 5348 94.10 30.06.2013 Total 3398031 3134189 263842 92.24 The table A shows the total number of cases filed in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of India till 31.03.2014 is 88166. The Table categorically shows that 87.03% of the cases filed since inception of NCDRC of India have been disposed-offf and only 12.07% are pending. So far as State Commissions are concerned, the total number of cases filed in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of India till 31.03.2014 is 6,32,333. It is clear from this table that 85.54% of the cases filed since inception of the State Commissions have been disposed-off and 14.46% are pending. Though, the State Commissions have disposed 5,40,908 cases so far, still 91,425 cases are pending. The total number of State Commissions is 34 and disposing-off, these remaining pending cases will be a challenging task for all State Commissions. The table B reveals that total number of case filed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal fora of India is 33,98,031 till 31.03.2014 and it shows that 92.24% of cases filed since inception of these fora have been disposed-off and only 7.76% are pending. Hence comparatively the District forum s performance is better than National and State Commissions. The Table B exhibits the cases filed and disposed-off at the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums: From this table it is observed that Haryana ranked first with 99.19% and Mizoram ranked last with 81.33% on the basis of disposal rate of the cases. Table C National Commission State Commission District Forum Particulars No. of % No. of % No. of disposed-off since inception 76731 87.0% 540908 96.8% 3134189 92.2% pending 11435 12.9% 6171 3.1% 283842 7.7% Total cases filed since inception 88166 100% 632333 10% 3398031 100% ISSN : 2230-9667 Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research 9 %
Table C shows the juxtaposition of cases filed / disposed-off and pending in all these three forums. It is clear that rate of disposed cases is higher in State Commissions than National Commission and District Forums. If we take total of all pending cases before these three-level consumer disputes redressal agencies in India, it comes to be 3,01,448. Table D Particulars No. of % disposed-off since inception 37,51,825 92.56% pending 3,01,448, 7.44% Total cases filed since inception 40,53,276 100% That means average, disposal of consumer cases in National, State and District level commissions/ forum is 92.56%. Hence though all the machinery has worked well, still challenge remains to be able to dispose of more than 3 lakhs of cases. Lack of awareness of CP Act among consumer, inadequate staff, non-appointment of Presidents and members on-time, lawyers delay tactics, huge number of filing of cases are the few probable reasons of pendency of cases in there consumer courts. Suggestions: 1) Besides school and colleges, consumer awareness programmes be organized for common man through non-governmental organization. 2) Pro-active efforts be made to sensitize rural consumers through various means of communication channels. 3) Policy makers, traders and consumers should be brought on the common platform to exchange information of mutual interest for better co-ordination and consensus on debatable issues. 4) Simplified procedure for speedy disposal is required to be evolved. On-line disputes redressal mechanism through these consumer courts be evolved to delivery speedy and inexpensive justice. 5) Consumer Protection Councils are required to be strengthened so as to protect the rights of the consumers. 6) Government can play significant role by providing adequate infrastructure for forums, online support, timely appointment of staff and allocating enough funds for the consumer protection. 7) Business organization should design their in-house grievance settlement machinery before consumer moves consumer forums. 8) Consumers organization / groups / associations should conduct and represent cases on behalf of consumer before such forums and guide them at every stage without charging fees so as to avail justice to poor consumers. 9) The government should encourage such consumer organizations by awarding cash prizes or awards for their dedicated work for the cause of consumers rights. 10) The huge number of pending cases be disposed of by organizing lok-adalats quite frequently and the circuit benches of these forums be established at convenient places so as to take justice to the doors of the litigant-consumers. Conclusion: It requires serious attention towards huge pendency of cases before consumer disputes redressal agencies in India and to make provision of further improvement in the procedure and their functioning. Pro-active involvement of government, positive and innovative approach of schools, Colleges, Training Institutes, NGOs, the electronic and print media would help to improve the present state of affairs. Citizens Character and code of conduct for the manufacturing or service providers should be an integral part of functioning of any business entity. It is necessary to have total commitment to the ISSN : 2230-9667 Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research 10
consumers cause and social responsiveness to consumers needs so as to make business world a better place for trading and transacting. References: 1) Niraj Kumar (Dr.), Consumer Protection Law and Practice (2012), Himalaya Publishing House, Mumbai. 2) Annual Survey Report 2013-14, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India. 3) At website: http://garj.org/garjmbs/index.htm (GARJMBS-ISSN: 2315-5086), Delhi, 2013. As on 7 th February, 2015. ****** ISSN : 2230-9667 Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research 11