“Evaluation of Efficacy of the Consumer Disputes Redressal

General Management
“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: [email protected]
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
General Management
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 Cases Filed / Disposed-off / Pending in the National Commission and
State Commissionss (Update on 31.03.2014)
Sr.
Name of State
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
National Commission
Andhra Pradesh
A & N Islands
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chandigarh
Chhattisgarh
Daman & Diu and
Delhi
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
ISSN : 2230-9667
Cases
filed since
inception
88166
30404
42
68
2653
17332
13032
9379
Cases
Disposed-off
Cases
% of
Since
Pending Disposal
Inception
76731
11435
87.03
29087
1317
95.67
38
4
90.48
66
2
97.06
2293
360
86.43
12087
5245
69.74
12912
120
99.08
8697
682
92.73
As on
31.03.2014
28.02.2014
31.01.2014
31.01.2014
28.02.2014
31.12.2013
31.12.2013
28.02.2014
25
20
5
80.00 31.03.2011
37005
2486
47867
34363
2441
43953
2642
45
3914
92.86 28.02.2014
98.19 28.02.2014
91.82 28.02.2014
Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research
7
General Management
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Orissa
Pondicherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamilnadu
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttaranchal
West Bengal
Total
43999
8381
6727
5271
46699
26815
18
44813
58904
139
262
207
25
22360
975
30377
54042
42
25212
1559
70955
5034
19224
632333
43644
8134
6170
4774
42847
25160
16
38835
45091
96
175
201
6
16036
955
24737
49413
41
22866
1456
43262
4110
16926
540908
355
247
557
497
3852
1655
2
5978
13813
43
87
6
19
6324
20
5640
4629
1
2346
103
27693
924
2298
91425
99.19
97.05
91.72
90.57
91.75
93.83
88.89
86.66
76.55
69.06
66.79
97.10
24.00
71.72
97.95
81.43
91.43
97.62
90.69
93.39
60.97
81.64
88.05
85.54
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
31.03.2013
31.12.2013
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
30.06.2013
30.09.2008
31.10.2012
31.12.2013
31.12.2011
30.09.2013
31.01.2014
30.06.2013
31.01.2014
31.12.2012
31.01.2014
28.02.2014
31.01.2014
31.01.2014
30.06.2013
Table ‘B’ Statement of Cases filed/disposed-off/pending in District Fora (Update on 31.03.2014)
Sr.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Name of State
Andhra Pradesh
A & N Islands
Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chandigarh
Chhattisgarh
Daman & Diu and
Delhi
Delhi
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jammu & Kashmir
ISSN : 2230-9667
Cases filed since
inception
196628
330
408
13704
94345
48859
39209
Cases
% of
DisposedCases
Disposa As on
off Since
Pending
l
Inception
190457
6171
96.86 28.02.2014
301
29
91.21 31.03.2006
348
60
85.29 31.01.2014
11976
1728
87.39 31.08.2010
81161
13184
86.03 31.12.2013
47686
1173
97.60 31.12.2013
36110
3099
92.10 28.02.2014
162
144
18
88.89
249505
6617
183958
229221
59217
20792
234740
6158
172909
215053
56154
18855
14765
459
11049
14168
3063
1937
94.08
93.06
93.99
93.82
94.83
90.68
31.03.2011
31.12.2012
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
31.01.2014
31.12.2007
Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research
8
General Management
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Orissa
Pondicherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Sikkim
Tamilnadu
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttaranchal
West Bengal
Total
35437
164258
187739
77
195980
265476
1037
847
3466
290
96218
2983
158946
310192
296
106274
3018
595574
36357
90611
3398031
31628
157606
178721
65
181727
241398
1012
750
2819
266
88912
2743
153479
279489
280
99768
2904
519542
33765
85263
3134189
3809
6652
9018
12
14253
24078
25
97
647
24
7306
240
5467
30703
16
6506
114
76032
2592
5348
263842
89.25
95.95
95.20
84.42
92.73
90.93
97.59
88.55
81.33
91.72
92.41
91.95
96.56
90.10
94.59
93.88
96.22
87.23
92.87
94.10
92.24
30.11.2013
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
28.02.2014
30.06.2013
30.09.2008
31.10.2012
31.12.2010
31.12.2011
30.09.2013
28.02.2014
30.06.2013
31.01.2014
31.12.2012
31.01.2014
28.02.2014
31.01.2014
28.02.2014
30.06.2013
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 Cases
%
%
%
Cases
Cases
Cases disposed-off
76731
87.0%
540908
96.8%
3134189
92.2%
since inception
Cases pending
11435
12.9%
6171
3.1%
283842
7.7%
Total cases filed since
88166
100%
632333
10%
3398031
100%
inception
ISSN : 2230-9667
Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research
9
General Management
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
Cases disposed-off since inception
Cases pending
Total cases filed since inception
No. of Cases
37,51,825
3,01,448,
40,53,276
%
92.56%
7.44%
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
General Management
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 7th February, 2015.
******
ISSN : 2230-9667
Chronicle of the Neville Wadia Institute of Management Studies & Research
11