Consumer Watch. Some cheer for the common man

Have you ever knocked at the doors of a consumer protection court? If you have, you would know that more often than not, the entire process — from filing a complaint to getting the final order — is no joy ride. Some of this could however, change if the new Consumer Protection Bill, approved by the Cabinet last month, is passed in Parliament.

So, how is the new Bill different from the existing Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that it seeks to replace?

With the introduction of a chapter on ‘Product Liability’, the Bill seeks to explain in detail what is implicit in the existing CPA, according to consumer activist Shirish Deshpande, Chairman of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat.

The chapter lists instances under which a case can be framed against a manufacturer. For instance, a manufacturer can be held liable in case of injury or death of a consumer or damage to his property as a result of a defect in manufacture, design, testing, assembly or packaging or lack of instructions on correct usage.

But there are cases relating to a defective product being used at a workplace, wherein the manufacturer may not be liable for action. So, a manufacturer would not be held responsible for any loss suffered by an employee, if instructions on usage had been provided to the employer or company head.

In tune with the times More importantly, recognising the growing number of e-commerce transactions, online purchase of goods and services too has been specifically included in the Bill. “While such transactions were covered under the Act too, the new Bill has brought them under focus,” says S Saroja of the Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, a Chennai-based non-profit citizens group.

The Bill scores over the Act on many other counts too. Once passed, it would allow aggrieved consumers the convenience of filing complaints electronically. The Bill also proposes to revise upwards the pecuniary (money-based) jurisdiction of the courts.

So, you would be allowed to file a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in your area for billed value of goods (or services) up to ₹50 lakh. Currently, the DCDRC is vested with the power to deal only with cases involving sumsof up to ₹20 lakh. Once the Bill is passed, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, one in each State, would have to be approached only if the bill value ranges between ₹50 lakh and ₹10 crore.

If the value goes beyond ₹10 crore, you must approach the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in Delhi. Under the existing Act, you have to go to the NCDRC if the bill value exceeds ₹1 crore.

The Bill proposes that a consumer be allowed to file a complaint with the DCDRC in the area where he resides. Currently, a consumer can file a complaint in the area where the company against which he is filing a case operates or where the cause of action arose.

“This can save consumers from the inconvenience of travelling over long distances,” says Shirish Deshpande.

Out-of-court remedy That apart, consumer activists also laud the proposal to set up mediation cells attached to every consumer court. This should help reduce the burden of the courts. “While this is not a completely new provision as some States have been running pilot mediation cells at State capitals, the Bill makes it official by mandating it for all consumer courts,” says S Saroja.

But, Shirish Deshpande, while agreeing that mediation cells can be good dispute resolution platforms, feels that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If one of the parties to a case is interested in dragging the case, it may choose to not accept the decision of the mediation cell. Unless both parties agree, the decision is not legally enforceable.

That apart, the problem of speedy disposal of cases still remains unaddressed.

According to Deshpande, the opposite party, which is often powerful, hires advocates because of which even the complainant is forced to hire them. This often leads to adjournments and consequent delays.

Advocates should therefore, be debarred from representing parties in simple cases.

COMMENT NOW