In an ideally free market where there are a large number of buyers and sellers, other things being equal, the consumer is the king as he has the choice to buy goods of the quality he desires at a competitive price. However, various factors obstruct and inhibit the existence of such a free market and hence the consumer is at the mercy of the trader and the manufacturer. Rigging prices by creating artificial scarcity is a method adopted by traders to make undue profits in short periods at the expense of the consumer. Other methods adopted by the trader or the manufacturer include false representations about the quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model of the goods offered for sale and false promises to the effect that the trader/supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which he does not have, false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of any goods or services and in giving to the public any warranty or guarantee for the performance, efficacy or the length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on any adequate or proper test thereof and making the consumer buy, sell, hire or avail of any goods or services as a condition precedent for buying, hiring or availing of any goods or services could also be his ploys. By all these unfair or restrictive trade practices, the trader/manufacturer stands to gain at the expense of the consumer.
In order to safeguard the interest of the consumer, Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1988. However, it was not the first such legislation to protect the rights of the consumer. Specific provisions already existing in various enactments that safeguard the interest of the consumer are: The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sale of Goods Act, 1930, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1950 and The Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
However, it must be noted that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the other laws.
Notwithstanding the existence of these enactments, the consumer has been getting prompt remedies in cases where his rights have been infringed upon. This has been mainly due to the cumbersome administrative procedures in implementing these legislations and the delays in the existing judicial system. Consequently, even when the offenders are prosecuted, litigations prolong endlessly and in the process the offenders go scot free due to lack of clinching evidence, loss of vital documentary evidence on which the courts can rely before pronouncing their judgment.
Prior to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act of 1969 dealt with cases of restrictive trade practices indulged in by trader/manufacturer. By the amendment of 1984, the MRTP Commission was empowered to award compensation and issue interim injunctions in suitable cases.
According to the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer has been defined as any person who buys goods or hires services for consideration. A complaint means any written allegation that a trader is indulging in unfair or restrictive trade practices or the goods purchased suffer from deficiency. If the price charged is more than what has been legally fixed or hazardous goods are being offered for sale, the consumer can file a complaint too.
To provide speedy and inexpensive justice, quasi-judicial redressal agencies have been set up to adjudicate consumer disputes at the district , state and national levels. The District Forum tries cases up to Rs. 5 lakh, the State Forum between 5 lakhs and 20 lakhs and the National Forum, cases involving more than Rs. 20 lakh.
Besides, appeals from the decisions of the District Forum go to the State Forum and those from the State Forum go to the National Commission. Appeals against the decisions of the National Commission can be heard only by the Supreme Court. The District Forums and the State Forums are under the administrative control of the respective State Governments. Since these courts function at the district level, complainants are not put to much inconvenience in filing the complaints and following them up or to their logical conclusion.
Cases filed by the complainants are decided on the affidavits filed by them. Evidence can also be led by a party to the dispute. However, the lengthy procedures adopted by the civil courts are not normally prevalent in these forums as the complainants themselves, who are laymen, appear before the forums and present their cases without the need to employ lawyers. Except for the President in the District and State Forums who are district or High Court judges, the rest of the members are drawn mainly from persons having a background in economics, law, commerce, industry and public affairs. They are thus better equipped to understand the problems of the consumer. The remedies normally granted in these forums are to remove/replace the defects or defective goods; return to the complainant the price or charges paid by them; award compensation for loss or injury suffered by the consumer; discontinue any unfair trade practice indulged in by the trader; and award costs to parties.
The forum does not have power to pass interim orders by way of injunctions. Though the framers of this piece of legislation hoped that the consumer would find a quick and speedy justice in these forums, the average time for disposal of a case ranges from 2 to 3 years. The reasons for such delays are not far to seek. Firstly, many of these District/State Forums do not have the full complement of members for long periods as the vacancies are not filled up on a regular basis. Secondly, these courts are not given due secretarial/assistance - many times even proper accommodation is not provided to house these forums.
Considering the large number of cases which are already pending disposal and the continuous flow of cases due to increased awareness of consumers as to their rights, there is need to establish more such forums in the various States and Union territories.
The State Government are mostly involved in the effective functioning of these forums, but it seems they are not bestowing sufficient attention. Unless remedial steps are taken to meet these shortcomings, this legislation would remain just as one more on the statute book.