Consumer are important investor in every economy and his satisfaction for product purchased and services should be treated at par with other civil rights. This will also require focus on the consumer court infrastructure, judicial appointment and their ability to resolve disputes. The top court of the country today expressed displeasure as captured in major newspaper headlines over delay in appointments in the Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Supreme Court on Friday said if the government does not want the tribunals then it should abolish the Consumer Protection Act.
A bench comprising Hon’ble Justices Sanjay Kishen Kaul and M M Sundresh said as quoted in leading nationals.
“If the government does not want the tribunals then abolish the Act… We are stretching our jurisdiction to see the vacancies are filled in. Normally we should not spend time on this and the posts should be filled. Unfortunately, the judiciary is called upon to see that these posts are manned. This is not a very happy situation,” the bench said.
The top court was hearing a suo motu case on the inaction of the governments in appointing president and members/staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India.
The apex court in its order directed that the process of filling up vacancies in the State Consumer Commissions as per its earlier directions must not be impeded by the judgement of the Bombay High Court which had quashed certain Consumer Protection Rules.
As the hearing commenced, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, apprised the court about judgement passed by the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench quashing certain Consumer Protection Rules. He said the Centre introduced the Tribunal Reforms Act in violation of the apex court judgement in the Madras Bar Association case.
Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing for the Centre, said the government is in the process of filing an appeal against the Bombay high court order which quashed certain provisions of Consumer Protection Rules. He told the bench that the Tribunal Reforms Act introduced by the Centre was not in contravention rather it was in consonance with the Madras Bar Association judgement of the apex court.
The ASG submitted that there is no breach of the judgement of the top court and principles of Madras Bar have been duly incorporated.
The apex court also directed the states to submit data in a prescribed form within one week failing which the concerned secretary has to remain present before it.
Consumer courts have a three-tier structure, like general courts. At the lowest level, there are district courts, called ‘district consumer forums’. At the middle level, there are state courts (equivalent to the High Court in civil courts). They are called ‘state consumer disputes redressal commission’ (SCDRC), and each state and union territory has one. At the top, there is the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission,
Justice Sundresh said:
“We need to have a permanent structure like the permanent court. The time has come for us to have a permanent court for consumer court and have judges as we select it for district and higher judiciary.
“We need to look at it from a different perspective. We have to rethink if we go on with an ad hoc continuance of members for 5 years etc, Justice Sundresh said.
The judge said, “What is the point of having a retired judicial officer?
“What is the motivation level for him and what will be his mindset? How do you fix accountability? Is it required for the development of the institution,” the judge said.
It’s ironical. Consumer courts were conceived, 25 years ago, in 1986, as a dedicated and speedier alternative to civil courts, but they have come to resemble the latter. “The same ills have crept into the system,” was one of the observations published in Times of India in an article Are consumer courts really serving the consumers? by Suresh Misra, professor & chairman, Centre for Consumer Studies, Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) published in 2011. The Consumer Protection Act underwent an amendment however, the gaps were the center of the petition.
The top court had in January said that Consumer rights are “important rights” and non-manning of posts and inadequate infrastructure in the district and state consumer commissions across the country would deprive the citizens of redressal of their grievances.
The top court had appointed senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan and lawyer Aaditya Narain as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter.
Image source: Nai duniya
