Role Of NCDRC In Consumer Welfare: Critical Analysis Of Landmark Judgements By- Alisha Sagar
Role Of
NDRC In Consumer Welfare: Critical Analysis Of Landmark Judgements
Authored By- Alisha Sagar
ABSTRACT
The already distressed consumers had
to go through the long and lengthy process of the Indian courts to get justice
even for very trivial matters so to provide inexpensive and speedy protection
to these consumers for any complaint, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission was set up under The Consumer Protection Act 1986.
This research paper deals with the
role of NCDRC in consumer welfare and tries to analyse whether NCDRC has been
able to achieve its goal successfully or not. This paper has first given a
brief introduction regarding the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
and The Consumer Protection Act and has then tried to identify the various
problems arising in the consumer forums and has also presented all possible
solutions to them. The paper deals with various landmark judgements in detail
and critical analysis of all the judgements. This research also analyses the
difference in the functioning of NCDRC regarding pecuniary jurisdiction after
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into being and how medical negligence as
a concept was broadened in the views of the Consumer Protection Act.
Keywords- NCDRC, Consumer Protection, Pecuniary
Jurisdiction, Medical Negligence, Solutions, etc.
INTRODUCTION
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is
a helpful social law that establishes consumer rights and makes provisions for
their promotion and protection. The first and the only Act of its kind in
India, it has made it possible for regular consumers to obtain a less expensive
and frequently quick resolution to their complaints. The Act eliminates the
adage "Buyer Beware" by defining the rights and remedies of consumers
in a market that has hitherto been dominated by organised producers, traders,
and suppliers of various goods and services. The Act mandates the creation of
Consumer Protection Councils at the Centre as well as in each State and
District in order to raise consumer awareness. The Central Council is presided
over by the Minister in Charge of the Department of Consumer Affairs in the
Central Government, while the State Councils are presided over by the Minister
in Charge of the Department of Consumer Affairs in the State Governments. It
enables the National and State Commissions and District Commissions to be
organised in a three-tiered system for quick settlement of consumer issues.
Quasi-judicial bodies known as the District Commissions, State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commissions, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission have been established in each district, state, and at the federal
level to provide inexpensive, quick, and summarily resolve consumer disputes.
The National Commission was
established in the year 1988. It is headed by a sitting or retired Judge of the
Supreme Court of India. Proceedings before the Consumer Commission are brief in
nature. While keeping in mind the Act's provisions that set forth a timeline
for case resolution, every effort is taken to provide the harmed consumer with
redress as soon as possible. Consumers can appeal to the State Commission if
they are dissatisfied with a District Commission's ruling. A consumer may
approach the National Commission in defiance of a State Commission order. The
National Commission has also been given administrative authority over all of
the State Commissions in order to assist in achieving the goals of the Consumer
Protection Act. This is done by requesting regular reports on the institution,
disposition, and status of cases.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Ø ARTICLES
E. A. Lizzy (1993) “Consumer
Redressal Agencies: How Effective? Kerala Experience”[1]
·
This
article gives a brief history of the Consumer Protection Act.
·
The
article statistically sheds light on the functioning of the forums in the state
of Kerala and critically examines the role of consumers in these redressal
machineries.
Sakuntala Narasimhan (2015) “Consumer
Protection Act: An Unequal Fight”[2]
·
The
author critically examines the state of the consumers in these consumer
disputes redressal forums
·
The
author has examined several cases and has given her insightful suggestions on
them.
Sansar Singh Janjua (2007)
“Administrative Machinery For Consumer’s Interest:
An Analytical Study”[3]
·
The
author in this article talks about ways in which different consumer interests
can be safeguarded.
·
The
author discusses in detail the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and based on the
analysis gives some suggestions that can be very helpful.
Ø BOOKS
Regulatory Theory: Foundations and
Applications by Peter Drahos[4]
·
The
author gives a brief description about the origins of consumer protection act
in countries like United States and Australia.
·
The
author also describes the various reasons for the success of consumer
protection regulations.
Consumer Protection and Sustainable
Consumption by Dr. Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan and Dr. M. Rajanikanth[5]
·
The
author gives a multidimensional analysis of the issues related to consumer
protection and sustainable consumption in the present times.
·
The
book discusses the growth of the Consumer Protection Act in India and issues
related to e-commerce, medical negligence, product liability, consumer safety
and dispensing justice to consumers with the help of alternative redressal mechanisms.
·
The
book also covers the challenges to consumerism in India, the impact of consumer
rights awareness, political consumerism, the impact of green marketing
innovations and environment-friendly packaging and the legal remedies
available.
Consumer Redressal System and Consumer Protection in India by M.C. Paul[6]
·
The
book provides and in-depth analysis of the several vital issues and highlights
pragmatic solutions for the courts to achieve the objectives of the Consumer
Protection Act.
·
The
author also discusses about various impacts of economic liberalization and
globalization.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
When a consumer approaches the
judicial system to get justice, he is made to go through a very tedious and
tiresome process. So, to provide these consumers with speedy justice system,
NCDRC was established. The commission is now itself burdened with various
complaints. It is important to find whether the commission has succeeded in
their motive.
RATIONALE OF STUDY
In the current scenario of mistreatment
of consumers, various questions are raised on the role of the Consumer
Protection Act in protecting these consumer’s rights. The purpose of this
research is to examine how effective the Consumer Protection Act and NCDRC have
been in protecting and promoting various rights of the consumers, and whether
their motto has been fulfilled or not.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology applied in this
research is doctrinal, analytical and comparative. In this research, the
primary sources of data are the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and 2019, NCDRC
web portal. The secondary sources of data include published books, journals,
articles, news releases, online journals.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1. To study the concept of medical
negligence with respect to the Consumer Protection Act of 1986.
2. To study the effects of the redressal
mechanism in the daily lives of the consumer.
3. To study the various landmark
judgements under NCDRC and know if there was any change in the consumer
behaviour.
4. To study whether the changes brought
out after the landmark cases proved to be negative or positive.
5. To find out possible ways to resolve
any problem.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Whether or not the National Consumer
Dispute Redressal Commission's main goal has been fulfilled?
2. Whether NCDRC has helped the
consumers in any way?
3. What are some measures which can be
taken to combat any issue arising in it.
4. Whether the new Consumer Protection
Act has proven to be beneficial or not.
MEANING, NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE TOPIC
Any individual who purchases products
or services in return for money and uses them for both personal use and resale
or other commercial purposes is referred to as a consumer in Section 2(7) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 2019[7].
Protecting consumers from unethical business practises is known as consumer
protection. It refers to the measures taken to safeguard consumers against
dishonest and unethical acts by merchants, manufacturers, service providers,
etc. and to provide remedies if their rights as consumers have been violated.
To address concerns relating to
abuses of consumers' rights, unfair trade practises, deceptive advertising, and
other circumstances that are harmful to consumers' rights, the Indian
government passed the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. By creating Consumer Protection
Councils to settle disputes and provide customers with adequate compensation
when their rights are violated, the Act seeks to improve the protection of
consumers' rights and interests. Additionally, through alternate dispute
resolution processes, it offers speedy and effective settlement of client
problems. In order to educate customers on their rights, obligations, and
available complaint-resolution options, the Act also supports consumer
education. NCDRC has been set up with the motive to provide inexpensive and
speedy redressal to the consumers under the Consumer Protection Act.
In regards to flaws in goods and
deficiencies in service, a written complaint may be submitted to the District
Consumer Commission for monetary values up to Rs. 50 lakhs, the State
Commission for values up to Rs. 2 crores, and the National Commission for
values greater than Rs. 2 crores. Any alleged deficiency in a service provided
without payment or pursuant to a contract of personal service, however, cannot
be the subject of a complaint. In addition to the civil lawsuit option
previously accessible to the aggrieved parties/consumers, the remedy under the
Consumer Protection Act is an additional option. A consumer is only required to
pay a small charge, not any court fees, in order to file a complaint, appeal,
or petition under the Act. The hearings before the Consumer Commission are
brief. The Act's provisions that set out a timeline for case resolution are
taken into consideration as efforts are made to provide remedies to the harmed
consumer as soon as possible. A consumer has the right to appeal a
District Commission's judgement to the State Commission if he is not satisfied
with it. A consumer may appeal to the National Commission against a State
Commission ruling.
In order to assist in achieving the
goals of the Consumer Protection Act, Administrative control over all the State Commissions has
also been given to the National Commission. The National Commission has the
power to decide on issues regarding:
1. Adopting a uniform method for the
hearing of matters.
2. Providing advance notice to the
opposing parties of copies of documents produced by one side.
3. Quick grants of document
copies.
4. Generally monitoring the operation of
the State Commissions and District Commissions to ensure that the Act's goals
are best achieved, while avoiding interfering with their quasi-judicial
autonomy.
FACTS: The National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC) made the initial decision, which was then
challenged in the Supreme Court with a legal question regarding whether
the case falls under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 and whether the petitioner
meets the definition of a consumer in that act. The situation involved medical
negligence. Minor Harjol Ahluwalia, represented by his parents Mr. and Mrs.
Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia, filed a complaint petition with the Commission for
medical negligence on the part of the appellant hospital and claimed
compensation of Rs. 28 lakhs.
ISSUE: The question of whether a medical
negligence case will be covered under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986
arises in this situation.
JUDGEMENT: The court passed its judgement
relying upon the decision made in the Whitehouse v.
Jordan[9]
case. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission determined that the
appellant hospital was liable because the resident doctor and nurse were its
employees and granted the child and parents compensation of Rs. 12.51 lakh and
Rs. 5 lakhs, respectively, for acute mental agony.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The judgement established that
medical negligence cases will fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection
Act,1986.[10]
2. The judgement helped in defining the
scope of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and additionally confirmed that the
Commission would be permitted to grant compensation to a consumer for any loss
or harm they suffered as a result of the carelessness of the other party under
Section 14(d) of the Act.
3. The case also pointed out that since
the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act, a few patients have been
successful in proving the doctor's negligence.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. VS N.K.
SRIVASTA AND ORS[11].
In this case, the Complainant drove his
pregnant wife to Sarvodaya Hospital due to a medical emergency. She gave birth
prematurely a short time after being admitted, and the complainant claims the
baby needed care in the nursery intensive care unit. For the admittance of the
child in need of immediate medical attention, the complainant and his wife were
directed to Safdarjung Hospital. Prior to the delivery, Sarvodaya Hospital had
assured the complainant that the hospital had a Nursery ICU that was completely
functional. When the complainant learned the truth, she felt duped. The infant was admitted to the
Safdarjung Hospital in the general ward before being transferred to the general
ICU rather than the nursery ICU. The baby passed away after some time. The
complainant filed a complaint before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum-?,
New Delhi in which she demanded compensation from Sarvodaya Hospital and
Safdarjung Hospital. The District Forum dismissed the aforementioned complaint
and determined that Sarvodaya Hospital had not made any factual
misrepresentations and that it has a separate Nursery and ICU facility.
Safdarjung Hospital cannot be sued because the care was provided without
charge. Dissatisfied with the District Forum's ruling, the complainant filed an
appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The State
Commission found Sarvodaya Hospital liable for medical malpractice and awarded
damages. Despite the fact that the State Commission had determined Safdarjung
Hospital to have engaged in negligence, the complaint against the hospital was
dismissed because care was given without charge. Sarvodaya Hospital filed a
revision application with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
in opposition to the State Commission's ruling. The National Commission
concluded as much in a judgement and found no evidence of medical negligence on
the part of Sarvodaya Hospital. With the complainant's permission, the patient
was also directed to a specialised institution. Medical negligence was
found to have occurred at the Safdarjung Hospital, and it was ordered to
pay damages. Through the Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
and Safdarjung Hospital, the Union of India appealed the National Commission's
decision to the Honourable Supreme Court. Referring to the definition of
service under section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, the
Hon. Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's decision on the grounds
that the claim's amount was too low to call for the intervention of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. In accordance with the National Commission's
ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
M/S PYARIDEVI CHABIRAJ STEELS PVT.
LTD. VS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND 3ORS[12]
According to the case's facts, the
complainant purchased insurance coverage from National Insurance Company
Limited on June 2, 2016, under the company's Standard Fire and Special Perils
Policy. The complainant also paid a charge for an additional security coverage.
The complainant claims that Howrah Region, where the complainant's factory
premises are located, was adversely affected by heavy rain, a storm, and river
floods, resulting in widespread water logging of Howrah Region for several
days. Buildings, plants, machinery, and stock belonging to the complainant all
sustained significant damage as a result of flood water. For the purpose of
paying the loss experienced by calculating it, the Complainant informed the
National Insurance Company Limited of the incident. After exchanging letters
and speaking in person, Opposing Party No. 1, National Insurance Company
Limited, denied the complainant’s claim in a letter. The Act of 1986 required
that the value of the products or services and any compensation demanded be considered
while determining the pecuniary jurisdiction. This means that in order to
determine whether the National Commission has jurisdiction, the value of the
products or services, as well as the compensation, must be added. This
legislation was established in the case of Ambrish
Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.[13]
by a three-member bench of this Commission. The Act of 1986 stated that for
assessing the pecuniary jurisdiction, "the worth of the products or
services and the compensation demanded" were taken into account. It
appears that the Parliament was aware of this fact when it passed the Act of
2019 and made sure that when a consumer approaches the appropriate Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission—whether it is district-level, state-level, or
national—only the value of the consideration paid should be taken into account
when determining the pecuniary jurisdiction, not the value of the goods or
services and compensation.
SIMILAR CASES
In the very recent case of Rohit Kumar Sahu v. M/S. Pioneer Urban Land[14],
the complainants requested 18% annual interest starting from the due date
on the deposited sum until the owner takes physical ownership. Additionally,
the complainants had requested Rs. 50,000 as Compensation for emotional
suffering. These calculations easily exceed one crore rupees; as a result, the
NCDRC has jurisdiction over the case on that basis. It's interesting that the
court only granted 4% interest per year after hearing from both parties. The
court issued the compensation sum in accordance with the provisions of the
contract. Clearly there was a big margin between what Complainant had claimed
and what the court decided after the trial.
The landmark Ambrish Kumar Shukla
case established the standards for identifying pecuniary jurisdictions and
clarified the position of consumer courts on pecuniary jurisdiction, notably
pecuniary jurisdiction of the national commission. The Court made the following
observations: “It’s the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if
any, claimed which determines the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Consumer
Forum.”[15]
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The judgement of the case removed the
“compensation” element that was earlier considered as a factor in deciding the
forum. But the judgement has raised many issues like the District Commission
would be overburdened and the latest pecuniary jurisdiction does not qualify
the test of Principle of Proportionality and violates the rights guaranteed
under article 14.
2. This would result in substandard
justice delivery for the consumers. The NCDRC could have given a liberal
construction to the new Act of 2019, but they didn’t.
NEENA ANEJA V. JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES
LTD[16]
FACTS: July 20, 2020, the new consumer
protection law (2019 Act) was notified it was held that only such cases filed
on or after this day should be handled in conformity with the new law, and the
1986 Act will be used to settle the older cases. In accordance with the amount
of money at stake in the case, pending cases were also moved from national
commissions to state consumer commissions and from state consumer
commissions to district forums when the new law was notified.
ISSUE: Whether the Consumer Protection
Statute of 2019's modified pecuniary jurisdiction applied to all claims filed
in accordance with the 1986 act, i.e., the old law, necessitating a change of
forum in accordance with the new law.
JUDGEMENT: The court relied on the ruling
in Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v. Amria Zurana
Percira Pinto[17], in which the apex court determined that even while the right to
appeal was a substantive right, it would not be impacted by the repealing
legislation unless it was specifically removed. Additionally, it cited the
New India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Smt. Shanti Misra[18] case, in which it was determined that the general rule in situations
involving a simple change of forum operates retrospectively and that
the plaintiff possessed a vested right of action but not a vested right of
forum. The bench decided that the petition
had merit and overturned the national commission's directive to transfer any
cases already filed under the 1986 Act to the appropriate fora under the 2019
Act's new pecuniary jurisdiction. The top court ruled that such a
transfer must not occur and that the old cases must instead be adjudicated by
the consumer court in accordance with the authority established under the
previous legislation.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs
HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD [19]
FACTS: On August 29, 1990, Hindustan Safety
Glass Works Ltd. purchased two insurance policies from the appellant National
Insurance Company. The initial policy was for 4.9 lakh rupees, while the
subsequent one was for 5.7 crore. Following a period of intense rain in Calcutta, rainwater
accumulated both inside and outside the plant, causing a significant loss. As a
result, the insured filed claims on the 7th and 8th of August 1992 for about
Rs. 52 lakhs. The
insured decreased the damage to roughly Rs. 24 lakhs, but the National
Insurance received nothing.
JUDGEMENT: In this landmark judgement, the
Supreme Court ruled that when there is a dispute involving a consumer, the
court must take a compelling stance in favour of the consumer's rights
primarily because they are the ones who suffer when compared to the provider of
goods or services. The
Consumer Protection Act of 1986's principal objective was to safeguard
consumers, and the Apex Court's ruling upholds that spirit. It prohibits the
practical limitations in the Act from being read in a way that disadvantages
consumers and deprives them of their legal rights. The aforementioned ruling by
the Supreme Court gives customers great certainty that big businesses won't be
able to take advantage of the statute of limitations. If a consumer can demonstrate that
the service provider or business was to blame for the delay, they may register
a complaint even after the two-year period has passed since the date their
rights were violated.
CHARAN SINGH Vs. HEALING TOUCH
HOSPITALS AND ORS.[20]
FACTS: In this case, the appellant Charan
Singh visited Healing Touch Hospital for treatment of a stomach ache and a
burning feeling while urinating. Dr. Juneja made a diagnosis, hospitalised the
patient, and requested that he have surgery to have a stone removed from his
body. Charan found out that one of his kidneys were removed. Charan Singh complained to the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and requested Rs. 34 lakhs in
damages for his medical expenses, lost wages due to his paralysis, and compensation
for the state of body he was forced to enter. He also requested compensation
for the illegal removal of his kidney without consent. The National Commission denied the
allegation after investigating the remuneration of Charan Singh and advised the
attorney to file a case with the District Forum or State Commission instead.
His assertion was rejected by
National Commission as being implausible and overblown.
ISSUE: Whether dismissal of the case by
National Commission was the right decision?
JUDGEMENT: According to Supreme court, the
District Forum or the State Commission have a specific jurisdictional limit,
however the National Commission has no financial jurisdictional boundaries in
issuing compensations outside of its domains. Therefore, in the current case,
the court believes that the National Commission should have, rather than
dismissing the claim as unreasonable, brought the case to a proper conclusion
after conducting the proceedings for six years. In order to avoid dragging out
cases for years—in this case, six years—the Supreme Court ordered the National
Commission to operate in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act's goal of
swiftly resolving consumer complaints. The National Commission's order was to
be thrown aside as a result of the court allowing the appellant's appeal.
GURSHINDER SINGH Vs. SHRIRAM GENERAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD.[21]
FACTS: In this case, the appellant had
the respondent insure his tractor. After a few years, the tractor was
stolen, and FIR was filed. The claim was denied because the notification
was given after 52 days. In order to avoid paying interest at the rate of
12% per year from the date of the order until payment, the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum ordered the respondents to pay the complainant a sum
totalling Rs. 4,70,000/—the declared insured value of the vehicle—within one
month of the date on which they received a copy of the order. If this was not
done, the respondents would be held responsible. The respondent addressed
the Supreme Court after feeling vindicated by the dismissal of the appeal by
the State Commission and the National Commission.
ISSUE: Whether dismissal of
the case by State and National Commission was the right decision?
JUDGEMENT: The court referred the judgements of
two similar cases - Oriental Insurance Company V/S Parvesh Chander Chadha[22]
and Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance and ors.[23],
in the latter case, although the vehicle theft was reported to the police the
day after it happened, the intimation of the claim was submitted to the
insurance provider considerably later. The Court held that if the claimant's
claim is denied merely on the basis that there was some delay in notifying the
insurance company about the occurrence of the theft, it would be adopting a
hyper-technical viewpoint. The Court took the position that a delay in
notifying the insurance company would not prevent the insured from receiving
the insurance claim. Rejecting sincere statements that the investigator had
already confirmed and determined to be true would not be just or reasonable.
The Supreme Court ruled that
the insured cannot have their claim denied for lack of timely notification of
the theft to the insurance company.
MALKA TARANNUM V. DR. C. P. GUPTA[24]
The District Forum agreed with the
complainant's assertion that the initial plaster cast application on the
complainant's daughter's broken hand was careless and required the placement of
a second cast. The State Commission dismissed the complaint after rejecting the
appeal and concluding that the complainant was not a customer because he had
not been charged a fee for the treatment. The National Commission concluded
that the application of the plaster a second time did not signify medical
negligence on the first occasion because putting a POP slab was a typical
procedure carried out in the first instance whenever there was swelling at the
site of the injury. The complaint could not challenge the doctor's professional
judgement solely on a simple claim and without any expert proof, the Commission
noted that the doctor who placed the plaster in the first instance was
a specialist with substantial expertise, according to the Supreme Court's
ruling in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another[25].
It was decided that no evidence was produced before the Fora by the
complainant.
K. A. BHANDULA AND ANOTHER V.
INDRAPRASTHA APOLLO HOSPITAL AND ORS.[26]
After 11 years in court, an army
commander successfully sued a Delhi hospital for medical negligence for failed
medical exams and received a compensation of Rs 3 lakh. Bhandula visited Indraprastha Apollo
Hospital in 1997 with a nasal problem that was later diagnosed as cancer
by a different hospital. His biopsy samples were lost by the hospital's ear,
nose, and throat department. Apollo, its chairman, and senior ENT
specialist Dr. B.M. Abrol were found guilty of medical negligence by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The need for a second biopsy was not disclosed to the
patient. The committee found Dr. Abrol guilty of falsifying records to
demonstrate that he had actually suggested a second biopsy. Using the Apex Court's ruling in Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Others[27],
the Commission ruled that the other allegation—that the consultant doctor
failed to observe the proper standards of care required of a surgeon of
ordinary skill in fully disclosing to the complainant the most likely
consequences of the recommended surgery and the available alternatives—was
proven. As a result, the Commission decided to award compensation.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
1. The 2019 Act, which replaces the
1986 Act, proposes to broaden the range of complaints consumers can make and to
simplify the procedure for submitting them to several commissions at the
district, state, and federal levels.
2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction:
The NCDRC in their judgements could
have investigated the pecuniary jurisdiction matter and could have made it a
little liberal, but they chose to ignore this matter and make the justice
delivery system inadequate for the District forums.
3. The District Administration, including the
District Collector and other concerned authorities, plays a significant role in
the process of carrying out directives under the 1986 Act, which leaves
consumer forums and commissions with no authority to enforce orders and they
are reliant on the District Administration to do so.
4. The commission may issue the
complainant a favourable ruling in a timely manner but carrying out that order
is a challenging and time-consuming process because the District Administration
is already overburdened with other responsibilities
5. The NCDRC has dismissed many valid
complaints and has given substandard judgements despite carrying out the
proceedings for years, which were later ruled out by the apex court.
6. In a lot of the judgements, the
consumer got justice after going through years of lengthy proceedings. This
just defies the main purpose of the NCRDC.
7. The 2019 Act falls short of improving
how the Consumer Commission carries out its orders.
8. The 2019 Act still doesn't have any
regulations governing the hiring of personnel or officers to carry out or
execute orders issued by the Commissions, which is a holdover from the 1986
Act.
9. The only good thing about the 2019
Act is that consumer commissions now have a little bit more power. The
Commissions now have the authority to place non-compliant individuals in civil
jails and to seize their real estate, agricultural products, and other
property. Even though a Commission's order is regarded as a civil court
judgement, its enforcement still primarily relies on the District
Administration and the rules of traditional court systems.
10. The primary issue with the existing
system is not how complaints and disputes are resolved or what decisions are
made; rather, it is how those decisions are carried out and how the harmed
party is allowed to benefit from the decisions made in their favour.
11. Consumer Commissions may become less
accessible and lose their ability to serve their intended purpose if consumer
litigation procedures become more complicated and resemble standard court
procedures.
POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS
The NCDRC could examine previous
judgements and can find out some problems that they can fix them to make the
justice process more convenient for the consumers. The complaints that come
before the NCDRC should be examined carefully before dismissing them because
many a times those dismissed complaints were of very important matters and the
apex court had to give judgements in these matters condoning the NCDRC. The
commission should try to improve their process of justice delivery to provide
quick and inexpensive justice to the aggrieved consumers. The process for carrying out the
Commissions' orders ought to be streamlined to reduce reliance on and
communication with the District Administration. To make the Consumer Protection
Act of 2019's execution process more efficient, specific guidelines must be
developed.
The nomination of personnel and
officers at each Commission is a responsibility of both the state and federal
governments. These Officers ought to be given duties and authority to carry out
the directives in a timely way. The infrastructure and capacity for the
Commissions at all levels need to be improved, particularly in urban areas and
at the District level, where the majority of consumer complaints are
accumulated.
CONCLUSION
The Act has aided consumers in
obtaining safety and respect. The roles and responsibilities that are to be followed by both the seller
and the buyer are clearly outlined in a number of landmark judgements that
have been made at various levels of forums. The act has succeeded in upholding
its motto of giving consumers their fundamental protection rights and
swift redressal for complaints. The consumers' voices can now be raised if
they feel betrayed in any way. This act has significantly improved the market, and as a result,
consumers now feel secure while buying any product. It was a wise choice to
establish an independent agency to handle issues relating to consumers.
Customers feel more secure as a result. This act and the speedy redressal system provided by the
Consumer Protection Act of 1986 [28]has nearly
completely eradicated consumer abuse and dispelled consumer scepticism. But
sometimes the consumers are taken advantage of by the seller or manufacturer
despite the efforts of consumer associations and government legislation.
Therefore, raising consumer awareness is crucial for the success of the
consumer protection movement.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ø BOOKS
·
Peter
Drahos- Regulatory Theory: Foundations and Applications, OAPEN Library, ANU
Press, 2017, ISBN no.-1760461016
·
Dr.
Sarfaraz Ahmed Khan and Dr. M. Rajanikanth- Consumer Protection and Sustainable
Consumption, Thomson Reuters, 2021, ISBN 10: 9390529107
·
M.C.
Paul- Consumer Redressal System and Consumer Protection in India, Gyan books,
2015, ISBN 13: 9789351280941
Ø CASE LAWS
·
Springs
Meadows Hospital Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia [(1998) 4 SCC 39]
·
Whitehouse
v. Jordan [1981] 1 All ER 267
·
Union
of India and Ors. Vs. N. K. Srivasta and Ors. [2020] SC 636
·
M/S
Pyaridevi Chariraj Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and 3
ors. [2020] 833
·
Ambrish
Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 1117
·
Rohit
Kumar Sahu v. M/S. Pioneer Urban Land [2016] 835
·
Neena
Aneja Vs. Jai Prakash Associates Ltd. [2020] 3766-3767
·
Maria
Cristina De Souza Sodder v. Amria Zurana Percira Pinto [ (1979) 1 SCC 92]
·
New
India Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Smt. Shanti Misra [1976] 2 SCR 266
·
National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd. [ (2017) 5 SCC 776]
·
Charan
Singh Vs Healing Touch Hospitals and ors. [ 2003 (III(2003) CPJ 62 (NC))]
·
Gurshinder
Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. [2020] 653
·
Oriental
Insurance Company V/S Parvesh Chander Chadha [2018] 9 SCC 798
·
Om
Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance and ors [2018] 9 SCC 798
·
Malka
Tarannum Vs. Dr. C.P. Gupta [2005] 1790
·
Jacob
Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another [2004] 144-145
·
K.
A. Bhandula and another Vs Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and ors. [III (2009)
CPJ 164 (NC)].
·
Samira
Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda and Others [2004] 1949
Ø ARTICLES
·
E.
A. Lizzy “Consumer Redressal Agencies: How Effective? Kerala Experience”
Economic and Political Weekly no. Vol. 28, No. 32 /33 (1993) ISSN no.-
2349-8846 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4400018
·
Sakuntala
Narasimhan “Consumer Protection Act: An Unequal Fight” Economic and Political
Weekly, Vol.50, No.5 (2015) ISSN no.- 2349-8846
https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481327
·
Sansar
Singh Janjua “Administrative Machinery for Consumer’s Interest: An Analytical
Study” The Indian Journal of Political Science Vol.68, No.3 (2007) ISSN no.-
0019-5510 https://www.jstor.org/stable/41856352
[12] M/S Pyaridevi Chariraj Steels Pvt.
Ltd. Vs National Insurance Company Ltd. and 3 Ors, [2020] 833
[15] According to the Judge in Ambrish
Kumar Shukla & Ors. vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. [ [2016]
SCC 1117]