LAW MANTRATHINK BEYOND OTHERS (National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321-6417)

A Critical analysis of working of Consumer Protection Law in redressing consumer disputes with special reference to Jammu and Kashmir

Rajneesh Khajuria* Consumerism is humanism and humanism is consumerism

Justice Krishna Iyar

The Constitution of India provides for socio-economic justice in which consumer protection is also included. The Indian parliament passed a number of enactments for protecting the interests of the consumers but they failed to do so as the procedures under these enactments was time consuming and expensive. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution No.39/248 on 9 April 1985 and adopted guidelines relating to consumer protection which further provide a framework for the governments of developing countries to formulate consumer protection policies and legislations. After passing of the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection, 1985, the concern for consumer protection and a better quality of life became serious concern in India and culminated in the enactment of the most significant piece of legislation by the Indian Parliament i.e., The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act provided for unified and effective machinery for redressal of consumers grievances and speedy and simple redressal mechanism for consumer disputes. On similar lines with the central legislation, the Jammu and Kashmir State legislature also enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 which also provides for redressal mechanism for consumers disputes. In the present article an attempt has been made to critically analyze the working of redressal mechanism for consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection law in India as well as in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Key words: Consumer, Consumer protection, Redressal mechanism.

I Introduction

The Present society can be said as Consumer oriented society, Consumerism as emerged,

developed and came to be incorporated in legal systems across the World to stall and dismantle

those practices, is not merely an ideology or philosophy but it has a pragmatic and realistic

connotation. Law as an institution of Justice ought to do justice to people in an organised

political legal order. Municipal legal orders hence are required to be suitably modified to make

them more functional and people/ justice oriented1. Consumerism is a process through which the

*Rajneesh Khajuria, Assistant Prof., The Law School, University of Jammu (180006).

consumers seek redress, restitution and remedy for their dissatisfaction and frustration with the

help of their all organised or unorganised efforts and activities. It is a social movement seeking

to protect the rights of consumers in relation to the producers of goods and providers of services.

In-fact consumerism today is an all-pervasive term meaning nothing more than peoples search

for getting better value for their money. Consumers consciousness determines the effectiveness

of consumerism. It is the duty of the consumer to identify his rights and to protect them.

Modern technological developments have no doubt made a great impact on the quality,

availability and safety of goods and services. But the fact of life is that the consumers are still

victims of unscrupulous and exploitative practices. Exploitation of consumers assumes numerous

forms such as adulteration of food, spurious drugs, dubious hire purchase plans, high prices, poor

quality, deficient services, deceptive advertisements, hazardous products, black marketing and

many more. In addition, with revolution in information technology newer kinds of challenges are

thrown on the consumer like cyber crimes, plastic money etc., which affect the consumer in even

bigger way. Consumer is sovereign and customer is the king are nothing more than myths in

the present scenario particularly in the developing societies. However, it has been realized and

rightly so that the Consumer protection is a socio- economic programme to be persued by the

government as well as the business as the satisfaction of the consumers is in the interest of both.

In this context, the government, however, has a primary responsibility to protect the consumers

interests and rights through appropriate policy measures, legal structure and administrative

framework2.

II Consumer Protection: International Scenario

In the history of the development of consumer policy, April 9, 1985 is a very significant date for

it was on that day that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a set of general

guidelines3 for consumer protection and the Secretary General of the United Nations was

authorised to persuade member countries to adopt these guidelines through policy changes or

1Ukey Dilip and S.R. Bhosale, Consumerism in India- Dilemma and Dynamism, INDIAN BAR REVIEW, Vol. 29(3&4),133-134 (2002). 2 S.S.Singh andSapna Chadha, Consumer Protection in India some reflections, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION retrieved on 23rd May 2014 from http://consumereducation.in/publications/1_consumer_protection_%20in_india.pdf 3 General Assembly Resolution 39/ 85

law. These guidelines constitute a comprehensive policy framework outlining what governments

need to do to promote consumer protection in following seven areas:

a) Physical safety;

b) Protection and Promotion of the consumer economic interest;

c) Standards for the safety and quality of consumer goods and services; d) Distribution facilities for consumer goods and services;

e) Measures enabling consumers to obtain redress;

f) Measures relating to specific areas (food, water and pharmaceuticals) and g) Consumer education and information programme.

Though not legally binding, the guidelines provide an internationally recognised set of basic

objectives particularly for governments of developing and newly independent countries for

structuring and strengthening their consumer protection policies and legislations. These

guidelines were adopted recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in economic terms,

educational levels and bargaining power and bearing in mind that consumers should have the

right of access to non hazardous products as well as the importance of promoting just, equitable

and sustainable economic and social development.

III Consumer Protection: National Perspective

With the adoption of the Constitution in 1949, the aspirations of the people of India found an

explicit expression in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State

Policy. Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India ensure the socio- economic justice for all

Indian citizens by seeking to introduce a socialistic pattern of society4. India has turned a new

leaf in its quest for development by enunciating new economic policy. In a highly centralized

economic system, protection of consumers interest is the responsibility of the state. To give

effect to liberalization policy, the government has taken legislative and administrative steps to

ensure that the interests of the consumers are watched and protected5.

In the wake of its legislative action the government of India has enacted much legislation to

protect the interests of the consumers like The Food Adulteration Act, 1954, The Essential

Commodities Act, 1955, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, The

Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, The Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986 and

4 The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 (w.e.f. 3 Jan, 1977). 5 D.N. SARAF, LAW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION IN INDIA, 1-4 (1995).

many more. But these enactments were not adequate as they were scattered and did not provide

for unified and effective machinery for the redressal of the grievances of the consumers.

Realizing the need for a comprehensive legislation which could provide not only protection of

consumers interest but also create a unified enforcement mechanism and Fora to redress their

grievances, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted. The Act of 1986 came into force

with effect from 1 July 1987 in whole of India except state of Jammu and Kashmir and is

regarded as Magna Carta in the field of consumer protection for checking the unfair trade

practices and defect in goods and deficiencies in services6.

The Act is a milestone in the history of socio-economic legislations in India and has considerably

improved the process of consumer protection. It has given rise, during the past few decades, to

new consumer jurisprudence in India. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta7, the

Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 attempts to remove the helplessness

of a consumer which he faces against the powerful businesses, described as a network of

rackets and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction. The

enactment of this law in these circumstances appears to be a silver lining which may in the

course of time succeed in checking the rot. The Consumer Protection Act provides for legal

framework for the protection of the rights and interests and to accord socio-economic justice to

people of Indian Republic8. Through the enactment of this statute, an attempt has been made by

the Indian Parliament to provide a speedy and cheap remedy by way of an alternative to the time

consuming and expensive process of civil litigation9.

The Act provides for the establishment of the Consumer Protection Councils at the National,

State and District levels. The objectives of these councils are to help the respective governments

in adopting and reviewing policies for promoting and protecting the rights of the consumers. The

composition of these consumer councils are broad based. The citizens and organisations

representing different interest groups having implications for consumers rights protection are

members of these councils. One may like to add, that the Consumer Councils are required to be

constituted on public-private partnership basis for better feedback and thereby review of the 6 J.N BAROWALIA, COMMENTARIES ON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, 13-15(2000). 7 AIR 1994 SC 787 (790). 8 Hans Raj Arora and Avinash Dhamir, Consumer Relief for the Consumer in Grief, PUNJABI UNIVERSITY LAW JOURNAL, Vol. II, 236 (2008). 9 S.K .Abdul Sarkar v. State of Orissa, CPJ II (1991).

policy in the area of consumers rights protection. The main objective of these councils is to

promote and protect rights and interests of consumers in the society. It also provides for

Consumer Disputes Redressal Adjudicatory bodies established at three levels i.e. District level,

State level and National level respectively.

i. Redressal Mechanism under the National legislation

The Act of 1986 provide for quasi-judicial machinery for the redressal of consumer disputes.

These quasi judicial bodies have to observe the principles of natural justice and have been

empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award appropriate compensation to the

consumers. Chapter III of the Act is the soul of Consumer Protection Act and came into force on

1 July 1987 in whole of India except state of J&K. This part of the Act deals with

a) the establishment of three tier Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies namely the

District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission10.

b) Composition of District Forum11,the State Commission12, and the National

Commission13 and

c) the jurisdiction of the District Forum14, the State Commission15, and the National

Commission16, respectively.

According to Section 9(a), every state government is required to set up a District Forum in each

of its districts. Prior to 1993, it was mandatory for every state government to seek prior approval

of the Central Government before setting up any District Forum. However, this requirement has

been dispensed with by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 with a view to avoid

procedural delays in the approval seeking process.

ii Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora

10 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 9. 11 Ibid., Section10. 12 Ibid., Section 16. 13 Ibid., Section20. 14 Ibid., Section11. 15 Ibid., Section 17. 16 Ibid., Section 21.

Originally, under the Act of 1986, a complaint can be filed in the District Forum if the

value of the goods or the services rendered and the compensation asked for does not exceed

rupees one lakhs whereas the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if

the value of the goods or the services is more than rupees one lakhs but less than rupees ten lakhs

and if such value exceeds rupees ten lakhs then complaint is to be filed in the National

Commission. By the Amendment Act of 1993 the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer Fora was

enhanced to rupees five lakhs for District Forum, five to twenty lakhs for State Commission and

more than twenty lakhs for National Commission. The Consumer Protection Act was

subsequently amended by the Amendment Act of 2002 which came into force in 2003. It has

virtually overhauled the structure of the Act17. The Contemporary position as to the pecuniary

jurisdiction of the Redressal Fora is that a complaint can be filed in the District Forum if the

value of the goods or the services rendered and the compensation asked for does not exceed

rupees twenty lakhs18whereas the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint

if the value of the goods or the services is more than rupees twenty lakhs but less than rupees one

crore19 and if such value exceeds rupees one crore then complaint is to be filed in the National

Commission20.

iii. Provision of Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act

Provisions for the appeals have been extensively laid down in the Consumer Protection

Act, 1986. Appeal against the decision of the District Forum can be filed in State Commission

within a period of 30 days21 and against the decision of the State Commission in the National

Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of decision22. The Supreme Court has

jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the decision of the National Commission within a period

of 30 days from the date of decision23. The proviso to Section 15 provides that the State

Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that there

was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period. Thus, the period of

17 AVTAR SINGH, LAW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION (PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE), v (2005). 18 Supra note 8, Section 11. 19 Ibid., Section 17 20 Ibid., Section 21. 21 Ibid., Section 15. 22 Ibid., Section 19. 23 Ibid., Section 23.

limitation can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown. However, it must be remembered

that for condonation each days delay must be satisfactorily explained. Ignorance of law and in

particular, of the provisions of the limitation can possibly provide no excuse and cannot be a

valid ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal24.The mandatory rules laid under the

Consumer Protection Rules are to be complied with for filing an appeal under Section 15 of the

Act.

iv. Provision as to period of Limitation

In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there was no provision incorporating the period of

limitation for filing complaints before the District Forum, the State Commission and the National

Commission. The period of limitation was to be governed under the Indian limitation Act, 1963.

But by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993, a new Section, 24-A was inserted

whereby the limitation period has been laid down for filing a complaint before the Redressal

Fora. As per Section 24-A , a consumer can file a complaint before the District Forum, the State

Commission or the National Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of

action had arisen. As the proceedings before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies cannot

be described as suit, as such the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act could not be

strictly applied. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act is considerably different from

Section 3 of the Limitation Act which does not admit of any exception, while in the proviso to

Section 24-A of the Act25, there is scope for condonation of delay.

In considering the question of limitation, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies has to

deal with

a) the question as to what are the facts which constitute the cause of action for the

complainant to file the complaint,

b) the question as to the date on which the cause of action to file complaint has arisen, c) whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation of two years from the

date the cause of action and

24 Wheels world v. Dr. (Smt.) Janak Narendra, CPJ II (1991) 557. 25 Hereinafter to be referred to as Consumer Protection Act,1986.

d) if there is delay in filing the complaint, whether an application for condonation of delay

has been filed and whether sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the

period of limitation is made out.

However, the proviso to Section 24-A lays down that no complaint shall be entertained by the

District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission after a period of two years

from the date of accrual of cause of action unless the concerned Forum records its reasons for

condoning the delay. This means that the application for the condonation of delay in filing the

complaint should be decided first by stating the reasons for allowing the application and only

after the application is allowed, the complaint can be entertained by the concerned forum.

v. Enforcement of the orders of consumer dispute redressal agencies

The Consumer Dispute Redressal Fora are provided with tooth strong enough for

enforcing its orders. Section 25 and 27 of the Act provide for enforcement of the orders made by

the CDRA and the imposition of penalties in the event of their violation respectively. Section 25

lays down that every order made by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies may be enforced

by them in the same manner as if it were a decree or an order made by a court in a pending suit.

In case of failure or omission to comply with any order made by CDRA against a trader or a

person against whom a complaint is made, such trader or person shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three

years or with fine which shall not be less than rupees 2000/-(two thousand) but which may

extend to rupees 10000/- (ten thousand) or with both26. The Consumer Protection (Amendment)

Act, 1993 has brought a significant change in Section 27 by incorporating the word

complainant in it and now even a complainant can be punished with fine in the event of non-

compliance of the orders of CDRA. The inclusion of the term complainant will secure

accountability on the part of the complainants. In Rajani Gas Company v. V.P.Jawalekar,27 it

was held that the main purpose behind the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act is to

seek compliance with the orders passed by the Redressal Fora. Section 27 is in a way a King

Pin in the execution of the orders of the Redressal Agencies.

26 Section 27 and S.21 of the Act of 1987. 27 CPJ II (1992) 786.

vi. Pre-Act Consumer disputes

Though Chapter III of the Act of 1986 which deals with CDRAs came into force w.e.f.

1st July 1987 but a consumer dispute, in which cause of action arose prior to 1st July 1987, can

be filed before the Consumer Forum provided the claim of the consumer is not a stale one. There

is nothing in the Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Redressal Fora constituted under the

provisions, to the adjudication of the disputes only in respect of which the cause of action arose

subsequent to the coming into force of this Chapter. The only test to be applied is whether as on

the date when a consumer dispute is filed before a forum constituted under the Act, the cause of

action is alive and subsisting under the law of limitation. So long as the cause of action is not

barred under the general law of limitation as on the date of institution of the consumer dispute

before the Redressal Forum, the mere fact that the date of accrual of cause of action was prior to

the date of coming into force of Chapter III of the Act is totally irrelevant28.

IV Position in the State of Jammu and Kashmir

In the State of J&K, The J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 was passed by State Legislature

which is in peri materia with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, there were certain

provisions in the Act of 1987 which were different from that of Act of 1986. The J&K Consumer

Protection Act, 1987 was amended by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1997.

Chapter III of the Act of 1987 also provide for Consumer Dispute Redressal Mechanism but

unlike the Act of 1986, it is a two tier Mechanism providing for the Divisional Forum instead of

District Forum and the State Commission29.It also provide for the composition and jurisdiction of

the Divisional Forum30 and the State Commission31respectively. However, the J&K Consumer

Protection Act, 1987 was further amended by the J&K Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act,

200232 and by this amendment in S.7 of the Act of 1987 the word District Forum is substituted

28 S.Elhence v. Raghomal Nahar Singh (P) Ltd.,CPJ I (1991) 327. 29 The J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987 Sec.7 30 Ibid., Ss .8 & 9 31 Ibid.,Ss.14 & 15 32 Act No. XXI of 2011 vide Notification dated 13 Dec, 2011 issued by Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Govt. of J&K.

for the word Divisional Forum. And likewise changes have been made in different provisions of

the principal Act of 198733.

Uunder the Act of 1987, originally the pecuniary jurisdiction of Divisional Forum(now District

Forum) was up to fifty thousand and that of State commission was fifty thousand to ten lakhs.

The Amendemnt Act of 1997 raised the pecuniary jurisdiction of Divisional Forum up to Five

lakhs and that of Sate Commission to Five lakhs to Thirty Lakhs. The Amendment of 2002 has

again enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction and now a complaint can be filed in the Divisional

Forum, if the value of goods or the services rendered and compensation if any does not exceed

Rs. Ten lakhs where as State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint if value of the

goods or services exceeds Rs. Ten lakhs but less than fifty lakhs. As for as the jurisdiction of the

National Commission is concerned, it has no jurisdiction under the Act of 1987.

The J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 provides for appeal against the order of Divisional

Forum (now District Forum as amended by Act of 2002) to the State Commission34 within a

period of 30 days and that of State Commission to the High Court of J&K35 within a period of 30

days from the date of order impugned. Delay in filing appeal can be condoned by the State

Commission or the High Court by sufficient cause being shown. But Proviso to Section 13 &17

lays that the appeal cant be entertained by the State Commission or the High Court respectively

unless it is certified by the President Divisional Forum (now District Forum as amended by Act

of 2002) or the Chairman State Commission respectively that 25% of the amount payable under

the order has been deposited by the appellant. Section 18-A of the J&K Consumer Protection

Act36 also lays down the provision for limitation and is similar in content with Section 24-A of

the Act of 1986.

V Critical Appraisal of the working of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies

The Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent social legislation intended to

protect the consumers from exploitation. The Act has come as a panacea for the consumers all

33 Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 amended the Sections 7, 8,9,10,11,12,13, 14, 15, 16, 16-A, 18, 18-A, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24-A of the Act of 1987 and substituted the word District Forum for the word Divisional Forum. 34 S.13 of The J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987. 35 S.17,Ibid. 36 Inserted by Act xix of 1997

over the country and has become the vehicle for enabling people to secure speedy and

inexpensive redressal of their grievances. However, there are certain critical areas in the working

of the Act and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies, both at central and the state level,

which require consideration.

First, although the Act was passed in 1986 by the Parliament, by the early 1990, it was

still not very unusual for many districts to be without district forum for e.g. In Tamilnadu district

forum and the State Commission were not established until 199237. However, by 2000, the

Central Consumer Protection Council reported that out of 556 districts in the country, 532 had

consumer forum set up and because some of them had more than one the total number of fora in

the country was 563 and out of that 509 i.e. approximately ninety percent were functioning38.

Among the thirty two States Commissions, all except Assam, West Bengal and Daman and Diu

were listed as functioning39.

Second, as the original jurisdiction of the District Forums over the consumer disputes

range up to twenty lakhs under the Central law and ten lakhs under the J & K State law

respectively, one would expect that the overwhelming majority of complaints would, therefore,

originate at District level. By raising the limits of jurisdiction, the respective legislature has made

clear its intent that the work of upper levels be limited to major liability cases and appeals. As far

as State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, Jammu and Srinagar being the capital districts of

the state would call for much large number of consumer complaints and only one district forum

would not be sufficient to redress the grievances of the consumers therein and thus, additional

District fora are needed to be constituted. Ironically, the Government of Jammu and Kashmir has

approved for setting up of eight District Fora, four each in Jammu and Kashmir Divisions. But

there are twenty two districts in J&K and only eight Consumer District Fora as recommended by

the J&K State Government are inadequate to redress the grievances of the consumers owing to

large population and typical geographical location of the State.

Third, the Act was meant to provide speedy and inexpensive redressal of consumer

disputes but still there has been considerable delay in the disposal of cases by the redressal

37 CAG Reports( Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group: Aug-Sept 1999) at p.3 38 Proceedings of the XXth meeting of Central Consumer Protection Council Nov. 8, 2000 at p. 19-20. 39 Ibid at p. 21-22.

agencies. Even the Planning Commission has constituted the Working Group on Consumer

Protection in context of preparation of the Twelfth Plan. Department of Consumer Affairs,

Government of India has constituted six sub-groups and one of the sub- groups is on Consumer

Protection and Redressal, ADR and Consumers Counseling. The report40 submitted by the

Planning Commission states that though the overall disposal rate and the performance of the

Consumer Fora is considered to be impressive, still there is delay in the disposal of cases by the

redressal agencies at the District, State and the National level and this pendency is a cause of

major concern.

1) The Table # 1 shows the data presented in the report aforesaid regarding the consumer complaints filed, disposed and pending in various redress foras in the country

Table # 1

Total Number of Consumer Complaints filed / disposed/pending since inception Under Consumer Protection Law

Source: Report of the working Group on Consumer Protection, Twelfth Plan (2012-17) Volume II, Sub group

Report, Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public

Distribution Annexure V.

2) The data of consumer cases filed, disposed and pending before the Consumer Disputes

Redressal Agencies in State of Jammu and Kashmir is presented in Table # 2.

40 Report of the working Group on Consumer Protection, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, 12th Plan, vol. II, (2012-17).

S.No. Name of Agency Cases Filed since inception

Cases Disposed of since inception

Cases Pending

%age of Total Disposal

1 National Commission 69465 60504 8961 87.10%

2 State Commissions 541478 440613 100865 81.37%

3 District Fora 2992338

2736379 155959 91.45%

Table #2

Total Number of Consumer Complaints filed/ disposed of and pending before CDRAs in

the State of Jammu and Kashmir since inception under consumer protection law

S.No. Name of Consumer

Dispute Redressal Agency

Cases filed since inception

Cases Disposed of since inception

Cases pending

% of Total Disposal

As on

1 State Commission 6131 5428 703 88.53 31-03-2011

2 District Fora 20792 18855 1937 90.68 31-12-2007

Source: Report of the working Group on Consumer Protection, Twelfth Plan (2012-17) Volume II, Sub group

Report, Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public

Distribution Annexure VI & VII.

The delay in disposal of the consumer disputes may be sometimes due to the fact that the

quorum of the redressal fora is not complete. And to remove this difficulty and to enhance the

capability of the redressal agencies, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 empowers

the senior most member to preside over the bench in case the president is absent so that the

forum may function uninterruptedly. Analysis of the data reveals that the third amendment to Act

of 1986 has facilitated in achieving the objective of quick and speedy remedy to a considerable

extent. In nearly fifty two percent of cases at State Commission, the hearing was ranging from 1-

6. However, at the urban District Forums only nineteen percent of cases were disposed within 1-

6 hearings whereas, only eighteen percent of cases were disposed of within 1-6 hearings at the

rural District Forums. There are 629 District Fora at the District level, 35 State Commissions at

State level and one National Commission. Out of over thirty five lakhs cases filed before the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies, 89.77 percent already stands disposed of.41

VI Conclusion and Suggestions

A mile stone step was taken by the Indian Parliament in 1986 and by the State of J&K in

1987 in the field of consumer protection by enacting Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the

Consumer Protection Act, 1987 wherein exhaustive redressal mechanism was provided for the

protection of the rights of the consumers. The working of these Redressal Fora for the past more

than two decades has made it amply obvious that legal framework for protecting rights of the

consumers is capable of getting the rights of the consumer vindicated against the unscrupulous

trader or the service provider.

Though the two Acts are similar in most of the aspects but still there are some significant

differences with regard to Redressal Fora and their jurisdiction. The Central Act provides for

National Commission as Appellate body for State Commission where as J&K Law provide for

appeals from the order of the State Commission to the J&K High Court. Despite having some

differences, the object of both the legislations is to provide speedy and simple redressal to

consumer disputes through Quasi-Judicial bodies by observing the Principles of Natural Justice

and thus, serving the complainants from lengthy and cumbersome procedure of Civil courts.

To improve the working of these redressal agencies and for enhancing their capacity

certain suggestions have been made herein.

a) More benches of State Commission should be set up. b) Additional District Fora should be constituted for disposing of consumer complaints and

this will also ensure speedy disposal of cases.

c) Online registration of consumer complaints to these redressal fora should be provided. Fourth, funding for raising the infrastructure of Consumer Fora should be provided by the

Government.

d) And last but not the least all these efforts to provide and improve the mechanism for

redressing consumer disputes will not yield anything unless there is awareness about

41 Supra note 38 at p. 18.

consumer rights and redressal mechanisms. So steps should be taken to spread consumer

movement to every nook and corner of the country.

***