Consumer Courts

Disorder, Disorder

Consumer courts were carved out 25 years ago as a dedicated and speedier alternative to general courts. Except they have started to resemble the latter: not enough judges, cases that go on forever, a huge backlog, woeful infrastructure. There’s no sign of reforms, and the Centre and the states blame each other, reports Bhanu Pande

Ajay Saldanah is agitated. Seated in the last row of the 20 x 20 room in the community centre that is the Janakpuri Consumer Court, he waits impatiently with his lawyer for his case to come up. A languorous air hangs over the dilapidated court-room, which, at most times, has more lawyers than aggrieved consumers. Tired of waiting, they have stepped out. Saldanah too is tired of waiting — for his turn, for a verdict. “This is going nowhere,” says the exporter from Delhi. “I have come here 10 times in four years.” He’s here because a car he purchased in 2006 allegedly had handling issues from day one and the manufacturer refused to replace it. He thought a consumer court would help, but it’s been a “harrowing experience”. “I have been paying a monthly loan instalment of 18,000 for three years without using the car lest the company argue it’s an ageing problem.” Last year, an expert supported Saldanah’s claim in court, but still no verdict. “What else is the court looking for?” he asks bitterly. It’s a question that strikes resonance with many who seek redress in the 630 consumer courts in India, but end up trapped in the cycle of dates and hearings. 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,” says Suresh Misra, professor & chairman, Centre for Consumer Studies, Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA). The government numbers suggest consumer courts have done what they set out to do. It says that 91% of cases in the district courts have been settled, 80% in the state courts and 87% in the national court. What these numbers hide — and therein lies the story of the decay of consumer courts — is the time taken to settle those cases. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the blueprint for consumer rights in India, mandates all cases be settled in 90-150 days. According to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission — the Supreme Court in the consumer space — only 46% of cases in the district courts were settled in the mandated time and 38% in the state courts. And, according to the ministry of consumer affairs, food & public distribution, there are 350,000 cases pending, led by Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra (See graphic: Justice Delayed). The states say the Centre doesn’t give them enough funds to run the courts. The Centre points out that consumer affairs is a state subject; and that though it gives them grants, the states neither use it well nor do they supplement it with their own support. As the Centre and states trade charges, consumers like Saldanah wait. “We don’t advise consumers to approach these courts, especially if the compensation value is likely to be small,” says Ashim Sanyal, COO of Voice, a Delhibased voluntary organisation that works on consumer rights.
THREE-TIER STRUCTURE
Consumer courts have a three-tier structure, like general courts. At the lowest level, there are district courts — one for a district. Called ‘district consumer forums’, they hear cases where the compensation sought is less than 20 lakh. 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. They deal with cases where the likely compensation is between 20 lakh and 1 crore; they also hear appeals from district courts. At the top, there is the NCDRC, which hears cases where the compensation sought is above 1 crore and appeals from state courts. Each consumer court has a judge. In district courts, it can be either a retired district judge or a lawyer eligible to be a district judge. In state courts, a retired High Court judge. In NCDRC, a retired Supreme Court judge. Each court also has members, who can conduct hearings, but not give verdicts. Each district and state court has two members, while the NCDRC has at least four. Sanyal of Voice says most judges in consumer courts approach cases with a legal mindset. “They don’t show a serious understanding of consumer issues or a consumer’s state of mind,” he says. Lawyers, especially from the company’s side, add to the legalese. Says Sanyal: “They prolong the case by taking adjournments on flimsy grounds. They complicate issues, which an ordinary consumer is not competent to match.” And if the judge or members are on leave, a verdict can’t be given. A district member in Delhi, on the condition of anonymity, says the 90-150 days deadline is unrealistic. “Each case involves several stages and each takes some time,” says the member. “It would normally need at least two years. Actually, there’s no point in having a time-frame because each case is different.”
ABSENT, YOUR HONOUR
The bald truth is that consumer courts don’t have enough benches to hear cases. For example, UP, which had about 28,500 cases pending on February 28, operates with two benches. “It will need 10 more benches to clear this backlog over three years,” says Justice Bhanwar Singh, president, SCDRC, Uttar Pradesh. Forget adding more benches, even the existing ones are not occupied right now. As on February 28, there were 315 vacancies for judges and members in consumer courts. Assuming each of the 630 courts needs a judge and two members means a total judicial staff of 1,900. In other words, 16% of positions are lying vacant, which adds to the backlog. Justice Ashok Bhan, president of the NCDRC, says appointments are “low priority” for states. Bhan says the NCDRC advises states to start the process six months before an incumbent member retires, but this is rarely followed. “It is never on time,” he says. “And, in many cases, the members are political appointees who have no clue.” Then, members are poorly paid, despite the recommendations of the PD Shenoy Committee in 2008. At the Delhi district court, for example, a member is paid 9,000 per month and 5,000 as conveyance. Maharashtra pays 8,000, Orissa 6,500. The pittance for a salary dis-incentivises people from becoming a member and breeds corruption. “It becomes easier for companies involved in disputes to bribe members,” says a senior official of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DoCA), the ministry arm for consumer issues. Judges are better paid. Retired judges, for example, receive their last salary drawn minus pension. The courts themselves struggle to meet running expenses. “In many cases, the court asks a complainant to pay to send a notice,” says Misra of IIPA. “It’s absurd.”
CENTRE-STATE CONFLICT
Adding judicial and administrative staff, and improve infrastructure, calls for funding. And that is a bone of contention between the Centre and the states. Says Singh of the UP state commission: “There’s a need for a clearly defined formula to decide the funds needed by a state commission, and how it is to be split between the Centre and the state.” He suggests an equal contribution. At present, the Centre gives periodic grants to states — usually, as a per court amount. At times, it runs special schemes, and disburses an additional amount. In other words, the Centre’s contribution is unpredictable. So, the state contribution essentially determines the funding levels. Mostly, it is inadequate, leading to dues piling up. One line of thinking in the ministry is that the Centre can use its Consumer Welfare Fund, which has 130 crore, to help in paying salaries. “It (the fund) is mostly under-utilised,” says a ministry official, not wanting to be named. “And each year, the Budget makes new provisions.” The DoCA official is scathing of the state’s approach to consumer affairs. “No state has put consumer affairs on priority,” he says. The ministry that handles consumer affairs also handles public distribution and civil supplies. “For state governments, the other two functions are more ‘lucrative’ and carry more weight.” Professor Sriram Khanna, a consumer expert, dismisses the DoCA official’s argument. “Lack of will in administration at the Centre and the states has ensured a graveyard for consumer redress. The Centre can’t wash its hands off,” says the principal coordinator of the National Consumer Helpline.
WEAKER COURTS
The Centre-state conflict is an enduring one, and it tends to loom over even quasi-celebratory occasions. As it did on March 15 in New Delhi, when state and Centre officials dealing with consumer affairs met on World Consumer Day for their annual conference. Officials from the Centre pointed out that only five of the 32 states and union territories had filed an action-taken report on the raft of resolutions passed at last year’s conference. The resolutions related to salaries, settlement of cases, monitoring, funding and training, among other things. The conference ended on the note that such an exercise was a waste of time. Such brinkmanship has weakened consumer courts. The district consumer court has the same powers as a civil court. “But seldom do companies pay heed to consumer courts. Their reports, orders and summons are routinely ignored,” says George Cheriyan, director, Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) International, a Jaipur-based NGO working on consumer rights. If a dispute goes to consumer courts, Honda Siel Cars views the case with the approach the customer is right, says Jnaneswar Sen, VP-marketing. “But once it goes legal, it has to be dealt with legally, though such instances are rare,” he says. Many companies have a legal team, which can stretch a case, as Asha Garg will testify. Since 2007, this homemaker from Delhi has been making four trips a year to a district court trying to recover 50,000 from an investment firm. “As in family courts, advocates should be discouraged from entering consumer forums, except in special circumstances,” says Cheriyan of CUTS. There are various initiatives underway to strengthen consumer rights and make companies more accountable, but none have statutory powers. There’s the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), which records consumer complaints and forwards them to companies. There are the consumer councils that work to protect consumer rights and create awareness. Delhi has started mediation centres. “Their decisions are taken on-record by consumer courts,” says Rajeev Agarwal, secretary, DoCA. The upcoming consumer policy plans to encourage industry to make consumer redress part of its corporate social responsibility agenda. “We would expect industry and large companies in each sector to appoint some kind of ombudsman,” says Agarwal. But in the absence of legal powers, all these initiatives have limited utility. The consumer courts remain the only legal option. And they are in shambles.
With Man Mohan Rai in Lucknow & Rituraj Tiwari in Jaipur

What Fukushima Tells Us

The accident at Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant as result of a tsunami seems to have made a heavier impact on the public mind all over the world than the tsunami itself. This calls for a deeper understanding of the perceived as well as real risks of nuclear power.
India is the fifth largest producer of electricity in the world after China, the US, Japan and Russia. However, inper capita terms, it ranks around 150. China is at the 80^th rank, Russia 26^th , Japan 19^th and the US 11^th . Annual per capita electricity consumption, a key index of development, is at around 650-700 kWh in India. This is less than half of the average in non-OECD countries, one-fourth the world average and 14 times less than the average in OECD countries. We need to decide what our target should be. In my view, 5,000 kWh appears a reasonable number. This is significantly better than the world average and about half the average in OECD countries.
At this level of per capita electricity consumption for a projected stabilised population in India of around 1.6 billion, we need to add to Indian grids electricity generation of around 40% of the present-day global output. To realise the same target, China needs only about half as much. Our coal reserves can support electricity supply at such a level for around 11 years. Our total hydro potential can provide for around 5% of the needed generation capacity. Other renewables excluding solar can support around 2%. Nuclear and solar energy are thus the only energy sources that can meet the challenge of our development. This does not mean less emphasis on other forms of energy generation. We need to make full use of all energy resources available to us.
Let us talk about solar first. We would need to earmark around 4.5 million hectares of area to be able to collect enough solar energy to meet our needs. This is roughly a fourth of the barren uncultivable land available in India. We, however, need aggressive development of this technology to make it costcompetitive. Also, since the sun does not shine on a 24x7 basis, we need cost-competitive energy storage technologies. There are other areas of development of energy technologies for the future such as fusion energy.
We may well be at the oil peak around now. Our coal is likely to run out in around 40-50 years. Alternative energy supplies at the requisite level of use would need to be ready before this time. A severe energy crisis is likely to hit us much earlier than it does most of the world.
We should look at nuclear energy in this backdrop. It already provides 16% of world electricity in a cost-competitive manner. Despite Fukushima or the earlier Chernobyl, TMI and other accidents, real risks with nuclear energy are the lowest compared to various energy forms in commercial use. The advantage of nuclear would be even higher if one factors in the additional risks associated with the predicted consequences of climate change as a result of use of fossil fuels in a business-as-usual manner. Yet nuclear energy frightens us beyond all proportion.
According to a report of the United Nations Chernobyl forum expert group on ‘health’ published by the World Health Organisation in 2006, the Chernobyl accident caused 47 deaths till the year 2004 among firemen and severely exposed persons. From more than 4,000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in the 1992-2002 period, less than 1% died from this disease and the rest were treated successfully. We need to watch the situation further. An interesting point to note is that the effective dose as of year 2000 due to Chernobyl is already two and half times lower as compared to weapons fallout. We had Bhopal before Chernobyl when we suffered more than 3,500 fatalities. Yet Chernobyl remains a stronger image in our mind.
Fukushima so far has had no fatality caused by radiation. Seventeen workers have been exposed to doses in excess of 100 mSv, but that is lower than the permissible lifetime dose for occupational workers. There is radioactive contamination in the public domain, which will take quite some time to normalise. But the radiation dose received by people is unlikely to cause significant harm. The tsunami, which caused the accident at Fukushima, has taken more than 13,000 lives with more than 14,000 missing. Yet Fukushima seems to occupy much larger media space.
Seismically, the only region in India somewhat comparable to Japan is the Himalayan belt. As a matter of policy we do not locate a nuclear power station there. Epicentres that can potentially trigger a tsunami are around 10 times farther away in India’s case as compared to Japan, which has not shut down reactors that are operable.
This is not to justify Fukushima. Such accidents are not acceptable. We must learn basic lessons from Fukushima and strengthen the safety of our nuclear activities without being complacent. We should also make rapid progress in bringing in advanced reactor systems such as AHWR with their greater degree of inherent safety. However, the impending energy crisis, the risks of climate change and the limited time we have in tiding over these threats cannot be lost track of. The tendency to read catastrophe into anything nuclear and allowing panic to grip us and deprive India from fulfilling its aspirations would be a self-defeating exercise.
The writer is former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.