Change in shift from ‘caveat emptor’ to ‘caveat venditor’ laid the foundation for the present day consumer protection and rights regime. In India, the Consumer Protection Act, enacted in the year 1986, recognizes six fundamental rights of a consumer to be protected. However, a close scrutiny reveals many limitations which render it incapable of affording the harassed consumer the protection he sorely needs.
Though in the Indian context the concept of consumer rights and protection seem to be a modern development which came into existence after the passage of The Consumer Protection Act 1986, but in reality it is a very old concept which was recognized even during the ancient times. The book ‘Arthshastra’, penned by Kautilya, contains many references to the protection of the consumers’ interests against the malpractices and exploitation by the traders and merchants with respect to the quality, measurement and short weight, etc.
In the recent times, even before the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, there existed certain enactments which protected the consumers, though only in an indirect way. Some of these Acts were; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Magic Remedies Act, Weights andMeasures Act, Essential Commodities Act. Under these laws the guilty ones were punished, but no direct relief was available to the consumers.
However, a systematic, institutional and organized effort to safeguard the consumer’s interests is a new development. The first consumer movement began in England after the World War II;this was quickly followed by the declaration of four of the basic consumer’s rights in the year 1962, by the thenPresident of the USA, John F. Kennedy. Recognition by the United Nations, of the Consumer’s Rights in 1985, when it adopted certain guidelines to protect consumer’s interest and to require a high level of conduct on the part of the producers and distributers of goods and services, gave the consumer protection movement across the world a fresh impetus.
The often misused legal maxim “Caveat emptor”, which highlighted the buyer’s responsibility and liability as to any defect in the goods sold by the seller, had always been the biggest obstacle in achieving the much deserved change in looking at the way the unscrupulous capitalist class was exploiting the consumers. The logic of ‘caveat emptor’ might have worked well in the pre-Industrial era where the economy was still based on the production, sale and consumption within the village itself and where both the buyers and sellers used to meet in an open market and had an opportunity to verify and satisfy as to the quality and standard ofthe simple goods available in the market themselves. But, the Industrial Revolution shattered this village level economy, the personal level interaction between the buyers and the sellers, and the way things were produced. This resulted in an unrestricted and rampant exploitation of the consumers’ by the greedycapitalists and industrialists, who did not share any proximity and personal relationship with the end consumers at one hand and who were solely looking for profits at any cost on the other. It further gave rise to the Consumer Movements and brought into picture the concept of ‘Consumerism’. Consumerism is a social and economic order that is based on the systematic creation and fostering of a desire to purchase goods and services in ever greater amounts. However, it is also used to refer to the consumerist movement, consumer protection or consumer activism, which seeks to protect and inform consumers by requiring such practices as honest packaging and advertising, product guarantees, and improved safety standards. These all developments brought about a shift from the earlier approach of ‘caveat emptor’ to the socially relevant ‘caveat venditor’, which literally means “let the seller beware” and which focused on the duties and liabilities of the sellers and that, unless the sellers expressly disclaim any responsibility, they will be held liable if the sold items are found defective in any way or vary from the specification.
This shift, in fact laid the foundation for the present day Consumer Protection and Rights Regime.
The Indian Parliament enacted ‘The Consumer Protection Act in the year 1986. The act aims at providing simple, quick , cheaper and better protection of consumer interests by way of establishing quasi-judicial machinery at the district, state and central level and applies to all goods and services and recognizes six fundamental rights of a consumer such as the right to be protected against the marketing of goods and services which are hazardous to life and property; the right to be informed about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods or services, as the case may be, so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices; the right to be assured, whenever possible, access to a variety of goods and services at competitive prices; the right to be heard and to be assured that consumer’s interests will receive due consideration at appropriate for a; the right to seek redress against unfair trade practices or restrictive trade practices or unscrupulous exploitation of consumers; and the right to consumer education.
The Act meets most of the demands of the consumer activists. No doubt, it will go a long way in giving a boost to the consumer movement in the country. But, still there is much to be done in this direction. A close scrutiny reveals many limitations which render it incapable of affording the harassed consumer the protection he sorely needs. Presently, the position is that only those services come within this Act for which specific payment is made, such as electricity, telephones, banking, etc. while, the mandatory civil services, such as sanitation, water supply, etc. provided by the State or local authorities are not covered by the Act. The per se rule is not invoked by the Act. The per se rule ensures that any act or practice which prima facie appears to be unfair shall be regarded as unfair and against consumer interest as such, pending its justifications by the opposite party. The Act does not empower consumer fora to publish the names ofmanufacturers, traders, and dealers whose goods are found to be hazardous to public safety. The Act does not permit a consumer to lodge a complaint with the Consumer Fora, if an alternative remedy is available under some other law. The Act does not impose liability on the Chief Executive, manager or Director where an offense is shown to have been committed by an organisation. The Act specifies a time frame within which the dispute is to be disposed of, and the period specified is 90 days, but the actual time taken is much longer. It has been observed that there is a rift between judicial and non-judicial member of the consumer courts. This is growing day by day and threatening the smooth functioning of these quasi-judicial bodies. The non-judicial members feel that they are accorded second class status by the presidents or judicial members and they want that the presidents of consumer courts should treat them as their equals. Again the non judicial members are many times ignored by the presidents, who do not even extend the courtesy of consulting them before writing the orders. The non judicial members feel frustrated as their role as adjudicators is being ignored. There is a vast gap between the emoluments of judicial and non – judicial members. Another problem is that quite a few members are appointed not purely on the basis of merit, but on other, mostly political, considerations. Therefore it is perceived by many that many of the non-judicial members are ‘useless’, ‘good for nothing’ kind of members. The judicial members are also mentally not prepared to accept such type of members as equal partners in the process of dispensing consumer justice. The Consumer redressal agencies do not have requisite infrastructure; as a result it hamstrings their functioning effectively. A major problem arising practically everywhere is the execution of the orders passed by the Consumer Courts. An important issue relating to the execution of the orders is that the consumer courts have to depend on the Civil Courts for the execution of the orders or on the Criminal Courts when cases are referred for service of warrants. These procedures involve frustrating delays.
Experience of functioning of consumer courts by and large has been that the organisations against which decision is given by the Court, including organisations such as electric supply company or a bank, there is almost invariably a tendency on their part to file an appeal. This adds to the problems of the consumer forum and inevitably delays the remedy and payment of adjudicated compensation. In a large number of cases, when the remedy of appeal is exhausted, the organizations very often resorts to the strategy of filing a ‘revision’ petition before the Nation Commission. This further delays the award of remedy and compensation. In some cases the organisations go even further and file appeals before the Supreme Court against decision of the National Commission. Despite all limitations, the Act affords an opportunity to the consumers to claim their rights and helps in educating the consumer. In the coming future, it is expected that, the Consumer Protection laws would witness a sea change in order to adjust to the ever growing market, the reach of the market forces at one hand and the growing bargaining power of the consumers on the other.
www.grandmasters.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.rcls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.itlegalsummit.com | 8 Years & Counting
www.bfls.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.maels.in | 8 Years & Counting
www.plcs.co.in | 8 Years & Counting
Copyright © 2020 Lex Witness - India's 1st Magazine on Legal & Corporate Affairs Rights of Admission Reserved
