[aaykarbhavan] source Business standard

Consumer Protection Act to be amended to ease mediation

SANJEEB MUKHERJEE New Delhi, 29 July Alarmed by the piling up of cases in consumer courts across the country, the department of consumer affairs is mulling a significant change in the Consumer Protection Act- 1986 to facilitate mediation and arbitration. According to officials, the department plans to create a structure of arbitration and mediation at the point of grievance ( the place where the consumer is located) before the case is finally moved to the court. The structure could involve empowering panchayats, gram sabhas or similar institutions to mediate and arbitrate between parties. The idea is to ensure an aggrieved consumer moves court only after he has exhausted all other options. "It has been observed that because of the large number of cases in consumer courts, the delivery of justice is painstakingly slow, which sometime goes on for years, killing the very essence of the Consumer Protection Act — to deliver swift justice. Therefore, we are proposing a crucial change which will help in appointing arbitrators for ensuring out of court settlement of the case," a senior official from the department of consumer affairs said. He said the very purpose of the amendment is to ensure that justice is delivered fast to the consumers and at their nearest point of contact and they are not made to run from pillar to post to file a basic complaint. "Work on the amendments has started and we have invited public comments on the same and hope to introduce them in Parliament as soon as possible," the official said. Explaining the purpose of the amendment, noted consumer rights activist and founder of Consumer Online Foundation, which pioneered the Jago Grahak Jago campaign, Bijon Misra said the amendments also empower an aggrieved consumer to file a complaint at his nearest point of judgment, irrespective of the fact where the office of the company is located. "To develop such a mechanism of arbitration and out- of- court settlement, it is proposed to give panchayats and gram sabhas the power to arbitrate and summon parties," Misra added. According to the proposed amendment, the mediator appointed by the government will facilitate resolution of dispute between parties through the normal process. The mediator will facilitate discussion between the parties, assist to identify issues, reduce misunderstandings, clarify priorities, explore areas of compromise, generate options to solve the dispute and emphasise it is the parties' own responsibility for making decisions that affect them. "The state- run arbitration or mediation mechanism will come handy in cases between real estate builders and buyers as well as others as the internal mechanism in companies is not trusted by the consumers," Misra added. Move to facilitate out- of- court settlements BOOSTING CONSUMER |Govt to amend Consumer Protection Act to facilitate arbitration and out- of- court govt to designate mediators and arbitrators

 

Tribunals in the doldrums The din that arose when some light was thrown into the selection of judges by the Supreme Court collegiums is yet to subside. But it stifled the voice of the five- judge Constitution bench that was hearing last week another aspect of the uneasy relationship between the executive and the judiciary. Like selection of judges behind the thick curtains of the collegiums, we are allowed to see only shadowy figures making cloak- and- dagger movements in the case of tribunals. In both cases, the debates are tiresome reruns. In the first case, the issue is cherry- picking of appellate judges. In the other one, it is the selection of chairman and members of tribunals. These quasi- judicial bodies have been mushrooming in the past decade, forming a parallel judicial system. A conservative estimate puts their total at 40. Some of them are extensions of the government department, with little independence. The birth of all major tribunals, and now the National Tax Tribunal, was stalled by litigation as soon as they were created by Acts of Parliament. The main bone of contention is the composition of the tribunals. Civil servants are accused of nibbling at judicial power while drafting laws. It is alleged by the legal profession that the mandarins are creating post- retirement sinecures. Their minds are not attuned to adjudication. On the contrary, the draftsmen contend that judges are not wellversed in specialised subjects that are increasingly brought before courts. Experts are needed to understand the technical complexities of 4G spectrum, energy exploration, offshore frauds or costing. Therefore, the tribunals must give primacy to specialists, and those who have dealt with such issues while in government office. The bar associations, which generally take up such issues on behalf of the judiciary, respond to these arguments pointing out that courts routinely decide issues of intricate nature. For decades, they have dealt with disputes over air waves, intellectual property, environmental issues, accounting frauds, and even religious squabbles involving scriptures and rights of idols and bishops. In case of difficulty, it is the practice of the court to seek assistance of experts. Repeated efforts of the executive to bring old legal concoction in new bottles is only to ensure jobs for the boys, it is argued. It was while hearing the latest row involving the National Taxation Tribunal that the judges of the Constitution bench became vocal. Unlike the rest of those in power, they have neither the press nor the platform. While others can shout against the judiciary in the cacophonous talk shows, judges have to make " observations" in measured tones. There are few listeners, as the tiresome arguments might have already emptied the visitors' gallery in the court. When the Attorney General submitted that the courts have failed to deliver speedy justice and, therefore, tribunals are necessary to take the burden off their back, the bench pointed out that the government was not appointing judges and some high courts are functioning with less than half the sanctioned strength. Courts also suffer from lack of basic infrastructure, which should be provided by the government instead of creating nonfunctional tribunals. According to one judge, it is nothing short of an "assault on the constitutional scheme." On the question of expertise, the judges remarked that a degree in costing or accountancy would not automatically bestow a person with a judicial mind, which comes with years of experience. During the hearing, the Chief Justice revealed that he was getting many requests for judicial appointments in tribunals but " those who are fit to be on the tribunals are not interested and those who are keen are not suitable." That must be an understatement considering the cat- fight stories circulating about job- grabbing. The court has earlier examined tribunal legislations in various cases since 1994 and upheld them with some changes. However, the executive has ignored such court directives in the next law. Parliament has also not amended the constitutional provisions to end the recurring squabbles. There are several observers, like Supreme Court ex- judge, Ruma Pal, who has described earlier judgments validating the structure of tribunals as a" sell- out by the judiciary". Apart from the legality, there is a growing number of jurists who view tribunalisation as a failed experiment. Tribunals have become as slow and expensive as regular courts with lawyers lugging in the Civil Procedure Code and case law. Tribunals have elbowed out high court jurisdiction, introducing another tier of courts and violating the constitutional scheme. The trend has spread to all sectors, covering some 24 ministries and departments till last year. Many of the tribunals exist only on paper and yet others are topless. There is hardly any that functions with full coram. The pensionermembers walk in late and break for lunch and a siesta. As a result, it is estimated that ₹ 4 lakh- crore revenue is locked in fruitless litigation. Though the government is used to ignoring huge numbers, the harassment suffered by individuals cannot be measured in digits. Those who are crushed in the tribunal whirlpool can expect a definitive judgment from the constitution bench within two months. The Supreme Court will decide their legal status in two months OUT OF COURT MJ ANTONY These quasi- judicial bodies have been mushrooming in the past decade, forming a parallel judicial system. A conservative estimate puts their total at 40. Some of them are extensions of the government department, with little independence

 

--

A.Rengarajan

Company  Secretary

Chennai

93810  11200

"

CS Benevolent Fund is a collective effort towards extending the much needed financial support to the community of Company Secretaries in times of distress  Let us lend support and join for noble cause.

SHARING KNOWLEDGE SKY IS THE LIMIT

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: CS A Rengarajan <csarengarajan@gmail.com>

---

receive alert on mobile, subscribe to SMS Channel named "aaykarbhavan"
[COST FREE]
SEND "on aaykarbhavan" TO 9870807070 FROM YOUR MOBILE.

To receive the mails from this group send message to aaykarbhavan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Visit Your Group

• New Members 1

• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use