A pertinent question being raised today is whether the consumer is the king or an object of exploitationIJ
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been enacted to provide better protection to the interests of the consumers by making provisions for the establishment of consumer councils, a three-tier adjudicating machinery for early settlement of consumer disputes and matters connected therewith.
Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act defines the word ‘consumer’ and gives wide meaning by providing that a person is a consumer : (a) who buys and goods for consideration and also includes user of such goods and (b) who hires any services for consideration and includes beneficiary of such services.
To this wide definition there are exclusions: It excludes a consumer who obtains such goods for resale or any commercial purposes; and a person who avails of services of any description free of charge, or under a contract of personal service, and for any commercial purposes. But, commercial purpose does not include use of goods bought or availing of services by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. Therefore, in sum and substance, what is excluded is buying of goods or availing of services for ‘commercial purpose’; but if such buying of goods or availing of services is for earning of livelihood by self-employment, then such person would be a consumer.
Section-3 makes it abundantly clear that the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force. The law on this aspect is settled.
In order to save the innocent consumer from the hands of the mighty market forces, the United Nations had passed a resolution in April, 1985 indicating certain guidelines under which the Government could make law for better protection of the interest of the consumers. Such laws are necessary more in the developing countries to protect the consumers from hazards to their health and safety and make them available speedier and cheaper redress.
Undoubtedly the Act contemplates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary court system.
The unique feature of the Act is that only the consumer can approach the consumer forum. It is also to be understood that consumer has two alternative remedies either to approach the civil court or to proceed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Enactment is unbelievable yet harsh realities appear to be a silver lining, which may in course of time succeed in checking the rot. The law meets a long-felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory; it attempts to remove the helplessness of a consumer which he faces against, powerful business, described as a network of rackets or a society in which, producers have secured power to rob the rest and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction where papers do not move from one desk to another as a matter of duty and responsibility but for extraneous consideration leaving the common man helpless, bewildered and shocked. The malady is becoming so rampant, widespread and deep that the society instead of bothering, complaining and fighting against it, is accepting it as part of life.
Thereafter, the court deals with unpardonable behaviour of the officers responsible for delay and damage to consumers. It also highlights that attitude of the employees in the public sector undertakings is never pro-consumer.
(Dr Maharana is faculty member, Jeypore law College, Mob.: 9438170563)