In order to cut down on delays and ensure speedy resolution of consumer disputes, the Union ministry of consumer affairs specifically prohibited, through an amendment to the Consumer Protection Act (COPRA), adjournments in the consumer courts. The amendment came into effect on March 15, 2003. A year hence, the courts which are supposed to uphold the law, are violating it. Following complaints from consumers and consumer groups on repeated adjournments by the consumer courts, the government introduced a few amendments aimed at eliminating procedural delays. These formed part of the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, that came into force from March last year.

The amendment to Section 13 of the Act, pertaining to the procedure before these courts, not only specifies the time limit for dispute resolution, but also clearly says that no adjournment shall be given. And where it is given in the rarest of rare cases , the court should justify in writing the reasons for granting such an adjournment. That’s not all. Keeping in mind the time and the money wasted by the complainant (studies have shown that usually it is the opposite party which seeks adjournment) as a result of such an adjournment, the law also provides for costs to be awarded to the complainant (or to the opposite party as the case may be).

Beginning with Justice V.B.Eradi, the first president of the National Commission, successive presidents of the apex consumer court have advised the consumer forums to desist from granting adjournments. When these had no effect on the lower consumer courts , the government decided to put a stop to the practice through a specific amendment to the law itself. And thus came sub-section (3A) under Section 13 of the COPRA.

Unfortunately, most complainants are unaware of this provision. What is most deplorable is the attitude of the consumer forums, which are violating the law that they are expected to enforce. There is an urgent need for the ministry of consumer affairs as well as the president of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to write to the district forums in the country, asking them to strictly follow the provisions of the law.

As far as consumers are concerned, I would suggest they pick up a copy of the Act. And if they find the opposite party seeking an adjournment or the court granting one, they must quote the amendment to Section 13 of the Act. They must also bring all these to the notice of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi and the Union ministry of consumer affairs.