Twelve years ago, in the case of V.P. Sant vs Delhi Development Authority, the highest consumer court in the country had emphasised the need for consumer courts to follow a simple procedure while deciding cases. “The redressal agencies (constituted under the consumer protection law) are not civil courts which are bound by the Code of Civil Procedure….” the apex consumer court had said. Again in the case of Shankar Prasad vs Peerless General Finance Investment Company, it had reiterated this point and said that consumer courts should move away from hyper technicalities while adjudicating on complaints.

The advice, it seems, is yet to percolate down to all the consumer courts in the country because last month the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was forced to remind the lower consumer courts once again that they are not civil courts, bound by the Civil Procedure Code. The provocation for this remark came from the way the consumer courts at the district and the state level in Gujarat had dismissed a complaint merely on the ground that parents of the consumer had filed the case.

Instead of deciding the case on merit as required under the Consumer Protection Act, the state commission had gone into the “principles of subrogation or assignment” and held that the father or mother of an aggrieved person or his power of attorney is not entitled to file a complaint! No wonder consumers feel that they need a lawyer to file a case before the consumer court!

While setting aside the orders of the lower consumer courts, the National Commission regretted that the courts were adopting procedures prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code and not the principles of natural justice as provided under the Consumer Protection Act. Observed the commission: “Repeatedly it has been observed that complaints alleging defects in goods or deficiency in service can be entertained on receipt of a letter stating sufficient facts and the cause of action. If required, it can be entertained after recording statement of the complainant and if grounds are made out, notice is required to be issued to opposite party. This is forgotten and we still erroneously try to adhere to the procedure prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code or elsewhere.” (CERC vs New India Assurance Company, RP No. 2721 of 2007)

The Consumer Protection Act came into being in 1986. It is a sad that even two decades later, consumer courts have to be reminded about the procedure that they ought to or ought not to follow.