EXPOSÉ: Calcutta’s WBNUJS conducted the study on consumer courts

You may find it hard to believe, but this is what an ongoing study by a premier law university has revealed ? consumer court judges are spending more time bickering than dealing with the cases.

The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), entrusted with the task of evaluating several district consumer forums and the state commission in Bengal, has found that the members and presidents ? the judges who hear consumer disputes ? are at loggerheads, especially in Calcutta, so much so that they often end up overruling each other, says an interim report the law university submitted last month to the Indian Institute of Public Administration, which ordered the evaluation on behalf of the Union government. The study began in March and the final report is expected in January.

Making enquiries into the West Bengal State Consumer Redressal Commission and a district forum in Calcutta, Souvik Chatterji, one of the teachers of WBNUJS engaged in the study, found that in most cases, the relation among the three jury members of consumer courts was “not cordial” at all. In fact, at times, it was “so strained” that the work of the courts was seriously affected.

The bickering is rooted in the fact that the jury members ? appointed by the state government ? come from diverse backgrounds. While the president of a district forum or state commission has to be a “judicial” person by law, the other two members are picked from different fields, such as accountancy, industry and administration.

The result, Chatterji says, is often a clash of outlook, judgment and, at times, egos. “They look at a dispute from different and conflicting perspectives,” he says.

The presidents ? mostly retired district or high court judges ? say that even though they preside over the consumer courts, they have little control over the judgments. The two non-judicial members, being in the majority, often overrule them even though they “know very little of legal procedures and the law”. Under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, any decisions, backed by two of the three members, will determine a judgment.

Chatterji quotes some presidents as berating the non-judicial members of the jury who, they feel, do not “appreciate the legal evidence and often don’t even know how to write orders”.

The non-judicial members are equally disdainful of these retired judges who have been appointed presidents of consumer forums. They claim that the presidents make things “hard and complicated” for consumers who, they say, are getting enmeshed in “unnecessary court procedures,” Chatterji says.

They claim that the presidents have become the “main obstacle” to providing the consumers with speedy justice, defeating the very purpose of the Consumer Protection Act. Only in a very few cases did all three members of the jury agree while delivering a ruling, the study said. In a number of forums where the judicial members do not have “cordial relations” with the non-judicial members, decisions are “either not taken or not executed” on time.

The interim report has recommended appointing members from a single field (preferably legal) to avoid the “ego and other clashes between the judges”.

While Justice Malay Basu, president of the state Consumer Redressal Commission was unavailable for comment, Justice P.N. Bhaduri, president of the Calcutta District Consumer Forum (Unit 1), acknowledged the rift between judicial and non-judicial members. “Undoubtedly, there have been problems, but I wouldn’t like to speak about this,” Bhaduri says.

Says Prabir Basu of the state Consumer Protection Council, “In the interest of the consumers, orders should be passed following the rules and guidelines set by the apex consumer court of the country.”

The study ? covering the district consumer courts of Calcutta, Bankura, North 24 Parganas, Darjeeling and the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ? feels that a three-member panel of judges for a consumer court is grossly inadequate these days. “Consumer disputes range from medical negligence cases to public utility services. The same panel of a judge and two members cannot be viewed as experts in all these fields,” it says, recommending a panel of 10 to 12 experts in different fields to help the three-member jury dispose of complicated cases.

The study also found that the members lack motivation as they are paid a measly monthly salary of Rs 8,000. “With that kind of a remuneration package, it is difficult to get quality adjudicators from different spheres of life,” the report says.

Taking serious note of the fact that consumers win very few cases against the state government, the study suggested that the consumer court judges, appointed by the state government, should not adjudicate in cases involving the government.