LAW MANTRATHINK BEYOND OTHERS

(National Monthly Journal, I.S.S.N 2321-6417)

A Critical analysis of working of Consumer Protection Law in redressing consumer
disputes with special reference to Jammu and Kashmir
Rajneesh Khajuria*
Consumerism is humanism and humanism is consumerism
Justice Krishna Iyar
The Constitution of India provides for socio-economic justice in which consumer
protection is also included. The Indian parliament passed a number of enactments for protecting
the interests of the consumers but they failed to do so as the procedures under these enactments
was time consuming and expensive. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution No.39/248 on
9 April 1985 and adopted guidelines relating to consumer protection which further provide a
framework for the governments of developing countries to formulate consumer protection
policies and legislations. After passing of the UN Guidelines on Consumer Protection, 1985, the
concern for consumer protection and a better quality of life became serious concern in India and
culminated in the enactment of the most significant piece of legislation by the Indian Parliament
i.e., The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Act provided for unified and effective machinery
for redressal of consumers grievances and speedy and simple redressal mechanism for
consumer disputes. On similar lines with the central legislation, the Jammu and Kashmir State
legislature also enacted the Consumer Protection Act, 1987 which also provides for redressal
mechanism for consumers disputes. In the present article an attempt has been made to critically
analyze the working of redressal mechanism for consumer disputes under the Consumer
Protection law in India as well as in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Key words: Consumer, Consumer protection, Redressal mechanism.
I Introduction
The Present society can be said as Consumer oriented society, Consumerism as emerged,
developed and came to be incorporated in legal systems across the World to stall and dismantle
those practices, is not merely an ideology or philosophy but it has a pragmatic and realistic
connotation. Law as an institution of J ustice ought to do justice to people in an organised
political legal order. Municipal legal orders hence are required to be suitably modified to make
them more functional and people/ justice oriented
1
. Consumerism is a process through which the

*Rajneesh Khajuria, Assistant Prof., The Law School, University of J ammu (180006).
consumers seek redress, restitution and remedy for their dissatisfaction and frustration with the
help of their all organised or unorganised efforts and activities. It is a social movement seeking
to protect the rights of consumers in relation to the producers of goods and providers of services.
In-fact consumerism today is an all-pervasive term meaning nothing more than peoples search
for getting better value for their money. Consumers consciousness determines the effectiveness
of consumerism. It is the duty of the consumer to identify his rights and to protect them.
Modern technological developments have no doubt made a great impact on the quality,
availability and safety of goods and services. But the fact of life is that the consumers are still
victims of unscrupulous and exploitative practices. Exploitation of consumers assumes numerous
forms such as adulteration of food, spurious drugs, dubious hire purchase plans, high prices, poor
quality, deficient services, deceptive advertisements, hazardous products, black marketing and
many more. In addition, with revolution in information technology newer kinds of challenges are
thrown on the consumer like cyber crimes, plastic money etc., which affect the consumer in even
bigger way. Consumer is sovereign and customer is the king are nothing more than myths in
the present scenario particularly in the developing societies. However, it has been realized and
rightly so that the Consumer protection is a socio- economic programme to be persued by the
government as well as the business as the satisfaction of the consumers is in the interest of both.
In this context, the government, however, has a primary responsibility to protect the consumers
interests and rights through appropriate policy measures, legal structure and administrative
framework
2
.
II Consumer Protection: International Scenario

In the history of the development of consumer policy, April 9, 1985 is a very significant date for
it was on that day that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a set of general
guidelines
3
for consumer protection and the Secretary General of the United Nations was
authorised to persuade member countries to adopt these guidelines through policy changes or

1
Ukey Dilip and S.R. Bhosale, Consumerism in India- Dilemma and Dynamism, INDIAN BAR REVIEW, Vol.
29(3&4),133-134 (2002).
2
S.S.Singh andSapna Chadha, Consumer Protection in India some reflections, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION retrieved on 23rd May 2014 from
http://consumereducation.in/publications/1_consumer_protection_%20in_india.pdf
3
General Assembly Resolution 39/ 85
law. These guidelines constitute a comprehensive policy framework outlining what governments
need to do to promote consumer protection in following seven areas:
a) Physical safety;
b) Protection and Promotion of the consumer economic interest;
c) Standards for the safety and quality of consumer goods and services;
d) Distribution facilities for consumer goods and services;
e) Measures enabling consumers to obtain redress;
f) Measures relating to specific areas (food, water and pharmaceuticals) and
g) Consumer education and information programme.
Though not legally binding, the guidelines provide an internationally recognised set of basic
objectives particularly for governments of developing and newly independent countries for
structuring and strengthening their consumer protection policies and legislations. These
guidelines were adopted recognizing that consumers often face imbalances in economic terms,
educational levels and bargaining power and bearing in mind that consumers should have the
right of access to non hazardous products as well as the importance of promoting just, equitable
and sustainable economic and social development.
III Consumer Protection: National Perspective
With the adoption of the Constitution in 1949, the aspirations of the people of India found an
explicit expression in the Preamble, Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State
Policy. Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India ensure the socio- economic justice for all
Indian citizens by seeking to introduce a socialistic pattern of society
4
. India has turned a new
leaf in its quest for development by enunciating new economic policy. In a highly centralized
economic system, protection of consumers interest is the responsibility of the state. To give
effect to liberalization policy, the government has taken legislative and administrative steps to
ensure that the interests of the consumers are watched and protected
5
.
In the wake of its legislative action the government of India has enacted much legislation to
protect the interests of the consumers like The Food Adulteration Act, 1954, The Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, The
Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, The Bureau of Indian Standard Act, 1986 and

4
The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act 1976 (w.e.f. 3 J an, 1977).
5
D.N. SARAF, LAW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION IN INDIA, 1-4 (1995).
many more. But these enactments were not adequate as they were scattered and did not provide
for unified and effective machinery for the redressal of the grievances of the consumers.
Realizing the need for a comprehensive legislation which could provide not only protection of
consumers interest but also create a unified enforcement mechanism and Fora to redress their
grievances, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted. The Act of 1986 came into force
with effect from 1 July 1987 in whole of India except state of J ammu and Kashmir and is
regarded as Magna Carta in the field of consumer protection for checking the unfair trade
practices and defect in goods and deficiencies in services
6
.
The Act is a milestone in the history of socio-economic legislations in India and has considerably
improved the process of consumer protection. It has given rise, during the past few decades, to
new consumer jurisprudence in India. In Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta
7
, the
Supreme Court held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 attempts to remove the helplessness
of a consumer which he faces against the powerful businesses, described as a network of
rackets and the might of public bodies which are degenerating into storehouses of inaction. The
enactment of this law in these circumstances appears to be a silver lining which may in the
course of time succeed in checking the rot. The Consumer Protection Act provides for legal
framework for the protection of the rights and interests and to accord socio-economic justice to
people of Indian Republic
8
. Through the enactment of this statute, an attempt has been made by
the Indian Parliament to provide a speedy and cheap remedy by way of an alternative to the time
consuming and expensive process of civil litigation
9
.
The Act provides for the establishment of the Consumer Protection Councils at the National,
State and District levels. The objectives of these councils are to help the respective governments
in adopting and reviewing policies for promoting and protecting the rights of the consumers. The
composition of these consumer councils are broad based. The citizens and organisations
representing different interest groups having implications for consumers rights protection are
members of these councils. One may like to add, that the Consumer Councils are required to be
constituted on public-private partnership basis for better feedback and thereby review of the

6
J .N BAROWALIA, COMMENTARIES ON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986, 13-15(2000).
7
AIR 1994 SC 787 (790).
8
Hans Raj Arora and Avinash Dhamir, Consumer Relief for the Consumer in Grief, PUNJ ABI UNIVERSITY LAW
J OURNAL, Vol. II, 236 (2008).
9
S.K .Abdul Sarkar v. State of Orissa, CPJ II (1991).
policy in the area of consumers rights protection. The main objective of these councils is to
promote and protect rights and interests of consumers in the society. It also provides for
Consumer Disputes Redressal Adjudicatory bodies established at three levels i.e. District level,
State level and National level respectively.

i. Redressal Mechanism under the National legislation
The Act of 1986 provide for quasi-judicial machinery for the redressal of consumer disputes.
These quasi judicial bodies have to observe the principles of natural justice and have been
empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award appropriate compensation to the
consumers. Chapter III of the Act is the soul of Consumer Protection Act and came into force on
1 J uly 1987 in whole of India except state of J &K. This part of the Act deals with
a) the establishment of three tier Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies namely the
District Forum, the State Commission and the National Commission
10
.
b) Composition of District Forum
11
,the State Commission
12
, and the National
Commission
13
and
c) the jurisdiction of the District Forum
14
, the State Commission
15
, and the National
Commission
16
, respectively.

According to Section 9(a), every state government is required to set up a District Forum in each
of its districts. Prior to 1993, it was mandatory for every state government to seek prior approval
of the Central Government before setting up any District Forum. However, this requirement has
been dispensed with by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993 with a view to avoid
procedural delays in the approval seeking process.

ii Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora

10
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 9.
11
Ibid., Section10.
12
Ibid., Section 16.
13
Ibid., Section20.
14
Ibid., Section11.
15
Ibid., Section 17.
16
Ibid., Section 21.
Originally, under the Act of 1986, a complaint can be filed in the District Forum if the
value of the goods or the services rendered and the compensation asked for does not exceed
rupees one lakhs whereas the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint if
the value of the goods or the services is more than rupees one lakhs but less than rupees ten lakhs
and if such value exceeds rupees ten lakhs then complaint is to be filed in the National
Commission. By the Amendment Act of 1993 the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer Fora was
enhanced to rupees five lakhs for District Forum, five to twenty lakhs for State Commission and
more than twenty lakhs for National Commission. The Consumer Protection Act was
subsequently amended by the Amendment Act of 2002 which came into force in 2003. It has
virtually overhauled the structure of the Act
17
. The Contemporary position as to the pecuniary
jurisdiction of the Redressal Fora is that a complaint can be filed in the District Forum if the
value of the goods or the services rendered and the compensation asked for does not exceed
rupees twenty lakhs
18
whereas the State Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint
if the value of the goods or the services is more than rupees twenty lakhs but less than rupees one
crore
19
and if such value exceeds rupees one crore then complaint is to be filed in the National
Commission
20
.
iii. Provision of Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act
Provisions for the appeals have been extensively laid down in the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986. Appeal against the decision of the District Forum can be filed in State Commission
within a period of 30 days
21
and against the decision of the State Commission in the National
Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of decision
22
. The Supreme Court has
jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the decision of the National Commission within a period
of 30 days from the date of decision
23
. The proviso to Section 15 provides that the State
Commission may entertain an appeal even after the expiry of 30 days if it is satisfied that there
was sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the said period. Thus, the period of

17
AVTAR SINGH, LAW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION (PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE), v (2005).
18
Supra note 8, Section 11.
19
Ibid., Section 17
20
Ibid., Section 21.
21
Ibid., Section 15.
22
Ibid., Section 19.
23
Ibid., Section 23.
limitation can be condoned on sufficient cause being shown. However, it must be remembered
that for condonation each days delay must be satisfactorily explained. Ignorance of law and in
particular, of the provisions of the limitation can possibly provide no excuse and cannot be a
valid ground for condonation of delay in filing the appeal
24
.The mandatory rules laid under the
Consumer Protection Rules are to be complied with for filing an appeal under Section 15 of the
Act.
iv. Provision as to period of Limitation
In the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there was no provision incorporating the period of
limitation for filing complaints before the District Forum, the State Commission and the National
Commission. The period of limitation was to be governed under the Indian limitation Act, 1963.
But by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1993, a new Section, 24-A was inserted
whereby the limitation period has been laid down for filing a complaint before the Redressal
Fora. As per Section 24-A , a consumer can file a complaint before the District Forum, the State
Commission or the National Commission within two years from the date on which the cause of
action had arisen. As the proceedings before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies cannot
be described as suit, as such the provisions of Section 3 of the Limitation Act could not be
strictly applied. Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act is considerably different from
Section 3 of the Limitation Act which does not admit of any exception, while in the proviso to
Section 24-A of the Act
25
, there is scope for condonation of delay.
In considering the question of limitation, the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies has to
deal with
a) the question as to what are the facts which constitute the cause of action for the
complainant to file the complaint,
b) the question as to the date on which the cause of action to file complaint has arisen,
c) whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation of two years from the
date the cause of action and

24
Wheels world v. Dr. (Smt.) Janak Narendra, CPJ II (1991) 557.
25
Hereinafter to be referred to as Consumer Protection Act,1986.
d) if there is delay in filing the complaint, whether an application for condonation of delay
has been filed and whether sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the
period of limitation is made out.

However, the proviso to Section 24-A lays down that no complaint shall be entertained by the
District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission after a period of two years
from the date of accrual of cause of action unless the concerned Forum records its reasons for
condoning the delay. This means that the application for the condonation of delay in filing the
complaint should be decided first by stating the reasons for allowing the application and only
after the application is allowed, the complaint can be entertained by the concerned forum.
v. Enforcement of the orders of consumer dispute redressal agencies
The Consumer Dispute Redressal Fora are provided with tooth strong enough for
enforcing its orders. Section 25 and 27 of the Act provide for enforcement of the orders made by
the CDRA and the imposition of penalties in the event of their violation respectively. Section 25
lays down that every order made by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies may be enforced
by them in the same manner as if it were a decree or an order made by a court in a pending suit.
In case of failure or omission to comply with any order made by CDRA against a trader or a
person against whom a complaint is made, such trader or person shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three
years or with fine which shall not be less than rupees 2000/-(two thousand) but which may
extend to rupees 10000/- (ten thousand) or with both
26
. The Consumer Protection (Amendment)
Act, 1993 has brought a significant change in Section 27 by incorporating the word
complainant in it and now even a complainant can be punished with fine in the event of non-
compliance of the orders of CDRA. The inclusion of the term complainant will secure
accountability on the part of the complainants. In Rajani Gas Company v. V.P.Jawalekar,
27
it
was held that the main purpose behind the provisions contained in Section 27 of the Act is to
seek compliance with the orders passed by the Redressal Fora. Section 27 is in a way a King
Pin in the execution of the orders of the Redressal Agencies.

26
Section 27 and S.21 of the Act of 1987.
27
CPJ II (1992) 786.
vi. Pre-Act Consumer disputes
Though Chapter III of the Act of 1986 which deals with CDRAs came into force w.e.f.
1st J uly 1987 but a consumer dispute, in which cause of action arose prior to 1st July 1987, can
be filed before the Consumer Forum provided the claim of the consumer is not a stale one. There
is nothing in the Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Redressal Fora constituted under the
provisions, to the adjudication of the disputes only in respect of which the cause of action arose
subsequent to the coming into force of this Chapter. The only test to be applied is whether as on
the date when a consumer dispute is filed before a forum constituted under the Act, the cause of
action is alive and subsisting under the law of limitation. So long as the cause of action is not
barred under the general law of limitation as on the date of institution of the consumer dispute
before the Redressal Forum, the mere fact that the date of accrual of cause of action was prior to
the date of coming into force of Chapter III of the Act is totally irrelevant
28
.
IV Position in the State of Jammu and Kashmir
In the State of J &K, The J &K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 was passed by State Legislature
which is in peri materia with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, there were certain
provisions in the Act of 1987 which were different from that of Act of 1986. The J &K Consumer
Protection Act, 1987 was amended by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1997.
Chapter III of the Act of 1987 also provide for Consumer Dispute Redressal Mechanism but
unlike the Act of 1986, it is a two tier Mechanism providing for the Divisional Forum instead of
District Forum and the State Commission
29
.It also provide for the composition and jurisdiction of
the Divisional Forum
30
and the State Commission
31
respectively. However, the J &K Consumer
Protection Act, 1987 was further amended by the J &K Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act,
2002
32
and by this amendment in S.7 of the Act of 1987 the word District Forum is substituted

28
S.Elhence v. Raghomal Nahar Singh (P) Ltd.,CPJ I (1991) 327.
29
The J &K Consumer Protection Act,1987 Sec.7
30
Ibid., Ss .8 & 9
31
Ibid.,Ss.14 & 15
32
Act No. XXI of 2011 vide Notification dated 13 Dec, 2011 issued by Department of Law, J ustice and
Parliamentary Affairs, Govt. of J&K.
for the word Divisional Forum. And likewise changes have been made in different provisions of
the principal Act of 1987
33
.
Uunder the Act of 1987, originally the pecuniary jurisdiction of Divisional Forum(now District
Forum) was up to fifty thousand and that of State commission was fifty thousand to ten lakhs.
The Amendemnt Act of 1997 raised the pecuniary jurisdiction of Divisional Forum up to Five
lakhs and that of Sate Commission to Five lakhs to Thirty Lakhs. The Amendment of 2002 has
again enhanced the pecuniary jurisdiction and now a complaint can be filed in the Divisional
Forum, if the value of goods or the services rendered and compensation if any does not exceed
Rs. Ten lakhs where as State Commission has jurisdiction to entertain complaint if value of the
goods or services exceeds Rs. Ten lakhs but less than fifty lakhs. As for as the jurisdiction of the
National Commission is concerned, it has no jurisdiction under the Act of 1987.
The J &K Consumer Protection Act, 1987 provides for appeal against the order of Divisional
Forum (now District Forum as amended by Act of 2002) to the State Commission
34
within a
period of 30 days and that of State Commission to the High Court of J &K
35
within a period of 30
days from the date of order impugned. Delay in filing appeal can be condoned by the State
Commission or the High Court by sufficient cause being shown. But Proviso to Section 13 &17
lays that the appeal cant be entertained by the State Commission or the High Court respectively
unless it is certified by the President Divisional Forum (now District Forum as amended by Act
of 2002) or the Chairman State Commission respectively that 25% of the amount payable under
the order has been deposited by the appellant. Section 18-A of the J &K Consumer Protection
Act
36
also lays down the provision for limitation and is similar in content with Section 24-A of
the Act of 1986.
V Critical Appraisal of the working of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies
The Consumer Protection Act is one of the benevolent social legislation intended to
protect the consumers from exploitation. The Act has come as a panacea for the consumers all

33
Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 amended the Sections 7, 8,9,10,11,12,13, 14, 15, 16, 16-A, 18, 18-
A, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24-A of the Act of 1987 and substituted the word District Forum for the word Divisional
Forum.
34
S.13 of The J&K Consumer Protection Act, 1987.
35
S.17,Ibid.
36
Inserted by Act xix of 1997
over the country and has become the vehicle for enabling people to secure speedy and
inexpensive redressal of their grievances. However, there are certain critical areas in the working
of the Act and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies, both at central and the state level,
which require consideration.
First, although the Act was passed in 1986 by the Parliament, by the early 1990, it was
still not very unusual for many districts to be without district forum for e.g. In Tamilnadu district
forum and the State Commission were not established until 1992
37
. However, by 2000, the
Central Consumer Protection Council reported that out of 556 districts in the country, 532 had
consumer forum set up and because some of them had more than one the total number of fora in
the country was 563 and out of that 509 i.e. approximately ninety percent were functioning
38
.
Among the thirty two States Commissions, all except Assam, West Bengal and Daman and Diu
were listed as functioning
39
.
Second, as the original jurisdiction of the District Forums over the consumer disputes
range up to twenty lakhs under the Central law and ten lakhs under the J & K State law
respectively, one would expect that the overwhelming majority of complaints would, therefore,
originate at District level. By raising the limits of jurisdiction, the respective legislature has made
clear its intent that the work of upper levels be limited to major liability cases and appeals. As far
as State of J ammu and Kashmir is concerned, J ammu and Srinagar being the capital districts of
the state would call for much large number of consumer complaints and only one district forum
would not be sufficient to redress the grievances of the consumers therein and thus, additional
District fora are needed to be constituted. Ironically, the Government of J ammu and Kashmir has
approved for setting up of eight District Fora, four each in J ammu and Kashmir Divisions. But
there are twenty two districts in J &K and only eight Consumer District Fora as recommended by
the J &K State Government are inadequate to redress the grievances of the consumers owing to
large population and typical geographical location of the State.
Third, the Act was meant to provide speedy and inexpensive redressal of consumer
disputes but still there has been considerable delay in the disposal of cases by the redressal

37
CAG Reports( Citizen, Consumer and Civic Action Group: Aug-Sept 1999) at p.3
38
Proceedings of the XXth meeting of Central Consumer Protection Council Nov. 8, 2000 at p. 19-20.
39
Ibid at p. 21-22.
agencies. Even the Planning Commission has constituted the Working Group on Consumer
Protection in context of preparation of the Twelfth Plan. Department of Consumer Affairs,
Government of India has constituted six sub-groups and one of the sub- groups is on Consumer
Protection and Redressal, ADR and Consumers Counseling. The report
40
submitted by the
Planning Commission states that though the overall disposal rate and the performance of the
Consumer Fora is considered to be impressive, still there is delay in the disposal of cases by the
redressal agencies at the District, State and the National level and this pendency is a cause of
major concern.
1) The Table #1 shows the data presented in the report aforesaid regarding the consumer
complaints filed, disposed and pending in various redress foras in the country
Table # 1
Total Number of Consumer Complaints filed / disposed/pending since inception
Under Consumer Protection Law





Source: Report of the working Group on Consumer Protection, Twelfth Plan (2012-17) Volume II, Sub group
Report, Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public
Distribution Annexure V.

2) The data of consumer cases filed, disposed and pending before the Consumer Disputes
Redressal Agencies in State of J ammu and Kashmir is presented in Table #2.

40
Report of the working Group on Consumer Protection, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer
Affairs , Food and Public Distribution, Government of India, 12
th
Plan, vol. II, (2012-17).
S.No. Name of Agency Cases Filed since
inception
Cases Disposed
of since
inception
Cases
Pending
%age of Total
Disposal
1 National Commission 69465 60504 8961 87.10%
2 State Commissions 541478 440613 100865 81.37%
3 District Fora 2992338

2736379 155959 91.45%

Table #2

Total Number of Consumer Complaints filed/ disposed of and pending before CDRAs in
the State of Jammu and Kashmir since inception under consumer protection law




S.No. Name of Consumer
Dispute Redressal
Agency
Cases filed
since
inception
Cases
Disposed of
since
inception
Cases
pending
% of Total
Disposal
As on
1 State Commission 6131 5428 703 88.53 31-03-2011
2 District Fora 20792 18855 1937 90.68 31-12-2007

Source: Report of the working Group on Consumer Protection, Twelfth Plan (2012-17) Volume II, Sub group
Report, Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public
Distribution Annexure VI & VII.

The delay in disposal of the consumer disputes may be sometimes due to the fact that the
quorum of the redressal fora is not complete. And to remove this difficulty and to enhance the
capability of the redressal agencies, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 empowers
the senior most member to preside over the bench in case the president is absent so that the
forum may function uninterruptedly. Analysis of the data reveals that the third amendment to Act
of 1986 has facilitated in achieving the objective of quick and speedy remedy to a considerable
extent. In nearly fifty two percent of cases at State Commission, the hearing was ranging from 1-
6. However, at the urban District Forums only nineteen percent of cases were disposed within 1-
6 hearings whereas, only eighteen percent of cases were disposed of within 1-6 hearings at the
rural District Forums. There are 629 District Fora at the District level, 35 State Commissions at
State level and one National Commission. Out of over thirty five lakhs cases filed before the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies, 89.77 percent already stands disposed of.
41

VI Conclusion and Suggestions
A mile stone step was taken by the Indian Parliament in 1986 and by the State of J &K in
1987 in the field of consumer protection by enacting Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the
Consumer Protection Act, 1987 wherein exhaustive redressal mechanism was provided for the
protection of the rights of the consumers. The working of these Redressal Fora for the past more
than two decades has made it amply obvious that legal framework for protecting rights of the
consumers is capable of getting the rights of the consumer vindicated against the unscrupulous
trader or the service provider.
Though the two Acts are similar in most of the aspects but still there are some significant
differences with regard to Redressal Fora and their jurisdiction. The Central Act provides for
National Commission as Appellate body for State Commission where as J &K Law provide for
appeals from the order of the State Commission to the J &K High Court. Despite having some
differences, the object of both the legislations is to provide speedy and simple redressal to
consumer disputes through Quasi-J udicial bodies by observing the Principles of Natural J ustice
and thus, serving the complainants from lengthy and cumbersome procedure of Civil courts.
To improve the working of these redressal agencies and for enhancing their capacity
certain suggestions have been made herein.
a) More benches of State Commission should be set up.
b) Additional District Fora should be constituted for disposing of consumer complaints and
this will also ensure speedy disposal of cases.
c) Online registration of consumer complaints to these redressal fora should be provided.
Fourth, funding for raising the infrastructure of Consumer Fora should be provided by the
Government.
d) And last but not the least all these efforts to provide and improve the mechanism for
redressing consumer disputes will not yield anything unless there is awareness about

41
Supra note 38 at p. 18.
consumer rights and redressal mechanisms. So steps should be taken to spread consumer
movement to every nook and corner of the country.



***