PIL Before Kerala High Court Alleges Statutory Mechanism Of Consumer Protection Act 2019 Not Fully Implemented In State

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Kerala High Court alleging that the statutory mechanism and the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are not fully implemented in the State, thereby affecting the rights of the consumers and their right to access to justice.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly admitted the plea on Wednesday and posted the matter on 11th November for consideration. 

The petitioner, a practising lawyer, moved the Court to bring out the alleged unfortunate situation of the State and District Consumer Commissions in the State following the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

The Act directs the State government to determine the nature and categories of officers and other employees required to assist the State Commission with such officers and other employees as it may deem fit. Under Section 33, a similar requirement has been made for the District Commissions. 

However, the case of the petitioner is that the State government has not yet provided officers either to State or the District Commissions. 

The Act also provides for mediation at the preliminary stage, and it is the duty of the State to establish a consumer mediation cell with every district and State Commission as per Section 79. 

Similarly, the Consumer Protection Mediation Rules, 2020 stipulates that the mediation cell should have such support staff as may be decided by the president of the Commission in consultation with the concerned government.

However, the PIL contends that the State government has not yet established such mediation cells and that no supporting staff is provided in the State or the District Commissions. 

Additionally, the petitioner argued that as per Section 71 of the Act, all the orders of the commission are to be enforced as if it is a decree of a Civil Court. Nevertheless, it was argued that the State had not yet appointed sufficient staff to enforce or execute such orders. 

"The Commissions in the State are now not entertaining the execution petitions due to the non-availability of a support system," the plea reads.

Another concern brought to the fore by the petitioner is regarding non-compliance of Commissions' orders. Significantly, the Act provides that every proceeding before the District Commission shall be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of IPC. The Commission also has punitive powers for non-compliance. 

However, the petitioner pointed out that no police personnel were deployed yet to the Commission for the effective enforcement of that provision. 

The Act also provides for the establishment of Consumer Protection Councils at the State and District levels to render advice on the promotion and protection of consumer rights.

However, such Councils have not yet been created in the State according to the petitioner.  

The plea filed through Advocate R.V Sreejith and Advocate Rinu S. Aswan, therefore, alleged that the inaction of the State is arbitrary and that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 

"The spirit and soul of the 2019 Act are getting defeated due to the inaction of the 2nd respondent."

Case Title: CK Mithran v. Union of Indian & Ors.