Ideally, it is for companies to highlight their product quality where it is applicable. Curiously enough, consumer protection is one area where the policy makers, especially at the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, have been fairly receptive over the decades and we have seen a slow but steady improvement in consumer protection rules. However, the judiciary is rather less sensitive. Consumer cases drag on for a decade from the district courts to the national commission. And even when consumers have pursued cases with enormous doggedness and won their case, the courts have invariably been niggardly in their compensation.

In fact, a series of cases recently settled by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) have made it a point to mention the notional loss of income suffered by the consumer, but have awarded a compensation that is a fraction of that figure. Strangely, the courts seem to perceive it as a sign of their ‘even-handedness’ in allowing only a part of the notional loss suffered by the consumer. There is rarely any cognisance taken of the harassment, anxiety and mental torture suffered by the consumer and even costs, when awarded are a mere pittance.

For instance, in a recent judgement by the NCDRC the court calculated the minimum financial loss suffered by the consumer at Rs 9.24 lakh (and a maximum of Rs 20 lakh), but still awarded a compensation of just Rs 2 lakh. In a case against Maruti, the Supreme Court overturned two lower court judgements and decided (after a 10-year battle) a consumer who was sold a car with a defective clutch (that never got fixed for various reasons) was only entitled to a replacement of the clutch assembly and not the car.

... contd.