CGSI Mediation & Conciliation Clinic Inaugurated
Courtesy: Afternoon Dispatch & Courier
Shri. Girish Bapat, Cabinet Minister for Consumer Protection, Government of Maharashtra, launched the Mediation and Conciliation Clinic of Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) yesterday, October 20, 2015. The idea of speedy justice for consumers has now assumed realistic proportions thanks to the inauguration of the ‘Mediation and Conciliation Clinic’ by CGSI (Consumer Guidance Society of India). Arun Deshpande, Chairman, Consumer Welfare Advisory Committee of Maharashtra was also present during the inauguration. The clinic primarily aims to resolve cases pertaining to consumer disputes.
Bapat said, “I’m glad to help CGSI inaugurate the mediation and conciliation cell. There have been several cases pending in court and the government is now ready to give full cooperation to CGSI and strengthen the confidence of consumers. I will extend the support across the state and further also help in raising funds.”
Dr. Kamath, Hon. Secretary, CGSI, opined, “This clinic will help the consumers to solve their problems out of court without facing the problem of litigation. Even today cases going back to 1997 are still pending and hence mediation and conciliation will help in reducing court cases and expedite justice for the common man”.
Rajesh Kothari, Solicitor and Advocate, stated “Following the normal process of court is very tedious, time-consuming and expensive. Here at CGSI, we are providing an alternate mode of dispute redressal. We will call both the parties and use our platform as an NGO and try to resolve the dispute”.
The Mediation and Conciliation Cell will start operating from 20 October at CGSI office premises. For any further queries with respect to the ‘Mediation and Conciliation Clinic’ you could contact on 022 22621612/ 22659715 or email on firstname.lastname@example.org
Mid Day visited our CGSI office and wrote about our activities.
The Consumer Guidance Society of India (CGSI) located at Azad Maidan had a legal aid session recently which had a few consumers come to ask for advice. Dr M S Kamath, Secretary of the CGSI was providing assistance to aggrieved consumers who had come to seek justice.
Many Citizens find that when they make applications for certain services or for some corrections or make a complaint or representation to Government bodies they get no response. Now there is a very powerful law in Maharashtra which can empower us. If citizens use it with RTI it can result in better governance and delivery of timely services.
Its name is a mouthful: ‘Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act (Act 21 of 2006)’.
The first part –Chapter 2- specifies that government servants must have a tenure of three years and should normally be transferred only in April or May. If this is violated reasons must be given. Citizens can use this to curb arbitrary transfers of good officers like Khemka or Pardeshi.
The second part, Rule 10 effectively says that no decision on any file can take more than 45 days if a matter has to be decided within the department, and no more than 90 days where other departments have to be consulted.
Rule 10 (3) [ 64C for BMC] alongwith the rules requires the competent authority to do a preliminary investigation within 15 working days and take disciplinary action if negligence is established.
In short if an application/complaint/representation has received no response for over 90 days, if the citizen brings it to the notice of the competent authority (Secretary of the department), the Secretary is obliged to take steps to fix responsibility for dereliction of duty.
If you have received no response to your application/complaint/representation in Maharashtra please send a letter on the following lines to the Secretary of the department:
“ I had given my application for……….. on ………….. Since then I have received no communication. I would like to draw your attention to Section 10 of the Transfers and Delays Act 21 of 2006/ ( 64C of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act) which mandates that no decision can be kept pending for over 3 months. In the instant case, no decision has been communicated to me despite the lapse of…… months. I request to conduct a preliminary enquiry to fix responsibility on the officers responsible for this delay and take appropriate disciplinary action against them. I request that the report of the enquiry may please be sent to me.
I look forward to your early action in the above matter,”
The report submitted by the Commission on financial sector reforms has a detailed chapter on consumer protection. It has recommended inverting the current scenario of “buyer beware” to a “seller beware” situation. Read the following report to understand the recommendations
A well functioning financial system should allow individuals, households and enterprises to efficiently allocate and manage their resources and protect themselves from risk, through the use of financial products and services. This involves complex interactions between consumers and financial service providers. At a first level, these interactions require the support of law to define and protect property rights and facilitate the enforcement of contracts.
However, the complexity of financial markets and the existence of market failures in the form of information asymmetries, market externalities and differences in the bargaining powers of consumers and service providers, create the need for a higher standard of protection for financial consumers. The need for financial consumers to be treated fairly makes it appropriate to adopt a more intrusive approach to financial regulation, when compared with most other fields.
Currently, the strategy in Indian finance is focused on the doctrine of caveat emptor: let the buyer beware. Beyond protection from fraud and provisions to ensure full disclosure, consumers are generally left to their own devices. After extensive analysis and debate on these questions, the Commission believes that to the extent that consumers of financial services are more vulnerable than consumers of ordinary goods and services, higher standards of protection ensured by special efforts of the State are justified.
The vulnerability of consumers reflects a major gap in Indian financial regulation, which needs to be addressed. As such, the Commission recommends the adoption of a consolidated, non-sector-specific, consumer protection framework for the entire financial system that will empower and require regulators to pursue consumer protection for the financial activities regulated by them. In this context, the draft Code approaches the problems of consumer protection on two fronts: prevention and cure.
Prevention requires regulation-making and enforcement across the entire financial system from the viewpoint of consumer interests. For example, looking at questions of remuneration and conflicts of interest, when a sales agent sells a financial product to a household, and gets paid a fee by the producer of this financial product, is there a problem with conflicts of interest? How do we evolve a structure where the provider acts in the best interest of the consumer? Regulators should be obliged to grapple with questions such as these.
The consumer protection part of the draft Code has three components: an enumerated set of rights and protections for consumers, an enumerated set of powers in the hands of the regulator, and principles that guide what power should be used under what circumstances. The details of consumer protection would, of course, lie in the subordinated legislation to be drafted by financial regulators. Whether or not, for example, loads and other conflicted remuneration structures should be banned is a question that would need to be addressed by the regulator. The regulator will use its authority to develop subordinate legislation which will adapt over the years to reflect financial innovation, technological change, and the evolving nature of the Indian economy. Alongside this regulation-making mandate, the regulator would also have supervisory roles to ensure compliance with the law.
In India, so far, the financial regulatory structure has been defined by sector, with multiple laws and often multiple agencies covering various sectors. This has led to inconsistent treatment, and regulatory arbitrage. Regulators have sometimes been lax in developing required protections out of notions of facilitating growth in the industry. These problems would be reduced by having a single principles-based law which would cover the entire financial system. The Commission believes that an overarching principles based body of law would allow regulatory flexibility, consistent treatment of consumers across all aspects of their engagement with the financial system, fairness and ultimately a more stable financial system.
Turning from prevention to cure, the Commission proposes the creation of a unified financial redress agency. The redress agency is expected to have front-ends in every district of India, where consumers of all financial products will be able to submit complaints. Modern technology will be used to connect these front-ends into a centralized light-weight adjudication process. A well structured work-flow process will support speedy and fair handling of cases. Consumers will deal only with the redress agency when they have grievances in any financial activity: they will not have to deal with multiple agencies.
The complaints brought before the redress agency will shed light on where the problems of consumer protection are being found, and thus suggest areas for improvement in subordinated legislation. As such, a key feature of the redress agency will be the creation of a feedback loop through which the computerised case database of the redress agency will be utilised by the regulator to make better regulations on a systematic basis.
India needs a capable financial system, with sophisticated private financial firms.
However, the emergence of this financial system should not become a carte blanche for clever financial firms who achieve undue influence with their regulators, to take unfair advantage of customers. The present financial laws in India are vulnerable to such a prospect. As such, the Commission believes that it is essential to place the function of consumer protection at the heart of financial regulation (see Table 5.1).
Framework on consumer protection
The draft Code contains a consolidated non-sector-specific financial consumer protection framework. It identifies consumer protection as a key regulatory objective and contains the following preventive and curative components:
1. Preventive tools
- Certain protections are provided to all financial consumers.
- An additional set of protections are provided to unsophisticated or retail consumers.
- The regulator is given a list of enumerated powers which it can use in order to implement these protections.
- The regulator will be guided by a list of principles that should inform the exercise of its powers.
- The regulator has been given the power to supervise financial service providers and initiate enforcement and disciplinary actions.
2. Curative tools
- Creation of an independent financial redress agency to redress complaints of retail consumers against all financial service providers.
- A research program, applied to the data emanating from the redress agency, will feed back to the regulator and thus enable improvements in its work.
The terms “consumer”’ and “retail consumer” are defined in the draft Code to mean:
1. Consumer: A person who has availed, avails, or intends to avail a financial service or has a right or interest in a financial product.
2. Retail consumer: A consumer that is an individual or an eligible enterprise, if the value of the financial product or service does not exceed the limit specified by the regulator in relation to that product or service. The regulator may specify different limits for different categories of financial products and services.
3. Eligible enterprise: An enterprise that has less than a specified level of net asset value or has less than a specified level of turnover. Each of these caps will be specified by the regulator.