Manufacturers and sellers of goods and providers of services in Nepal often go unpunished even though they cheat consumers or harm them in other ways. In the few cases of action, the guilty are usually let off with light fines. This is why few aggrieved parties bother to put in their complaints. The Supreme Court’s mandamus issued Monday to the Department of Commerce to stop deciding cases under the Consumer Protection Act 2054 reveals another ugly aspect — department officials had been acting as investigator, prosecutor and judge — just like the now disbanded Royal Commission on Corruption Control — in violation of the law which gives only the district court the right to hear cases under the Act. What the department could do is to file a case under Clause 10, in consultation with a government attorney, against consumer rights offenders.

But statistics show that a large number of cases have already been irregularly decided by the department. In the fiscal year 2002-03, the department had taken action against 2,184 people and in 2003-04 against 2,048 for ‘improper or undesirable business practices’. Only five cases had been filed in the district court; all the others had been fined up to Rs.75,000. However, the guilty officials do not seem to face any action. The court decreed that it is not possible now to bring under the due process of law the cases already settled by the department. Perhaps some strictures would have served better. However, it now becomes the duty of the government to bring the guilty officials to book and investigate possible cases of corruption. But this has been an exception rather than a rule.

Besides, another aspect calls for attention in order to make consumer protection effective. The district court is already neck deep in general cases. Under such circumstances, delivery of justice would take years. Consumer rights is a broad area that can attract a large number of cases at any point in time. So it would be a good idea to consider setting up the consumer court to deal with consumer complaints and rights, all the more so because the consumer movement in Nepal is a fledgling phenomenon, and whatever consumer protection groups are there have proved ineffective for various reasons. Many businessmen and service providers like medical doctors do not play the game from time to time, and consumers will have to bear the consequences, sometimes paying with their life. There is thus a strong case for a stringent consumer protection law with provisions for tough penalties for the guilty businessmen as well as the officials.