Library
Menu
Analysis of ADR under the Consumer Protection Act 2019
By: Swajay Dixit, Prankush Sharma
Abstract:
The research paper titled “Analysis of ADR under the Consumer Protection Act 2019” explores the efficacy of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in resolving consumer disputes in India. ADR, encompassing arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, is proposed as a solution to the delays and inefficiencies of traditional litigation. The paper emphasises the necessity of ADR due to the increasing volume of consumer disputes and the resultant backlog in courts.ADR offers a confidential and impartial means of dispute resolution outside the courtroom, aiming to provide faster and more cost-effective justice. The authors highlight the legislative support for ADR in India, particularly through the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which incorporates ADR mechanisms to enhance dispute resolution efficiency. This aligns with global practices, as seen in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, where ADR has been successfully implemented across various sectors.The paper discusses prominent ADR platforms in India, such as SAMA, an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform that has resolved millions of consumer disputes, and the Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA), which promotes institutional arbitration. Additionally, the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) plays a crucial role in institutionalising arbitration practices in India.The authors also examine the role of Dispute Adjudication Boards in the construction industry, which, despite their potential, face challenges such as delays and inadequate qualifications of members. They argue that standardising procedures and providing institutional support could enhance the effectiveness of these boards.nThe research paper underscores the benefits of ADR, including reduced judicial burdens and timely justice delivery. It cites significant cases and legislative amendments that advocate for ADR, indicating a systematic effort to integrate these mechanisms into the legal framework.The paper posits that the adoption of ADR mechanisms under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 represents a progressive step towards improving the dispute resolution landscape in India. The continued development and promotion of ADR are expected to contribute significantly to the efficiency and effectiveness of the justice system, benefiting consumers and aligning with international best practices
Keywords – Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), Arbitration, Mediation , Consumer Disputes, Statutes
Alternate dispute resolution (ADR) encompasses practices designed to circumvent the challenges of litigation. ADR includes methods such as arbitration, mediation, and conciliation, which are effective for resolving civil disputes in India. The surge in economic activities has led to a significant rise in consumer issues, resulting in a backlog of cases in courts and forums. Consequently, the resolution and delivery of justice are delayed due to the time-consuming nature of litigation procedures.
Prominent global leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, have advocated for ADR over litigation. Lincoln famously stated, “Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker, the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough. Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this.(….)”[1]
Lincoln’s support for compromise over litigation has become a global norm today. In India, there is a growing interest in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as courts increasingly recommend and validate its use. Modern contracts often include an arbitration clause for resolving disputes arising during contract execution. With over 500,000 consumer cases pending in Indian courts and forums, ADR can provide a valuable mode of redress for these cases.
In the current scenario, lawyers and relevant statutory bodies should consider ADR as a more effective method for settling consumer issues. This approach would offer parties a faster and more cost-effective solution for their disputes. The research objective for the article would be :
1- To study methods of ADR i.e. arbitration, conciliation and mediation in consumer related dispute resolution.
2- To discuss the provisions of statutes legally supporting ADR and its enforcement in consumer related issues.
3- To understand the loopholes in the Indian statutes, related to delay in consumer dispute redressal.
ADR offers a confidential mechanism for resolving disputes outside the courtroom. In this process, an impartial individual or panel is appointed to either determine the outcome or help the parties negotiate a resolution. If the agreement between the parties stipulates, ADR can result in a binding resolution.[2]
Alternate dispute resolution (ADR) encompasses various procedures designed to avoid litigation and provide alternative methods for resolving disputes. These procedures typically involve a neutral facilitator or mediator, appointed with the agreement of the disputing parties.
Major ways of alternate dispute resolution practice in India are:
Mediation involves a third party intervening between two disputing parties with the aim of reconciling them or persuading them to resolve their differences or settle their disputes.[3]
Mediation is a voluntary and binding process in which an impartial and neutral mediator helps disputing parties reach a settlement. The mediator does not impose a solution but fosters an environment where the parties can resolve their disputes collaboratively.[4]
Mediation is entirely voluntary, allowing the parties to control the process. Traditionally, mediation in India took the form of Gram Panchayat settlements in rural areas, with the sarpanch of village head acting as the mediator. Recently, the Mediation Act, 2023, has established a legislative framework for mediation, particularly institutional mediation, identifying various stakeholders to create a robust and effective mediation ecosystem in India.
While the mediation process is flexible and voluntary, it has become somewhat formulaic. Typically, it involves a series of submissions, all marked without prejudice, outlining the parties’ positions on the issues. After the mediator reviews these documents, a meeting is organised between the parties. During the mediation, the parties are usually placed in separate rooms and rarely see each other unless the mediator finds a way to settle the case. If an agreement is reached, the terms are drafted into a settlement agreement and signed on the spot. The mediation process is flexible in terms of settlement options, which can go beyond one party simply paying another; alternatives might include performing work or making a charitable donation.
Arbitration is one of the various methods of dispute resolution and is undoubtedly the most popular. According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, it is defined as “the referral of a dispute or difference between at least two parties for determination, after hearing both sides in a judicial manner, by an individual or panel other than a court of competent jurisdiction.”[5]
Arbitration involves an impartial third party, known as the arbitrator, who oversees the process and makes decisions to resolve the dispute. Unlike litigation, where a judge appointed by the court (a government official) presides, an arbitrator is a private individual selected by the parties. A dispute that might otherwise go to court becomes binding arbitration only through the parties’ agreement. This agreement can be made either before or after a dispute arises, often as a result of negotiations between the conflicting parties. While choosing binding arbitration over the judicial process is voluntary, once an agreement is in place, it becomes mandatory, as courts will enforce it by refusing to adjudicate disputes covered by the arbitration agreement.
In India, the rules and guidelines for arbitration are outlined in the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2019. This Act aims to promote institutional arbitration and reduce the prevalence of ad-hoc arbitration in the country.[6]
Conciliation is a process where one or more independent individuals, chosen by mutual consent of the parties to an agreement, facilitate the resolution of a dispute. This selection can occur either at the time the agreement is made or later, once a dispute has arisen. The primary goal of conciliation is to achieve a settlement through consensus, employing various persuasive techniques and other similar methods.[7]
The role of the conciliator is to remain impartial, conducting the proceedings fairly and objectively. They are guided by principles of objectivity, fairness, and justice, taking into account the nature of the business involved and the specific circumstances of the dispute, including any previous business practices between the parties. Unlike formal judicial processes, the conciliator is not bound by strict procedural rules or formal evidence requirements, allowing for a more flexible approach.
In some contexts, conciliation is also referred to as mediation. Although there may be technical or legal distinctions between these two terms, they are often used interchangeably. For the purpose of this discussion, “conciliation” will be used to encompass both processes, emphasising their shared objective of facilitating a mutually acceptable resolution to disputes through the assistance of an impartial third party.
However in conciliation, the third person has got greater power such as suggestions as to terms of a possible settlement and making proposals for settlement. The difference between the mediation and conciliation can be better understood by going through the role of third parties (i.e mediator and the conciliator) in the respective processes.
In the current scenario in India, various bodies and institutions appointed by the government and courts facilitate and promote dispute resolution through alternative methods. The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) is an authority established by the Supreme Court of India to support dispute resolution in the country.
The MCPC oversees the effective implementation of mediation and conciliation processes nationwide. It was established on April 9, 2005, by an administrative order from Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, the then Chief Justice of India. The committee is chaired by Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.[8]
The Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) ensures the regulated growth of mediation as a dispute resolution method by conducting mediation training programs across India. The MCPC collaborates with mediation centres, State Legal Services Authorities, and Judicial Academies. It also collects and maintains statistical data from various states. Additionally, the MCPC conducts research, coordinates with international organisations, accredited mediators, and holds seminars to promote and enhance the practice of mediation.
Lok Adalat is a prominent institution within the Indian judicial administration and serves as an esteemed platform for alternative dispute resolution (ADR). It is specifically designed to provide an accessible means of dispute resolution, particularly benefiting those from economically weaker sections of society.
The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), in collaboration with other Legal Services Institutions, conducts Lok Adalats. As one of the key mechanisms for alternative dispute resolution, Lok Adalat functions as a forum where disputes or cases, whether pending in court or at the pre-litigation stage, are amicably settled or compromised.
Lok Adalats hold statutory status under the Legal Services Authorities Act of 1987, underscoring their significance and authority within the legal framework. These forums facilitate a more efficient and cost-effective resolution of disputes, aiming to reduce the burden on traditional courts while ensuring that justice is accessible to all, particularly the marginalised and underserved communities. Through the collaborative efforts of NALSA and other legal services institutions, Lok Adalats continue to play a crucial role in the Indian judicial system by promoting fair and equitable dispute resolution.[9]
The primary objective of Lok Adalat institution is the out of court settlement between the parties and fast resolution of the case and to avoid the litigation procedures. Presently, Lok Adalat is functioning properly in the state of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, etc.
Founded in 2015, SAMA is an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform that offers services such as online mediation, online arbitration, and online Lok Adalat. As a non-governmental platform, SAMA facilitates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to address consumer-related issues. It has successfully resolved over 3.4 million consumer disputes for reputable companies including HERO, IndusInd Bank, YES Bank, ICICI Bank, NSE, BAJAJ Allianz, and Snapdeal[10].
Some of the private companies using SAMA as a platform to resolve there consumer disputes:
ICICI Bank has partnered with SAMA to offer a convenient approach to high-quality ADR services, assisting the public in resolving disputes online. Through this partnership, ICICI Bank uses SAMA as its ODR platform to resolve approximately 10,000 disputes, with values reaching up to INR 20 lakhs.
E-commerce marketplace Snapdeal has partnered with the online dispute resolution (ODR) platform SAMA to address customer complaints. In a recent pilot program, they achieved a 50 percent success rate. The pilot, which involved a few hundred cases, resulted in the settlement of 100 disputes. Snapdeal initiated the use of ODR after recognizing the lengthy process involved in resolving disputes between consumers and the platform.
The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA) was inaugurated in October 2016 as a result of a collaborative effort between the government of Maharashtra and the domestic and international business and legal communities. The primary objective of the MCIA is to promote and enhance the practice of institutional arbitration in India, providing a structured and reliable forum for resolving commercial disputes.[11]
When parties decide to refer their disputes to the MCIA for arbitration, they agree to conduct and administer the arbitration in accordance with the rules set forth by the MCIA. These rules are subject to amendment by the MCIA, and parties are bound by the rules that are in effect at the time the arbitration begins. However, in cases where these rules conflict with any mandatory provision of applicable law, the mandatory legal provisions will take precedence. This ensures that essential legal requirements are upheld and that parties cannot circumvent important legal protections.
The MCIA distinguishes itself as the first arbitral institution of its kind in India, setting a new standard for commercial dispute resolution within the country. It aims to become the premier forum for such disputes by offering innovative arbitral rules that align with international best practices, while also catering to the unique needs of the Indian market.
A key feature of the MCIA is its dedicated secretariat, which plays an essential role in ensuring the efficient, flexible, cost-effective, and impartial administration of arbitration proceedings. This secretariat provides comprehensive support and guidance to parties throughout the arbitration process, helping to facilitate a smooth and effective resolution of disputes. By offering these resources and adhering to high standards of arbitration practice, the MCIA seeks to establish itself as the leading institution for commercial arbitration in India.
The Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), originally known as the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre, was established under the visionary leadership of Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ajit Prakash Shah. The centre was inaugurated on November 25, 2009, by Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, who was then the Chief Justice of India. The inauguration ceremony was graced by several distinguished dignitaries, including Dr. M. Veerappa Moily, the then Union Minister for Law and Justice, Smt. Sheila Dikshit, the then Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Mr. Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and his fellow judges of the Delhi High Court, and Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, who was serving as the Attorney General of India at the time. DIAC holds the notable distinction of being the first Arbitration Centre annexed to a High Court in India.[12]
As a crucial component of the dispute resolution framework, DIAC has significantly contributed to the advancement and growth of arbitration in the country. The centre offers state-of-the-art infrastructure designed to facilitate arbitration proceedings, supported by pre-established rules and procedures that ensure an organised and efficient process. It provides an equitable fee structure and exceptional administrative and secretarial support, creating an environment conducive to the smooth conduct of arbitration.
The day-to-day operations and general administration of DIAC are overseen by the Coordinator and Additional Coordinators, under the guidance of the Arbitration Committee. This structure ensures that the centre operates efficiently and effectively, maintaining high standards in the administration of arbitration.
Through its commitment to providing a supportive and efficient environment for arbitration proceedings, DIAC has played a pivotal role in shaping the arbitration landscape in India. By promoting efficient dispute resolution mechanisms and setting high standards for arbitration practice, DIAC has become an influential catalyst in the field, advancing the practice and acceptance of arbitration as a viable and effective means of resolving disputes.
Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides a legal framework for resolving disputes through Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The rules under Section 89 CPC aim to resolve disputes between parties, minimise costs, and reduce the burden on courts. This section seeks to integrate judicial and non-judicial dispute resolution methods.
Furthermore, Section 7(2) of the Mediation Act, 2023, stipulates that if a court or tribunal refers parties to mediation, it may issue suitable interim orders to protect the interests of any party, if deemed appropriate.[13] This clause empowers courts to refer disputes, including those involving compoundable offences such as certain matrimonial offences, for mediation if deemed appropriate. Section 7(2) of the Mediation Act, 2023, allows courts and forums to refer consumer matters to mediation.
The Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was amended in 2018 to introduce a Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) mechanism. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act mandates that parties must attempt mediation before filing a case in court. Under this mechanism, if a commercial dispute of specified value does not seek urgent interim relief, the parties are required to exhaust the mandatory PIMS remedy before approaching the court.[14] This amendment aims to provide an opportunity for parties to resolve commercial disputes through mediation.
Lok Adalats have emerged as a viable Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism accessible to the general public. These forums allow for the amicable settlement or compromise of disputes and cases either pending in court or at the pre-litigation stage. According to the Legal Services Authorities (LSA) Act, 1987, an award made by a Lok Adalat is considered a decree of a civil court, making it final and binding on all parties, with no option for appeal in any court. However, Lok Adalat is not a permanent establishment.
The amended Consumer Protection law outlines specific guidelines for referring cases to mediation. Section 74 of the new Consumer Protection law mandates that the State Government establish a consumer mediation cell attached to consumer courts and each of the regional benches. Each consumer mediation cell must submit a quarterly report to the District Commission, State Commission, or National Commission to which it is attached[15]. These mediation cells are required to maintain:
(a) A list of empanelled mediators;
(b) A record of cases handled by the cell;
(c) Records of proceedings; and
(d) Any other information specified by regulations.
The tenure of the panel of mediators is valid for five years, with the possibility of re-empanelment for another term, subject to conditions specified by regulations. Mediation sessions are held in the consumer mediation cells attached to various consumer courts (Clause 75)[16].
Clause 76 requires mediators to disclose any facts that might raise justifiable doubts about their independence or impartiality. Clause 78 provides for the replacement of a mediator by consumer courts based on information from the mediator or other sources, including the parties involved in the complaint, and after hearing the mediator.[17]
The further procedure of mediation is detailed in Clause 79. Clause 80 addresses provisions related to settlement through mediation, outlining the mediator’s role when an agreement is reached between the parties, whether on all issues involved in the consumer dispute or only some. It also covers the scenario where no agreement is reached between the parties.
One notable case that underscores the Supreme Court’s endorsement of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms is Salem Advocate Bar Association vs Union of India. In this case, the court affirmed the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) enacted by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002. These amendments introduced crucial changes to procedural rules and incorporated provisions for ADR, reinforcing the importance of alternative methods for resolving disputes.[18]
One of the key elements addressed by these amendments was the clarification of procedural rules. The amendments provided clear guidelines on the use of affidavits as evidence, the time limits for filing written statements, and the execution of decrees. These clarifications were designed to ensure a smoother and more efficient dispute resolution process, thereby streamlining the ADR process and reducing unnecessary delays.
To ensure effective implementation, the Supreme Court established a committee led by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao. This committee was instrumental in suggesting modalities for the operation of the amendments and offering guidance and recommendations for the successful implementation of ADR mechanisms. The involvement of this committee was crucial in ensuring that the ADR provisions were effectively utilised, ultimately benefiting all parties involved in disputes.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. case marked a pivotal shift in the Indian judicial system’s approach to alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The ruling broadened the scope of ADR to encompass consumer disputes, business reputation issues, supplier-customer conflicts, banker-customer disagreements, and builder-customer disputes. This judgement represented a significant turning point in the dynamics of ADR in India.[19]
The impact of the Afcons Infrastructure case was felt until the recent judgement in Afcons Infrastructure and Ors. v. Cherian Varkey Construction and Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 24. This judgement is seen as the conclusion of a chapter in the evolution of ADR in the Indian judicial system. It brought clarity to the role of ADR and its benefits, particularly in the context of Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The 238th Report of the Law Commission in December 2011 further emphasised the need to amend Section 89 of the code of civil procedure, providing a comprehensive understanding of the existing ADR processes and how the dynamism of Section 89 could be effectively harnessed. This report highlighted the crucial role played by both the legislature and the judiciary in promoting and shaping ADR practices in India.
In India, Dispute Adjudication Boards play a significant role in the construction industry, providing a swift platform for resolving payment disputes within the building and construction sector[20].These boards are crucial in ensuring efficient dispute resolution under statutory laws, particularly in cases related to payment disputes.The use of adjudication in India is comparable to the UK, where adjudication has gained popularity due to its cost-effectiveness and non-adversarial nature, leading to a decline in the preference for arbitration[21]. Similarly, in the US, administrative adjudication systems are utilised to resolve disputes between private parties and government agencies, showcasing a different approach to dispute resolution compared to the UK and India .
Dispute Boards (DBs) in India were first introduced in 1994 for World Bank-financed projects valued at $50 million or more. These boards serve as a countercurrent mechanism for dispute resolution before resorting to arbitration or litigation.
Comprising independent and impartial professionals, DBs are established at the commencement of a construction project to monitor progress, encourage dispute avoidance, and assist in resolving issues that arise. Typically consisting of three members, DBs periodically hold status meetings and site visits, fostering a cooperative atmosphere and promoting prompt resolution of disputes. Despite their potential, the effectiveness of DBs in India has been hindered by delays in their constitution, inadequately qualified members, prolonged dispute resolution times, and a tendency for parties to challenge DB decisions.
This has led to a perception that DBs are not fully effective in India. However, when implemented properly, DBs can be cost-effective, representing about 0.25% of project costs, and can significantly aid in dispute avoidance and resolution. There is a need for clear, standardised procedures and institutional support to enhance the efficacy of DBs in India.
While Dispute Adjudication Boards have the potential to revolutionise dispute resolution in India’s construction industry, their current implementation faces several challenges. Addressing issues such as delays in constitution, the need for qualified members, and the tendency to challenge decisions is crucial. By adopting clear, standardised procedures and enhancing institutional support, India can harness the full benefits of DABs. This would not only streamline dispute resolution processes but also reduce reliance on arbitration and litigation, ultimately fostering a more efficient and harmonious construction sector and also facing the system in the USA and UK will help India efficiently .
The UK has a long history of utilising Dispute Adjudication Boards, which were introduced into standard forms as early as 1970 and later incorporated into international standard documents by organisations like the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC).The UK’s approach to dispute resolution has been unique, with courts traditionally playing a prominent role in adjudicating intergovernmental disputes, unlike in most federal systems where courts have a less active role in such disputes[22].
Furthermore, research has shown that the preference for specific dispute resolution methods, such as mediation, negotiation, arbitration, or adjudication, can vary based on cultural factors and societal norms . In societies with stable and ongoing interpersonal relationships, methods like mediation and negotiation that allow for compromise are preferred, while in societies with large and constantly changing social spheres, methods like adjudication and arbitration that result in all-or-nothing outcomes are favoured .
Overall, the comparison of Dispute Adjudication Boards in India, the UK, and the US highlights the diverse approaches to dispute resolution in different countries, influenced by factors such as statutory laws, cultural norms, and the role of courts in the legal system.[23]
The provided document outlines detailed procedures for preparing and conducting hearings by Dispute Boards (DB) in construction contracts, focusing on ensuring clarity, participation, and thorough consideration of disputes. However, several potential loopholes in the Indian arbitration system concerning Dispute Boards affect time efficiency and convenience.
The requirement for the DB to seek clarifications if references are unclear can lead to delays, especially if parties do not provide timely and clear information. The process of reaching consensus on the precise scope of the dispute and the exact wording of the statement, as well as the requested scope of the decision, can be time-consuming. Disagreements necessitate DB mediation, further prolonging resolution. Although hearings should occur at the earliest convenient date, allowances for preparation time can extend the process. Establishing dates for statement exchanges and coordinating with DB Operating Procedures can introduce additional delays.
Involving external experts for technical or legal advice in exceptional cases can further extend timelines. Identifying, appointing, and agreeing on compensation terms for such experts require coordination and agreement from both parties. The requirement to notify parties and submit lists of proposed attendees 14 days prior to the hearing can create delays if parties do not adhere to the timeline[24]. Additionally, preparing position papers and potential rejoinders adds to the preparatory timeline. The detailed procedures for conducting hearings aim to ensure fairness but can be cumbersome and time-consuming. Multiple rounds of presentations, clarification requests, and potential additional hearings for further documentation can significantly extend the dispute resolution process.
Contentions regarding the DB’s authority to hear disputes can cause procedural delays, particularly if the DB must resolve these authority issues before proceeding with the actual dispute. If a party refuses to attend, the DB must decide whether to proceed, postpone, or cancel the hearing, leading to potential rescheduling and delays.
While the document discourages the participation of legal counsel to avoid intimidation and inhibit open discussion, the necessity for key personnel and potential expert consultations can complicate scheduling and convenience. The strict procedural requirements, such as the prohibition of electronic recordings, mandatory attendance sheets, and the need for simultaneous submission of documents, may reduce flexibility and convenience for parties involved.
While the outlined procedures aim to ensure thorough and fair dispute resolution, they introduce several potential loopholes and delays in the Indian arbitration system related to Dispute Boards. The need for clarity, consensus, expert consultations, and strict adherence to procedural timelines can lead to extended resolution periods and decreased convenience for the parties involved.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has gained significant attention globally as a preferred method for resolving disputes outside of traditional court litigation. The United Kingdom (U.K.) and the United States of America (U.S.A) are recognized for their successful implementation of ADR mechanisms[25] .
These countries have embraced ADR due to its numerous benefits, such as being more sustainable and contributing to progress and development ADR methods like mediation and arbitration are commonly used in these nations, providing faster, confidential, cost-effective, and flexible procedures for resolving disputes[26] .The success of ADR in the U.K. and the U.S.A. can be attributed to the use of neutral and unbiased individuals to help parties reach reasonable settlements .
In the U.K. and the U.S.A., ADR agencies play a crucial role not only in resolving disputes but also in preventing conflicts by offering services directly to individuals . The effectiveness of ADR in these countries has led to its widespread adoption in various sectors, including the financial services industry, where integration and unification of ADR entities have enhanced conflict resolution. Moreover, the evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) as an extension of ADR has the potential to revolutionise dispute resolution beyond traditional court systems[27] .
While ADR has been successful in the U.K. and the U.S.A., its acceptance and usage vary in different regions. For instance, in Ethiopia, communities prefer ADR mechanisms for resolving land tenure disputes due to their perceived effectiveness . However, in some countries like Malaysia, ADR, particularly in Islamic finance, is still gaining acceptance and requires further exploration . Similarly, in Indonesia, arbitration is recognized as an alternative dispute resolution method outside of litigation [28].
In conclusion, the U.K. and the U.S.A. stand out as leading examples of successful ADR implementation, showcasing the effectiveness and benefits of these methods in resolving disputes. The global interest in ADR reflects a shift towards more efficient, cost-effective, and collaborative approaches to conflict resolution, with the potential for further advancements in the field.
ADR mechanisms including arbitration and mediation are less adversarial and are capable of providing a better substitute to the conventional methods of resolving disputes. The use of ADR mechanisms is also expected to reduce the burden on the judiciary and thereby enable timely justice dispensation to citizens of the country.It’s important to remember the key points made in the text. The integration of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 in India is a significant step towards enhancing the efficiency of dispute resolution in consumer matters. This integration aligns with a global trend towards adopting ADR as a preferred method of resolving disputes due to its flexibility and effectiveness.
Successful ADR implementation in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States demonstrates the benefits of these methods in various sectors, including financial services and construction. Furthermore, the evolution of Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) extends the reach of ADR, offering innovative solutions that go beyond traditional court systems.
In India, significant cases such as the Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India and the Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. case highlight the legislative and judicial support for ADR, showcasing the judiciary’s commitment to promoting these mechanisms. The amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure and the establishment of Dispute Adjudication Boards for large-scale projects indicate a systematic effort to incorporate ADR into the legal framework, aiming to streamline dispute resolution processes, reduce delays, and provide fair and impartial outcomes.
The adoption and adaptation of ADR mechanisms under the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 represent a progressive step towards improving the dispute resolution landscape in India. This aligns India with global best practices, ensuring that consumer disputes are resolved efficiently and effectively. The continued development and promotion of ADR will likely lead to further advancements, benefiting consumers and contributing to the overall improvement of the justice system.
[1] Abraham Lincoln’s Notes for a Law Lecture, https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lawlect.htm.
[2] What is ADR?, LexisNexis (July 28, 2020), https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/what-is-adr.
[3]Definition of MEDIATION, Merriam-Webster (Jan. 6, 2024), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mediation.
[4] (Dec. 18, 2019), https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/mediation/Brochure%20-%20MCPC.pdf.
[5]Anand Doobay, Halsbury’s Laws of England, LexisNexis https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/products/halsburys-laws-of-england.html.
[6] Government of India at forefront to promote Alternative Dispute Resolution Systems, (Feb. 8, 2024), https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2003844.
[7]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360710539_Alternate_Dispute_Resolution_a_Panacea_to_the_Nigerian_Judicial_System.
[8] Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee, https://mcpc.nic.in/.
[9] National Legal Services Authority!, National Legal Services Authority! https://nalsa.gov.in/.
[10] Sama, https://www.sama.live/.
[11] Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration, MCIA https://mcia.org.in/.
[12] Delhi International Arbitration Centre Delhi High Court (no date) image. Available at: https://dhcdiac.nic.in/ (Accessed: 30 May 2024).
[13] https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/MediationAct2023.pdf.
[14] (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2156/1/a2016-04.pdf.
[15] (July 11, 2022), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15256/1/a2019-35.pdf.
[16] (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2156/1/a2016-04.pdf.
[17] (Jan. 5, 2022), https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2156/1/a2016-04.pdf.
[18](Apr.18,2022),https://gnlu.ac.in/Content/the-gnlu-law-review/pdf/volume-8-issue-2/04_satyam_singla.pdf.
[19] Enscript Output, (July 11, 2017), https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/1129534.pdf.
[20] https://ascelibrary.org/doi/full/10.1061/%28ASCE%29LA.1943-4170.0000566.
[21] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266243965_Mediation_In_Construction_Industry.
[22] library.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2011.00497.x
[23] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1988-07265-00
[24] Op Goel, (Apr. 14, 2016), https://icaindia.co.in/pdf/Final-SOP.pdf.
[25]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345897538_Dispute_Resolution_Practices_in_USA_Australia_and_UKEU.
[26]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367827689_Analysis_of_Alternative_Dispute_Resolution_in_non-litigation_dispute_resolution_on_Islamic_Mortgage_at_the_Ombudsman_Institution_Yogyakarta
[27]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354337555_The_evolution_of_alternative_dispute_resolution_and_online_dispute_resolution_in_the_European_Un
[28]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/372799768_Business_Dispute_Resolution_Insight_from_Indonesia_and_Saudi_Arabia.
