| The twentieth century saw great social and economic change; simple wants and needs of consumers have been replaced with mass marketing and mass consumption. In the realm of consumer trade, the increase in consumption has led to an increase in consumer claims, thus a need for a more just and equitable mechanism for dispute resolution. Most consumer claims however are small claims. The nature of the law and the court system is such that individual consumer is likely to be at the disadvantage. Unlike consumers, suppliers or manufacturers however are familiar with the techniques, procedures and attitudes of the institution of justice. Economic barriers, particularly the cost of litigation by way of expenses and time, may preclude consumers from obtaining effective remedies. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) thus offers hope to consumers. This paper explores the provisions on dispute resolution as contained in the consumer protection legislations of four ASEAN member countries. Adopting a comparative approach, this paper will first discuss provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 1999 of Malaysia, focusing on the Tribunal for Consumer Claims. With this in mind, this paper will then analyse the provisions on settlement of disputes focusing on the Consumer Dispute Settlement Board as contained in Law No. 8 Concerning Consumer Protection 1999 of Indonesia and the provisions on Consumer Protection Board as contained in the Consumer Protection Act 1979 of Thailand. The paper will also look at provisions on the settlement of consumer disputes as contained in the Consumer Act of the Philippines 1992. |