Expressing serious concern over the functioning of consumer commissions across the country, particularly the prolonged delay in disposing of complaints, the Supreme Court questioned whether consumers are receiving timely and effective redressal from the specialised forums created for that purpose. The apex court also directed the president of the national consumer disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) to submit a detailed report on the commission's pendency, composition, disposal rate and the time likely to be required to clear the existing backlog.
A bench headed by chief justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising justice Joymalya Bagchi and justice V Mohana also sought separate information on the pendency before state consumer commissions and directed that the data should include the oldest pending matters and year-wise pendency.
The directions came during proceedings concerning the functioning and service conditions of members of consumer commissions. During the hearing, the bench raised broader questions about infrastructure, appointments and accountability within the consumer dispute redressal system.
The chief justice referred to a newspaper report on the poor performance of consumer commissions and observed that the problem is particularly serious when consumer cases remain pending for extended periods without even reaching the hearing stage.
The Court also questioned whether simply increasing facilities and expenditure would solve the problem if there was no corresponding improvement in case disposal.
The bench's concerns extended beyond NCDRC. Chief justice Surya Kant specifically pointed to what he described as a 'quality crisis' at the district level.
According to the chief justice, district consumer commissions need to pay greater attention to the nature of complaints and decide cases on their merits. He also observed that although the state commissions may not appear to have the same level of arrears, cases eventually reaching NCDRC are contributing to the accumulation of cases at the national level.
The Court also raised concerns about the performance evaluation of members appointed to consumer commissions.
The chief justice questioned whether members, including retired judges appointed to these bodies, are subject to an effective system of performance assessment and accountability. He said the consumer commissions cannot become a place where appointments are made without adequate accountability.
The bench indicated that the problem could have more than one cause, pointing to both inadequate infrastructure and deficiencies in appointments.
The court also considered whether increasing the strength of NCDRC could help address the backlog. The possibility of setting up circuit benches at locations where consumer litigation is particularly heavy was also raised during the hearing.
At the same time, the apex court stressed that improving accountability should not mean ignoring the basic working conditions required for members of consumer commissions to function effectively.
The hearing also brought attention to infrastructure deficiencies at some consumer commission premises. Senior counsel Gopal Sankaranarayanan, assisting the court as amicus curiae, pointed out that even basic facilities were reportedly lacking at some locations, including adequate facilities for women.
The amicus also supported the need for a system to assess the performance of members of consumer commissions. He suggested that such an assessment mechanism could potentially involve inputs from lawyers appearing before the commissions.
The Supreme Court has now sought concrete data before deciding what further steps may be necessary.
The NCDRC president has been asked to provide details of the total number of pending cases, the commission's present composition and strength, the average rate at which cases are being disposed of and an estimate of the time required to clear the backlog.
The Court has also asked for the oldest pending cases and a year-wise break-up of pendency, allowing it to assess how long consumer disputes have remained unresolved.
Similar information is to be furnished separately for the state consumer commissions, with the department of consumer affairs of the respective state governments assisting in compiling the required information.
The Supreme Court's intervention highlights the gap between the objective of consumer commissions as specialised and relatively accessible forums for speedy redressal and the delays being experienced by litigants.
The chief justice also referred to a media report in which a consumer case filed several years ago had made little progress, questioning what purpose is served by creating specialised forums if disputes remained unresolved for prolonged periods.
The bench indicated that if the existing situation persists, increasing the strength of the commissions may become necessary.
The Court's directions are likely to provide a clearer picture of the extent of the consumer litigation backlog across the country and whether the problem is primarily linked to inadequate manpower, infrastructure, appointments, case management or a combination of these factors.
The data sought from NCDRC and state commissions will also enable the court to examine whether additional benches and members are required and how quickly the existing cases can realistically be disposed of.
