SC: Consumer forums are not rehabilitation centres for retired judges, bureaucrats
The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised the slow disposal of cases in consumer dispute redressal commissions, observing that these quasi-judicial bodies cannot be treated as rehabilitation centres for retired judges and bureaucrats. The court said a detailed pan-India performance evaluation of these forums is urgently needed to ensure they serve the purpose for which they were created.
A bench of the Supreme Court was hearing a suo motu case, initiated five years ago, concerning the pay and allowances of members of consumer forums across the country. During the hearing, the bench referred to a news report that highlighted the plight of consumers who had been denied hearings for up to four years. Expressing deep concern, the bench said, “If this is the way the consumer forums function, what benefit is it for the consumers who are mandated to approach the specialised quasi-judicial body?”
The court noted that while members of consumer forums are demanding more facilities and perks, vacancies and infrastructure in these forums remain a serious cause for concern. “But are the forums justifying their salaries, perks and facilities? The purpose of constituting these commissions appears to have been frustrated,” the bench observed.
According to data presented in court, more than 5.7 lakh cases are pending in the three-tier consumer dispute redressal system. Of these, district forums account for over 4 lakh cases, while state forums have another 1.2 lakh pending matters. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) also has a significant backlog, further delaying justice for consumers.
In an effort to address the systemic issues, the Supreme Court directed the president of the NCDRC to submit a detailed report within two weeks. The report should include the total number of pending cases, the full composition of the commission, the number of vacancies, the average rate of disposal, the estimated time required to decide pending matters, and whether there is a need to increase the strength of the commission.
The court also asked states to provide details about the pendency and disposal rates of district and state consumer commissions. This data will be crucial in assessing the functioning of these bodies and identifying areas that require immediate intervention.
Additionally, the Supreme Court requested Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati to inquire with the Union government about the feasibility of creating NCDRC benches in four regions. This move is intended to spare poor consumers from travelling to Delhi for grievance redressal, which often adds to their financial burden and delays justice.
The bench emphasised that consumer forums play a vital role in ensuring timely and affordable justice for common citizens. The court’s observations reflect a growing concern that these institutions, originally designed to provide speedy redressal, are being bogged down by administrative inefficiency and a lack of accountability.
Legal experts say that the Supreme Court’s intervention could lead to much-needed reforms in the consumer dispute redressal mechanism. The court’s demand for a performance evaluation is seen as a step towards ensuring that these forums function effectively and live up to their mandate.
The case will be heard next after the NCDRC report is submitted, and the court is expected to examine the findings to decide on further action to streamline the system.
