A 32-year-old consumer dispute from Maharashtra has been identified as the oldest case to be pending before a state consumer commission in a recent report submitted to the Supreme Court flagging serious concerns of vacancies and long pendency of cases in consumer forums across states and districts that need urgent resolution.
Besides the Maharashtra matter, the report, prepared by a team of lawyers assisting the court as amicus curiae, also identified a 30-year old case from Kerala pending since December 1995 and a July 2000 matter in Uttar Pradesh that further goes to reveal the systemic problem of pendency across state commissions. It further directed all states and union territories to respond to the amicus report prepared by senior advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Aditya Narain and advocates Prema Priyadarshini and Shivani Vij and posted the matter for further hearing on October 1. Under the legislative scheme provided by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the responsibility to fill vacancies in state and district consumer forums belongs to the state.
The report depicts a sorry state of functioning of the district and state consumer disputes redressal commission (SCDRC). The reports were presented to the court following an order passed in a suo motu proceeding where the court is considering reforms in functioning of consumer courts. In this connection, it directed a report on the performance of state and district consumer commissions to know the average rate of disposal and pending cases to suggest remedial measures. The report further highlights administrative issues as in several district consumer forums, cases which are failed are taken up for hearing after three weeks or more. This situation has been highlighted by the amicus and team in the states of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, J&K and Gujarat among others. By an order passed last month, the top court had called for the data of cases disposed and pending over the past three years from the NCDRC, SCDRCs and DCDRCs to know how the consumer forums performed. They are required to initiate the appointment process six months prior to the post falling vacant.
After going through the report, the top court said, “This gives broadly the picture that exists on the ground across districts,” directing states to respond within three weeks.
Clearly, this will need an explanation when the matter comes up before the court next month.
