The Supreme Court on Thursday sought comprehensive data on the performance and pendency of consumer commissions across the country, including the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), State Consumer Commissions and District Consumer Commissions, amid concerns over delays in disposal of consumer cases.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana also took note of concerns regarding the functioning of consumer commissions and the need to link the facilities and remuneration provided to members with their performance.
During the hearing, the Court referred to reports concerning the inordinate pendency of cases before consumer commissions, including instances where matters filed years ago were being listed only after prolonged gaps. The Court expressed concern over whether the problem was merely one of infrastructure and vacancies or whether there was also a lack of performance accountability.
“
“There could be only two reasons. One, lack of infrastructure. Lack of efficiency in appointment. The second would be whether there is any performance evaluation. It has become a rehabilitation centre. If somebody is appointed, you appoint a retired speaker, you appoint a retired High Court judge, and then you are not accountable. This is not acceptable to us….If you want perks, we will pay. We will provide everything. We will ask the State Government. … There could be some system by which that evaluation is done. Those who perform must get all this.”
The Court accordingly directed that performance evaluation for the last three years of the District Consumer Commissions under the respective State Governments’ jurisdiction be furnished. The exercise was stated to cover the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions.
The Court also sought updated information regarding pendency of cases, composition of the commissions and vacancies, and asked that the information be provided in a tabulated form. The Court indicated that separate information should also be furnished regarding pendency before State and District Commissions and vacancies in those bodies.
Concern Over Long Delays At NCDRC
The Bench was apprised of instances where cases before the NCDRC had remained pending for several years. Counsel pointed out that some first appeals and revisions were seven to eight years old, with dates sometimes being given several months later.
The Court also considered the possibility of strengthening the National Commission by increasing its bench strength and creating regional or circuit benches, particularly because requiring consumers to travel to Delhi could itself defeat the objective of consumer-friendly adjudication.
The Bench suggested that instead of requiring consumers from several districts to travel to a single forum, travelling or regional benches could sit at different district headquarters, depending upon the volume of complaints.
The Court also emphasised that the issue of vacancies and infrastructure cannot be separated from the question of performance, noting that an earlier suo motu proceeding had resulted in significant progress in filling vacancies, but that the issue appeared to have subsequently taken a back seat.