The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over Consumer Commission Pendency and delays in resolving consumer disputes. The Court directed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to submit detailed data on pending cases and disposal rates.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana issued the directions in a suo motu matter concerning the pay and allowances of consumer commission members.
CJI Questions Delay in Consumer Cases
Chief Justice Surya Kant referred to a report about a consumer complaint filed in 2019. The case reportedly received a hearing only once in 2022.
The matter had not received another hearing date by the middle of 2026. The CJI questioned whether the consumer dispute system was achieving its intended purpose.
The Court also raised concerns about the facilities and benefits available to members of consumer commissions.
NCDRC Must Submit Pendency Data
The Supreme Court directed the NCDRC President to submit a detailed report within two weeks.
The report must include:
- Total number of pending cases
- Strength and composition of the NCDRC
- Average disposal rate
- Estimated time required to clear the backlog
- Details of available infrastructure
The Court also directed authorities to provide separate information about cases pending before State Consumer Commissions.
The Department of Consumer Affairs in each State must help collect the required data.
State Commissions Must Review District Forums
The Court directed Presidents of State Consumer Commissions to evaluate all District Consumer Commissions under their jurisdiction.
The assessment must cover the previous three years.
The Court wants the review to examine how efficiently District Commissions handle consumer complaints. It also seeks information about delays in cases moving between District, State and National Commissions.
Supreme Court Raises Accountability Concerns
The Bench also examined whether consumer commission members face meaningful performance evaluation.
CJI Surya Kant questioned whether appointing retired judges without an effective accountability system could turn consumer commissions into a “rehabilitation centre” for retired judges.
The Chief Justice also highlighted a “quality crisis” at the District Consumer Commission level.
The Court expressed concern about how commissions assess complaints and decide cases.
Infrastructure and Appointments Under Scrutiny
The Court identified infrastructure and appointments as major concerns.
CJI Surya Kant stressed that appointment to consumer commissions should come with accountability. He said retirement from judicial office should not remove the need for performance assessment.
The Bench also considered whether stronger institutional mechanisms could improve the functioning of consumer commissions.
Amicus Supports Performance Evaluation
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, appearing as amicus curiae, supported the creation of a performance evaluation system.
He suggested involving advocates who regularly appear before consumer commissions. Their inputs could help assess the performance of commission members.
The suggestion aims to create a more practical assessment mechanism.
Court Considers Stronger NCDRC Structure
The Supreme Court also considered increasing the strength of the NCDRC.
The Bench discussed the possibility of establishing circuit benches in areas with a high volume of consumer complaints.
These measures could help reduce the growing backlog and improve the disposal of cases.
Court Stresses Better Working Conditions
While seeking greater accountability, the Court stressed that members also need proper working conditions.
The Bench said performance evaluation should not create unreasonable pressure. Consumer commissions must have adequate infrastructure and support staff.
The amicus also informed the Court about reports of basic facilities being unavailable at some commission premises, including women’s toilets.
The Supreme Court’s directions seek to address Consumer Commission Pendency while improving accountability, infrastructure and case disposal across the consumer redressal system.
