SC expresses concern over pendency of cases at NCDRC

The Supreme Court on Thursday took serious note of the pendency of cases in the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and asked the Centre to consider setting up regional and circuit benches to clear the backlog.

The top court also called for performance audits of state and district consumer commissions. The forums should not become rehabilitation centres for retired judicial officers, it said. 

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana asked the Centre to consider setting up regional and circuit benches of the national consumer forum, saying a consumer must not be made to travel all the way to Delhi, instead, the forum must go to them. The bench asked the chairman of the NCDRC to furnish a status report on total pending cases, total complaints filed, average rate of disposal of cases, estimated time likely for disposal of a pending case and need for increasing the strength of members of the commission. 

The top court, which is monitoring the functioning of consumer commissions, including appointments, service conditions and infrastructure. said the report must be filed in two weeks. 

The top court was informed that pendency of case is huge in NCDRC, as the matters which are being taken up for hearing at present are from 2018-19. 

While some lawyers informed the bench that if a matter is listed in June this year, then the next date of listing of the matter is almost next year while others said that 30-40 matters are normally listed in post-lunch session, which does not get disposed of. 

The bench then told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Centre in the matter, that if the arrears are piling up in the NCDRC, then the only option left is to increase the maximum strength of the commission. “We have a consumer-friendly jurisprudence and pendency of cases can be reduced by increasing the number of benches,” CJI Kant said.

The top court, however, said the quality of orders passed by NCDRC, which come up in appeal before the top court are very good, which shows that the problem is with filling vacancies of members of commission. 

It asked the amicus curiae in the matter to also furnish data on pendency in state consumer commissions, vacancies and the information about the oldest case pending in the commission. 

The bench asked the state consumer commission to furnish evaluation reports of district consumer forums for the last three years and posted the matter after three weeks. 

Last month, the top court said that states with fewer than 1,000 pending consumer disputes may abolish some district consumer forums and transfer those cases to regular courts with approval from the jurisdictional high courts. 

“All those states where the total pendency is less than 1,000 cases shall be at liberty to abolish some of the district forums and entrust the cases to the serving judicial officers, with the prior concurrence of the jurisdictional high court(s),” the top court had said.

The clarification came during the court’s current exercise to ensure compliance with its earlier directions governing the constitution of state and district consumer commissions and the service conditions of their chairpersons and members.

In its February 11 order, the apex court had noted submissions from several smaller states, especially the northeastern states and Union territories, that maintaining separate consumer commissions despite very low pendency was financially unviable.

It referred to such states as Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur and Goa, as well as the UTs of Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, where only a limited number of consumer disputes were pending.

The court also observed that some states did not have constituted state consumer commissions headed by a sitting or a former High Court judge.  The bench thus directed that pending matters from certain states be transferred to the registrars general of the jurisdictional high courts. 

A single judge of the High Court, sitting with the existing technical members, would hear those cases as a deemed State Consumer Commission, it then said. 

In February, the top court also permitted states and UTs with fewer than 1,000 pending complaints and appeals to submit alternative proposals to ensure effective consumer dispute resolution.

It asserted that states with below the 1,000-case threshold may also rationalise their district consumer forums by transferring cases to serving judicial officers, provided the arrangement receives the prior concurrence of the concerned high courts.