Why permanent consumer tribunals are not the solution

REPEATED adjournments and highly complicated procedures have turned the promise of speedy, simple and cost-effective consumer justice into a mockery. While lawyers appearing before these consumer commissions and the judicial members adjudicating on the complaints are to be blamed for introducing these trappings of civil courts, the government must take responsibility for a third factor putting brakes on speedy justice. And this pertains to delays in filling up vacancies of adjudicating members, at times even resulting in the closure of district commissions.A recent order of the Supreme Court has attempted to address the last issue by suggesting that the government convert these consumer commissions, constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, into permanent consumer tribunals, with the adjudicating members (and other staff) having permanent appointments, instead of the tenure-based system provided under the law.Observing that this would enhance the efficiency and functionality of the consumer tribunals, the apex court asked the Union government to file an affidavit on its feasibility. The Union of India may also consider facilitating sitting judges to head the fora, the Supreme Court said.The consumer commissions at the district, state and national levels have a mix of judicial and non-judicial adjudicating members with a tenure of four years and a provision for re-appointment. As per information provided by the government in the Rajya Sabha on July 22, in the 685 district consumer commissions in the country, 518 posts of non-judicial members and 218 posts of judicial members (or presidents) were vacant. In the 35 state commissions, posts of 62 members and 18 presidents were vacant. The national commission had two vacancies of members. Given this situation, the apex court’s suggestion does look good on the surface, but if you examine the pros and cons, one really does not see any advantage accruing to consumers from the change. On the other hand, it may turn out to be quite counterproductive.In fact, one of the biggest problems with permanent adjudicating members would be the difficulty in removing those who may turn out to be corrupt, incompetent, dishonest or lacking in integrity. Of course, the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021 as well as the Consumer Protection Rules, governing the appointment of adjudicating members, provide for removal of members in certain circumstances. But proving those charges would become quite difficult.So, a tenure-based appointment at least ensures that those who are unsuited for the job do not continue beyond their limited tenure. In fact, tenure-based appointments give the selection committee an opportunity to review the work of the members and recommend their reappointment.In 2006, at a national conference on the working of the consumer courts, the then president of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Justice MB Shah, had expressed grave concern over the large number of complaints of corruption received against adjudicating members of the consumer commissions at the district and state levels.Calling for a resolution to suspend such members immediately, he had suggested a two-year review of members — both judicial and non-judicial — and removal of those with doubtful integrity. So, corruption is not an issue that can be ignored.Similarly, facilitating sitting judges to head the consumer commissions, as suggested by the apex ourt, would completely convert consumer commissions into regular civil courts. Adjournments, frequent and for long periods, will go up further, as also the technicality in the procedures. Lawyers will dominate more, demanding not just adjournments, but also long vacations. And consumers, for whose benefit these commissions are constituted, will be further driven away.The sitting judges of civil courts may be well versed in law, but to qualify for the consumer commissions, which are quasi-judicial tribunals, they must first shed the trappings of the civil court, understand the consumer law in its letter and spirit and show sensitivity to consumer suffering caused by violations of their rights.There have been many cases in district commissions where consumers who appeared without lawyers have been treated with disrespect and even asked to hire a lawyer! So, those who preside over these commissions must be in tune with the intent of the legislation.Besides, there is no guarantee that consumer commissions will not have vacancies when converted into permanent tribunals. Look at our courts that have such permanent status. As on September 1 this year, the 25 high courts in the country had 330 vacancies of judges. Of the sanctioned strength of 847 and additional strength of 275 (total 1,122) judges, there were 161 and 169 vacancies, respectively, according to official data.Similarly, there were 5,262 vacancies in the district and subordinate courts in the country (Rajya Sabha, December 19, 2024). So, getting sitting judges to preside over consumer courts would also not be easy.The apex court’s order, however, should spur governments into filling up vacancies and providing adequate infrastructure for the smooth working of the commissions. It is equally important for those resolving complaints at these commissions to consciously work towards simplifying the procedures, shunning adjournments and deciding the cases within the mandated 90 days.— The writer is a consumer affairs expert

Why permanent consumer tribunals are not the solution

Pushpa Girimaji

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article