Author: Diya Theresa

Introduction:

While considering appeals pertaining to issues of appointments and tenure of members of state and district level Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions, the Supreme Court opined on the feasibility of designing a Consumer Fora of permanent nature. The Court noted that “Consumerism” is an essential component of India’s Constitution. Rights of Consumers are also essential natural rights in addition to being constitutionally guaranteed.  It is an important part of the democratic machinery in which democracy is enacted through active citizenry. On this note, the court remarked that an adjudicatory body whose primary objective is to safeguard the rights of consumers is important in the administration of democratic process. Hence, this article analyses the landscape of consumer disputes redressal mechanisms with respect to accessibility of justice, shortcomings and delays in the mechanism and hopes to explore potential solutions, in light of the apex court’s directives.

Consumer Protection Act 2019:

The Consumer Protection act 2019 succeeded the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to serve the interests of the Consumers in a technologically advanced environment. The revamped act has a wider ambit covering e-commerce, online transactions and digital purchasing practices. The Act also features an array of consumer rights and a robust redressal mechanism. It also establishes the Central Consumer Protection Authority, that acts as a regulatory body working at the national level to protect consumer rights.

The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions (CDRCs) are designed to operate as a three -tier system under the act. The National CDRC is at the top followed by the State CDRCs and the District CDRCs. Each commission is to be headed by a President with members as per the directions of the establishing authority. The Central Government establishes the national commission while the state government establishes the state and district commissions. The National CDRC can hear complaints exceeding Rs 10 Crores. Similarly, the state and district CDRCs handle complaints from Rs 1 Crore to 10 Crores and upto Rs 1 Crore respectively. This is known as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the commissions.

The Central Consumer Protection Authority (hereinafter, CCPA) also known as the “Central Authority” is a regulatory body that is responsible for ensuring consumer rights, preventing unfair trade practices and protecting consumers from false advertisements and exploitation. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the CCPA acts as an enforcement agency at the national level. It has powers of investigation (both through complaints and independently), search and seizure and summoning documents. The CCPA can file complaints before the consumer commissions on behalf of the consumers as a class. 

The CCPA is headed by a Chief Commissioners with other Commissioners as members. The strength of the Central Authority is decided by the Central Government which also appoints the chief commissioner and other commissioners.

Access to Justice in Consumer Disputes:

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for a specialized dispute resolution mechanism without integrating it into the regular court system of the country. The aim for such special commissions on the district, state and national levels is not just to reduce the burden of mainstream judiciary. More importantly, it is to ensure that consumer rights are protected, violations are redressed and justice is served in a quick and accessible process. A dedicated system of dispute resolution for consumer affairs also ensures efficiency in proceedings and decision -making. Consumer rights are placed at the core of this system, highlighting their role as important legal rights.

Despite these objectives, the practical picture of consumer justice is far from accessible. Aggrieved consumers find themselves engaged in prolonged litigation that sometimes go on for decades. The Act mandates quick disposal of cases, within three months where no testing or analysis is needed and within five months when the case requires examination. E-commerce complaints are further given a timeline of one month for redressal. In spite of these mechanisms, the gap between statutory mandates and institutional capacities is huge. In an article published in The Hindu, it is stated that:

“A response by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution in Parliament shows that as of January 30, 2024, a total of 5.43 lakh consumer complaints were pending before district, State and national consumer commissions.

In 2024, the commissions received 1.73 lakh fresh cases but disposed of only 1.58 lakh, leading to a net increase of nearly 14,900 cases. The trend continued in 2025. Up to July this year, 78,031 new complaints were filed, while 65,537 cases were disposed of.”

The pendency in cases can be attributed to several factors like unfilled vacancies of judicial and non- judicial members and other staff members. According to The Hindu’s article, as of August 19, 2025, 18 posts of Presidents and 62 posts of members were vacant in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions. At the district level, the number is even higher. About 218 president posts and 518 member posts lied vacant. 

Another factor leading to inefficient redressal of consumer complaints could be lack of expertise in sectors like medical negligence, insurance, etc. where the case often relies on technicalities specific to the sector of the nature of the case. 

Pendencies also arise from inadequate digital infrastructure and logistics, lack of training for digital case management, etc.

This systemic delay and pendency in cases undermines the fundamental right to speedy trials under Article 21. Complainants often spend long hours in travel and cash, without any guarantee that their case would be heard. The prolonged litigation thus becomes heavy on their pockets and adds to stress and other mental health issues. In the long run, this erodes their trust in the justice system and consumers end up choosing not to approach the judiciary at all.  

When citizens choose not to exercise their rights pertaining to systemic inefficiencies, it raises serious concerns regarding accessibility of justice and sustainability of democracy. When consumers stop approaching the judicial systems, violators of consumer rights cease to be held accountable. Gradually, the room for consumer exploitation grows, which can lead to decreased consumer activity. This in turn affects the economic stability of the nation and thereby reduces its growth potential.

Hence, addressing the inadequacies in the justice mechanism of consumer disputes is vital.

Solutions:

The proposed suggestions for addressing the systemic inadequacies are as follows:

• Permanent and Time-bound Membership in Dispute Redressal Commissions:

The Supreme Court provides for an efficient solution by advocating for permanent adjudicatory commissions for consumer disputes. Appointing presidents and members for a permanent term of office with a particular retirement age can do way with pendencies arising from vacancies. It also increases efficiency in hearings by ensuring continuance in proceedings. 

• Strengthening Infrastructural and Logistical System:

Many consumer commissions deal with insufficient staff, logistical support and infrastructural deficiencies. The Central and State Government must step in to provide adequate funding, training for administrative staff and infrastructural development. The courts must also be equipped with adequate technical resources and digitally trained members so that technology can be aptly utilized for much of manual, time-taking tasks. Adopting online court proceedings and virtual hearings can significantly decrease complainants’ commute time and expenses.

• Sector-Specific Expertise and Training:

Most of the consumer cases involve sector-specific matters like insurance, banking, healthcare and e-commerce. Appointing subject-matter experts and members with technical expertise increases efficiency in proceedings, decision-making and prevents frequent adjournments and appeals. 

• Regular Monitoring and Audits:

Monitoring pending cases, delays, disposal rates and vacancies periodically gives a clear picture of administrative shortages and helps in finding solutions at a quicker rate. Developing accountability mechanisms ensure that the consumer fora functions effectively in delivering justice.

• Additional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms:

Promoting the adoption of additional dispute resolution mechanisms like Mediation, Arbitration, etc significantly reduce the burden of consumer courts. Many consumer complaints can be mutually settled without going through litigation. ADRs are therefore efficient systems for safeguarding consumer rights and speedy case disposal.

Conclusion:

“Consumerism” while not explicitly stated, is still an integral part of the Constitution. The Preamble aims to achieve social, economic and political justice. Articles 38, 39 and 47 place responsibility on the State to protect its citizens from exploitation and unfair practices while ensuring a welfare state through equitable distribution of resources and promoting healthy lives of the public. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and its predecessors are statutory manifestations of this constitutional mandate. The Supreme Court’s advocacy for a permanent adjudicatory system in consumer justice is also based on this constitutional goal.

While the CPA, 2019 draws an impressive dispute resolution mechanism, the practical realities are far from the statutory goals of the act. Addressing this gap does not require more legislative revisions but proper enforcement of existing laws. Improving structural inefficiencies and promoting institutional efficacy go a long way in preserving public confidence in the judicial system. Conscious decision making that is aligned with the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is important to prevent procedural delays that compromise consumer rights.

Sustaining the faith of citizens in the judiciary of the nation is crucial for the democratic framework of our country. Consumerism plays a vital role in preserving this public faith by ensuring economic fairness. This aim can be realized only when consumer justice mechanisms become accessible to each citizen and judicial directives are timely implemented. Thus, Consumer Commissions serve not just as institutions of dispute resolution but as the foundation of justice deliverance at the grassroots level.