New Delhi, Sep 2 The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed states and Union Territories to respond within three weeks on a status report highlighting vacancies in district and state consumer commissions, while observing that "no tribunal should become non-functional merely because of the transition".
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana also directed state governments and UTs to submit compliance with regard to its earlier order on pay and allowances for commission members.
At the outset, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed that the president of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC)has submitted a detailed report on vacancies and pendency in consumer commissions.
The top court said that the report filed by the NCDRC president requires serious consideration.
"Institutional strengthening appears to be extremely important and may require considerable work," the CJI said.
During the hearing, Venkataramani submitted that one of the issues relates to the method of appointing presidents and members of consumer commissions.
"This court had directed that there should be no examination for judicial members, while other members would be required to undergo an examination. That arrangement created difficulties and several states encountered problems in making appointments. We are attempting to streamline the entire process," he said.
The bench then said, "No tribunal should become non-functional merely because of the transition."
The top court had earlier taken serious note of the pendency of cases in the NCDRC and asked the Centre to consider setting up regional and circuit benches to clear the backlog.
It had also called for performance audits of state and district consumer commissions.
The bench had 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 the disposal of a pending case and the need for increasing the strength of members of the commission.
The top court is monitoring the functioning of consumer commissions, including appointments, service conditions and infrastructure.
In its February 11 order, the apex court had noted submissions from several smaller states, especially the northeastern states and UTs, 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 constitute 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.
