Consumer Forum Paralysis

**Pushpendra

Introduction

Consumerism has evolved into the defining characteristic of modern existence, dictating every moment of our lives whether through the consumption of traditional commodities and services or through the relentless engagement with digital goods that now permeate every facet of our daily lives. Every such transaction pertaining to consumption has the potential to result in dispute between the consumer and service provider. In this backdrop, the role of consumer forums becomes highly integral in ensuring a smooth dispute resolution process wherein the interests of the consumers are given primacy. The preamble to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘CPA’) confers a solemn duty on the consumer forums to ensure timely and effective administration of justice to the consumer. 

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC’), the apex consumer forum, has a particularly salient role in ensuring the preservation of the interests of the consumers. However, the NCDRC has been rendered unable to administer justice to consumers as a substantial number of its judgments are being assailed before the apex court and other high courts on the ground of Coram Non Judice (‘improper jurisdiction’).

The issue of validity of the judgments passed by NCDRC while the bench constitution was Coram Non Judice is currently pending before the apex court. This blog piece has three principal objectives. First, it aims to demonstrate that the issue of Coram Non Judice has rendered the judgments of NCDRC unenforceable. Second, it aims to establish that the question of Coram Non Judice is merely a symptom of the broader systemic lapses in ensuring that the NCDRC has adequate resources. Finally, it posits that this issue can be effectively resolved at least at the NCDRC level by issuing a clear set of directions to tackle vacancies.

The Jurisdictional Defect: Coram Non Judice

The term ‘Coram Non Judice‘ in this context refers to an improperly constituted bench. The issue with NCDRC is that of technical members sitting singly and adjudicating upon matters involving intricate legal issues. The NCDRC has a sanctioned strength of total 12 members including the president as per The Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020. Unfortunately, even out of the sanctioned strength, two members positions are currently vacant. Notably, out of the 10 currently incumbent members only 3 are judicial members and the rest 7 are technical members. Resultantly, several judgments are being passed by single or division benches comprising only of the technical members of the NCDRC. 

Historically, the apex court has consistently held that the non-judicial members of the tribunals must not adjudicate upon matters requiring legal acumen while sitting singly. For instance, in State of M.P. v. B.R. Thakare, the apex court denounced the practice of non-judicial members sitting singly and consequently, set aside the order of the administrative tribunal. In terms of consumer matters, in Kamal Travels Kokks International v. State of Rajasthan & Others (‘Kamal Travels’), S.B. (C)WP 18/2012, the Rajasthan High Court held that a bench of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (‘SCDRC’) must comprise at least two members to constitute the quorum for passing a valid decision as per Section 16(1)(b)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This decision was upheld by the Apex Court and attained finality. Recently, in IFFCO-MC Crop Science Pvt. Ltd vs Modaram, the Rajasthan High Court placed reliance on the judgment in Kamal Travels and held that a bench of NCDRC must comprise at least two members as per section 58(2) of the CPA. The court in this case quashed the order of the NCDRC as it was passed by a single member. Therefore, the position is well-settled that the bench of NCDRC must comprise two members to meet the quorum.  

Notably, the supplementary legislative framework of the CPA prohibits the practice of technical members sitting singly as is evident from Clause 12 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 (‘The Regulations’). This clause provides that when a Bench does not include a Judicial Member and a complex question of law arises without any precedent to decide the issue, the matter must be referred to the President of the State Commission or the National Commission for the constitution of a Bench with the President as a member.

Pertinently, in National Insurance Company v. Guljit Choudhary, CM(M) 37/2025, a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court whereby the court did not grant any stay rather the order of the NCDRC was set aside on the ground of Coram Non Judice. The High court heavily relied on the express prohibition as provided under clause 12 of the regulations and remitted back the matter with directions that the same be heard afresh by properly constituted bench comprising at least two members including one judicial member.

Sub Judice Before The Apex Court: Consumer Ordeal Continues

The gravity of the issue of improper bench composition in NCDRC is underscored by the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court and other High Courts. This issue is sub judice before a three-judge bench of the apex court in The New India assurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Aczet Private Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3743/2023. The matter has been pending before the apex court for more than a year and has been subjected to irregular hearings and constant adjournments. The latest order in the case was passed on 25.04.2025 whereby additional time was given to parties for filing of documents. This delay further illustrates how procedural flaws are undermining timely justice for consumers. Meanwhile, several other appeals have been filed before the Supreme court seeking stay of the execution proceedings initiated in pursuance of the judgments of NCDRC on the same ground. 

Additionally, several appeals are also pending before the Jurisdictional High Courts against orders of the NCDRC as the parties are at liberty to either file an appeal before the apex court or invoke the writ/supervisory jurisdiction of the High court. For instances, the Delhi High Court stayed the execution proceedings of the orders issued by NCDRC in four civil writ petitions namely, W.P.(C) 15361/2023, W.P.(C) 7912/2023, W.P.(C) 10474/2023, and CM(M) 1868/2024, involving the same issue vide a common order dated 28.02.2024. 

Presently, the severity of the Coram Non Judice issue is such that, even when a consumer prevails before the NCDRC, the favourable judgment remains stayed indefinitely, or at best, the matter is remitted to the NCDRC for reconsideration by a duly constituted two-member bench, one of whom must be a judicial member (as observed in the Guljit Chaudhri case). This cyclical ordeal may not severely affect the deep-pocketed institutions such as banks, insurance companies, and large corporations, which frequently employ this ordeal as a tactic to frustrate the consumers by prolonging litigation. Resultantly, the consumer forums are failing to protect the interests of the very consumers for whom they were purportedly created under the Consumer Protection Act.

Mere Symptom Of the Underlying Malady

The present issue of Coram Non Judice is merely an off-shoot of the much larger and perennial issue of staffing in the consumer forums. The issue of staffing with respect to the NCDRC has already been discussed above. On the aspect of vacancy, the state of affairs in SCDRC and District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (‘DCDRC’) is highly alarming. Currently, the position of president is vacant in 18 State commissions out of the sanctioned 36 president positions across state commissions (28 states and 8 Union Territories), this means there is a vacancy rate of 50% for the post of president alone in SCDRCs. The sanctioned strength of members across state commissions is 161 out of which 66 are vacant which amounts to a vacancy rate of 31%. The situation is largely the same across DCDRCs where the total sanctioned strength across the country is 2036 (including the president) out of which 747 posts are lying which amounts to a vacancy rate of 37%.

This perennial issue of staffing with respect to the consumer forums is the direct causation behind the manifest vice of Coram Non Judice that the consumer forums are grappling with today.

The Simple Yet Elusive Solution

The Apex Court noted that its ruling on the Coram Non Judice issue concerning the NCDRC would have its impact on different tribunals constituted under different statutes by highlighting the importance of proper bench composition. Accordingly, the three-judge bench while hearing the matter asked the Attorney General (‘AG’) to be present. The Apex Court granted time to the AG to examine the constitution of various tribunals under article 323A and 323B of the constitution and under other statutes. Evidently, the Apex Court is striving to settle the issue of bench composition for all tribunals at once. This approach has resulted in excessive delay in the adjudication of the issue as even the preliminary submissions have not been filed in the case while the consumers continue to suffer. Therefore, it would better serve the interests of consumers as a class to confine the scope of inquiry to consumer protection act and settle the position on this issue only with respect to the consumer forums by holding that orders passed by single technical member benches must be set aside and remitted back for fresh consideration in light of Clause 12 of the Regulations. Pertinently, the Delhi High Court has endorsed this approach in the Guljit Chaudhury case and Apex Court has also held in Kamal Travels that a bench must comprise at least two members.

Concomitantly, one would argue that the court should consider addressing the underlying malady of inadequate sanctioned posts and alarming number of vacancies across consumer forums by issuing appropriate directions. However, the apex court has already issued directions on this point in Re: Inaction of the Governments in appointing President and Members/Staff of Districts and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and inadequate infrastructure across India v. Union of India, where the supreme court has taken suo moto cognisance of the issue relating to widespread vacancies in the state and district commissions across the country. The case was initiated in the year 2021 and since then the apex court has maintained a constant vigil over the recruitment process for fulfilment of vacancies. Through its order dated 14-03-2023, the apex court had flagged the issue of vacancy with respect to not only the members but also the Registrar of NCDRC. However, no substantial progress has been made on the issue of staffing across forums even after the intervention of the supreme court as is patent from the above-mentioned data on vacancies. 

Additionally, it must be realised that although the present issue of Coram Non Judice has arisen only with respect to orders being passed in matters involving legal intricacies by the technical members sitting singly, the act envisages a scenario every matter is decided after due application of both judicial and technical expertise. The Law Commission of India in its 272 report noted that tribunals were established not only to ensure faster, more efficient and decentralized justice but also to leverage expert knowledge in niche areas where traditional court judges often lacked familiarity. By combining streamlined procedures with subject‑matter proficiency, tribunals aimed to address the dual challenges of judicial delays and insufficient specialized understanding, thereby enhancing both overall quality and accessibility of legal proceedings. The importance of the role of technical members has also been highlighted by the Apex Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, a case pertaining to the composition of NCLAT, wherein the court stated that the judicial members ensure impartiality, fairness, and reasonableness in consideration. Whereas, the presence of technical member ensures the availability of expertise and experience related to the field of adjudication for which the special Tribunal is created, thereby improving the quality of adjudication and decision-making.

Therefore, to resolve the underlying causation of disproportionate representation and vacancy behind the issue of Coram Non Judice at least with respect to the NCDRC, a direction must be issued stating that the only plausible combination of members which conforms to both the letter and the spirit of the CPA is that of the NCDRC comprising 6 judicial and 6 technical members given that the total sanctioned posts are 12.  This is the only plausible solution as it complies with the judgment in Kamal Travels while also giving effect to clause 12 of the regulations. Moreover, it is not feasible for the NCDRC president to determine which cases require only judicial expertise and which ones require both judicial and technical expertise at the roster-preparation stage. Technical questions may arise at any stage of the proceedings, and embedding a technical member on every division bench ensures that any case can be assigned to any of the benches. Lastly, consumer disputes frequently involve technical subject matter, such as product design, safety standards, and professional services, that demand specialised expertise for sound decision-making. Thus, it can be conclusively stated that the proposal to constitute the NCDRC with 6 judicial and 6 technical members, thereby forming 6 division benches each with both judicial and technical representation, is legally compliant, administratively feasible, and specialisation-oriented.

Currently, there are 7 technical and 3 judicial members while 2 posts are vacant. Therefore, the tenure of one technical member may be terminated while appointing 3 new judicial members. In future, it must be ensured that whenever a member or a set of members complete their tenure, they must be replaced by the same category of members i.e. only a judicial member can replace an outgoing judicial member and the same goes for technical members. 

Conclusion

The legal position on the issue of Coram Non Judice is clear with respect to the consumer forums. The apex court must not hesitate in holding that judgments passed by technical members adjudicating upon intricate legal issues whether sitting singly or in a division bench comprising two technical members are liable to be set aside and must be remitted back. The emphasis must be placed on addressing the underlying issue of vacancy and disproportionate representation of technical and judicial members in the NCDRC while also ensuring that long-term measures are put in place to accomplish the same at the level of SCDRC and DCDRC. This would eradicate the vice of Coram Non Judice at its very inception. 

Crucially, the executive machinery is responsible for handling the issue of staffing in the consumer forums and it must not only conform to the direction of the apex court but also positively discharge its duty by adopting appropriate measures in a time-bound manner. Lastly, the apex court must be cognisant that the preamble to the CPA promises timely resolution of disputes. This promise cannot be upheld unless the apex court promptly issues an order encompassing the suggested direction and ensures that the same is given effect within a reasonable time-period. 

**Pushpendra is a third-year law student at Hidayatullah National Law University (HNLU), Raipur. He believes that the tribunalisation of justice remains a pollyannaish ideal in the current state of affairs. Therefore, he aspires to contribute to directed institutional reforms, ensuring that timely and effective administration of justice through specialised tribunals becomes a lived reality. Lastly, he believes that the meticulous review process undertaken by the editorial team at Vidhi has played an integral role in refining the blog piece.

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.