Strengthening Consumer Dispute Redressal: Analysis of State of U.P. vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association Judgment

The case of State of U.P. vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association revolves around the infrastructural inadequacies of consumer fora across India and the necessary judicial interventions to ensure their efficiency. The judgment highlights the steps taken by the Supreme Court to address the shortcomings in infrastructure, appointment procedures, and service conditions of the consumer dispute redressal system.

Background of the Case

On 14 January 2016, the Supreme Court constituted a three-member committee to assess the state of consumer fora across the country. The committee included:

• Dr. Justice Arijit Pasayat, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India
• Ms. Justice Rekha Sharma, Former Judge, High Court of Delhi
• The Secretary to Government of India, Department of Consumer Affairs

The committee was assigned the task of evaluating the infrastructural requirements, appointment vacancies, need for additional benches, service conditions of members, and feasibility of creating a separate cadre for consumer fora staff.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

On 21 November 2016, the Supreme Court issued several important directions:

• The Union Government was to frame model rules for appointment and service conditions of consumer fora members.
• Objective norms were to be set for assessing the ability and experience of appointed members.
• Proper salary and allowances were to be prescribed to attract competent professionals.
• Model rules were to be adopted by state governments.
• The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) was tasked with formulating regulations under Section 30A to ensure effective administrative control over State Commissions and District Fora.

Implementation Challenges and Further Orders

On 7 March 2017, the Supreme Court noted that certain modifications were needed in the proposed rules and regulations. The Court observed:

“One of the pressing issues, which needs to be dealt with forthwith, is the vacancy of the post of Registrar, of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. It seems that there is an agreement on this issue as well, inasmuch as, learned Additional Solicitor General leaves the issue of recommendation to the Chairman of the above Commission, who will be at liberty to suggest the name of an appropriate individual.”

Final Directions by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court directed that the Union Government file a comprehensive status report within six weeks, detailing the steps taken to implement its directions. The Court also acknowledged that the committee appointed for infrastructural review had completed its task and officially closed its mandate.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark ruling aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of consumer fora by ensuring timely appointments, better infrastructure, and improved service conditions for its members. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the importance of a well-functioning consumer redressal mechanism for protecting consumer rights in India.

Judgment delivered by: Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: State of U.P. Throug vs All U.P. Consumer Pr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-12-2017.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Disciplinary Proceedings
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2017
See all petitions in 2017 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category