Madras HC raps TN govt for not naming members to consumer redressal panel
The first division bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq heard suo motu proceedings to initiate immediate steps to appoint or fill up the vacancies with adequate strength of staff members, steno, computer operators, and office assistance in the commission for effective functioning.
DTNEXT Bureau
Madras High Court (File)
CHENNAI: The Tamil Nadu government has nil interest in addressing the shortcomings prevailing in the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, held the Madras High Court as the state government, citing financial crunch, failed to appoint additional members to the commission.
The first division bench of Chief Justice KR Shriram and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq heard suo motu proceedings to initiate immediate steps to appoint or fill up the vacancies with adequate strength of staff members, steno, computer operators, and office assistance in the commission for effective functioning.
When the matter was listed before the bench on Thursday, advocate Sharath Chandran, amicus curiae, noted that thousands of pending disputes have led to several shortcomings in the commission.
The amicus curiae submitted that more than 4,000 cases are pending in the State Consumer Redressal Commission until December 31. Of 4,000 cases, 2,591 are pending in Chennai and 1,463 in Madurai.
The commission at present functions as a one-man body comprising the president alone, he said, adding that under section 42 (3) of the Consumer Protection Act (2019), the commission should have a president and not less than four members.
Highlighting that the commission also lacks enforcement mechanisms, he noted totally 114 execution petitions are pending.
The government pleader Edwin Prabhakar assured the court that he would file an affidavit by getting instructions from authorities.
On perusing the submission by the amicus, the bench expressed disappointment as the State couldn't appoint additional members to the commission for more than 20 months despite the request by the president of the commission.
Observing that the state government neglected the issue, the bench said, “Hence we seek a response affidavit in this regard from an officer not less than additional chief secretary rank and it should be placed before this bench on February 14.” The bench posted the matter to February 20 for further proceedings.