Read Time: 04 minutes

A Supreme Court bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna today expressed their displeasure over National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) giving long adjournments. The court further recorded in their order that such long adjournments defeat the very purpose of consumer protection act.

The petitioner in the case was represented by Abhishek Kumar Singh, advocate. He submitted that a bench of the tribunal had adjourned his matter 21 times and that the matter which was last listed in August has now been adjourned to July, 2022. He submitted that the tribunal has not heard his case despite the direction of the Supreme Court dated 15 December 2020 that the proceedings had to be taken up for early hearing with all diligence and dispatch.

He submitted that though the President of the NCDRC directed that the proceedings be listed before the Bench, they have not yet been disposed.

The court on hearing the submissions held that this defeats the object of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and that what concerns the Court equally is the breach of the directions of this Court by the Judge, who is assigned to hear the proceedings before the NCDRC.

The court further held that they disapprove the manner in which the matter has been proceeding  before the NCDRC. The court directed that the President of the NCDRC to assign a new bench if the bench already assigned is unable to hear the matter. In the alternate the court directed the President of the tribunal to take up the matter before the bench that he presides over or by any other Bench which is available, so that the matter can be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of the order. The court further directed the registrar of NCDRC to file a report of compliance in this regard.

Case title: Ram Pukar Maurya Vs Jai Prakash Associates & Ors