Plea Before SC for Appointing President, Members, and Staff at District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions

The petition before the Apex Court Seeks Order to Appoint the President, Members, and staff at the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions  

Saloni Gautam through her lawyers Dushyant Tiwari and Om Prakash Parihar filed a petition before the Supreme Court of India, seeking an order for the appointment of the President, members, and staff at the District and State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions throughout India. 

Consumer Protection Act, 2019 brought changes in the pecuniary jurisdictions of the District, State and National Commissions

The petitioner through her advocates on 20 July 2020 asserted that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 came into force, bringing in changes to the pecuniary jurisdictions of the District, State and National Commissions. 

It states that the pecuniary limit for the District Commissions has been increased to Rs.1 crore from up to Rs. 20 lakh, it has been increased to Rs. 10 crores from Rs.1 crore in the State Commissions, ; and for the National Commission, it has been increased to over and above Rs.10 crore in place of Rs.1crore as per the 1986 Act. 

Further, the petitioner submits before the court that in order to fill the position of Presidents and members of Consumer Commissions various state governments, have not made any arrangement which leads to late delivery of final verdict/order by these Commissions. 

In August, the petitioner  had filed RTI applications seeking information from the Central government and the various States  Government regarding the vacancies at consumer redressal commissions 

The petitioner in August 2020  had filed Right to Information applications seeking information from the Central government and the States government of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, Delhi, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh regarding the vacancies at consumer redressal commissions. 

Delhi government by the month of September informed her that only one post was vacant. However, in the month of November, the status of the Delhi State Disputes Redressal Commission showed that there were two vacancies. 

Moving ahead the plea argued that more than "16 posts of President and 25 of members are lying vacant in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums across Punjab and some of the posts are believed to have been lying vacant for past two years". 

In view of the statement made the petitioner also seeks the court to provide proper infrastructure to consumer commissions.