Justice delayed: consumers caught in a web of systemic inconsistencies

For many wronged consumers across India, the promise of “speedy justice” enshrined in law remains distant. Consumer courts, conceived as accessible and inexpensive forums for ordinary citizens, have increasingly become arenas of prolonged litigation.

That reality unfolds in the life of 60-year-old Ashok (name changed), whose consumer dispute has been pending for nearly a decade. At 4 a.m., the small paint factory owner locks his home in Panchkula, Chandigarh, and takes the long road to Delhi. By the time he reaches the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in the heart of the national capital around 11 a.m., he has already spent seven exhausting hours in transit.

Mr. Ashok’s case relates to an insurance claim arising out of a fire incident that gutted his small paint factory in 2015. When the bench rises for the day, his matter remains unheard. The court master announces the next date — six months later.

“This has been happening for the past three years. For one reason or another, my case never comes up. I don’t know what to do anymore,” Mr. Ashok says.

Mr. Ashok is not alone in experiencing this ordeal.

Twenty-eight-year-old Raju (name changed) from a small district in Chhattisgarh had dreamt of setting up a paper cup manufacturing unit five years ago. He paid the full amount online for a paper cup-making machine and took loan from a local bank to fund the purchase. The machine never arrived.

Mr. Raju has since been embroiled in a protracted litigation — first before the district consumer court, and later at the State forum. His case has now reached the National Consumer Court after the opposite party decided to challenge the order passed in his favour in the lower forums.

Each hearing requires him to undertake a 24-hour train journey to the national capital — with no assurance that his case will actually be heard.

“The last date was November 24. My case did not come up because the court’s time got exhausted with cases at the top of the list,” he recalls.

“This has happened three or four times already. Every time, I am given another date six months later. I have now turned into a loan defaulter,” Mr. Raju says. “I have been wronged, so I will keep fighting — even if it takes another 10 years.”

The challenges of being your own ‘lawyer’ at the consumer court

Growing backlog

Stories such as Mr. Ashok’s and Mr. Raju’s mirror a systemic crisis playing out across consumer courts nationwide.

A response by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution in Parliament shows that as of January 30, 2024, a total of 5.43 lakh consumer complaints were pending before district, State and national consumer commissions.

In 2024, the commissions received 1.73 lakh fresh cases but disposed of only 1.58 lakh, leading to a net increase of nearly 14,900 cases. The trend continued in 2025. Up to July this year, 78,031 new complaints were filed, while 65,537 cases were disposed of.

This backlog persists despite clear statutory timelines under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 38(7) of the Act mandates that complaints be decided within three months where no testing or analysis is required, and within five months where such examination is necessary.

The law also explicitly discourages delays, stating that adjournments should not ordinarily be granted unless sufficient cause is shown and reasons are recorded in writing.

Structural bottlenecks

Advocate Anand Prakash attributes the delays to deep-rooted structural issues.

“Many consumer commissions are burdened with thousands of pending matters and lack sufficient staff, modern facilities, or effective digital case management systems,” he says. “Vacancies in judicial and non-judicial posts, limited courtrooms and logistical constraints continue to impede timely hearings.”

The staffing crisis has intensified over time. As of August 19, 2025, 18 posts of President and 62 posts of Member were vacant in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions. At the district level, 218 posts of President and 518 posts of Member remained vacant.

This marks a significant rise from February 2, 2024, when 13 posts of President and 47 posts of Member at the State level, and 131 posts of President and 340 posts of Member at the district level were vacant.

Another challenge, Mr. Prakash says, lies in the nature of disputes themselves. “Many commission Members are legally trained but lack subject-matter expertise in specialised areas such as medical negligence, marine insurance, foreign trade or complex financial products.”

This often necessitates expert opinions, laboratory reports or technical clarifications, leading to repeated adjournments. “Without continuous training or specialised benches, complex cases inevitably move much slower than the Act contemplates,” he says.

Delays are also caused by procedural hurdles — non-service of notices, late filing of affidavits, and requests for time to submit additional evidence. “At times, opposite parties deliberately seek adjournments to harass complainants and wear them down,” Mr. Prakash alleges.