Maharashtra consumer panels take over 600 days to resolve cases

MUMBAI: Consumer redressal in Maharashtra is facing severe delays, with state and district commissions taking over 600 days to resolve a single case. According to the Consumer Justice Report 2026 by the India Justice Report (IJR), this timeline is nearly four times the legal limit of 150 days.

Consequently, Maharashtra ranks eleventh among 19 major states and struggles with a low case clearance rate of 64.5 percent between 2020 and 2024 -- the lowest among large and mid-sized states.According to the study, the state commission took an average of 662 days to dispose of cases, while district commissions took 612 days. The report, released on Wednesday, also found that more than half of the cases filed before the state commission between 2010 and 2024 took over a year to be decided.

Advocate and consumer rights activist Shirish V Deshpande, chairman of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, said the Consumer Protection Act was meant to provide simple, speedy, and inexpensive dispute resolution, but this purpose has been defeated. Deshpande shared that he has been handling a medical negligence case involving a death that began before the state commission in 1999. Although he received a favourable judgment and compensation order against the doctor in 2015, the case has remained pending before the National Commission after the doctor filed an appeal.

"The law says that a consumer complaint should be expeditiously decided within 90 to 150 days. What is happening instead is 9 years, 15 years, even 20 years," Deshpande said.The report noted that Maharashtra had no vacancy in the post of president at the state commission in 2025, and that 40 district consumer commissions have been established across the state's 36 districts. In addition to the Mumbai bench, six regional and circuit benches of the state commission have also been set up.

However, staffing gaps continue to affect functioning. The report said there was a 36 percent shortfall among members at the state commission in 2025.

At the district level, there was a 25 percent shortfall among presidents and a 30 percent shortfall among members. Staff vacancies at the state commission stood at 15 percent.In Mumbai city's four district consumer commissions, staff vacancies averaged 33 percent of the 45 sanctioned posts between 2021 and 2025.

The report also noted that the Mumbai Suburban additional district commission did not have a single female member over the past five years.Justice (retd) Sanjay Kishan Kaul, former Supreme Court judge, released the report and said, "The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was expected to improve consumer protection capacity in the country. But it is concerning to find that more than half the president and member positions in state commissions are vacant and that not all districts have formed district commissions."The report said Maharashtra's case clearance rate for the 2020-2024 period stood at 64.5 percent, the lowest among large and mid-sized states. In Mumbai, the city's four district consumer commissions cleared only 36 percent of the 4,388 cases filed between 2022 and 2025.The study found that nearly 69,700 cases were filed before the Maharashtra state commission over 15 years. Of these, 55 percent were first appeals and 15 percent were original consumer complaints.

Insurance complaints accounted for 32 percent of filings, followed by housing at 31 percent and banking at 11 percent.Andhra Pradesh topped the rankings among large and mid-sized states. Among small states, Meghalaya ranked first, followed by Sikkim and Himachal Pradesh.Justice (retd) Madan B Lokur said the report clearly showed that the system is functioning at a subsistence level, with vacancies as high as 40 percent in state commissions.

He noted that even forty years after the Consumer Protection Act was enacted, the situation remains grim. "It raises the question: Are these commissions really grievance redressal bodies?" he said.Maja Daruwala, editor of the India Justice Report, said, "We find that in consumer commissions, gender diversity is restricted to mere compliance, pendency persists, and mediation is ornamental, eventually weakening the promise of institutional resolution and redress for consumers."