Consumerism has evolved into the defining characteristic of modern existence, dictating every moment of our lives whether through the consumption of traditional commodities and services or through the relentless engagement with digital goods that now permeate every facet of our daily lives. Every such transaction pertaining to consumption has the potential to result in dispute between the consumer and service provider. In this backdrop, the role of consumer forums becomes highly integral in ensuring a smooth dispute resolution process wherein the interests of the consumers are given primacy. The preamble to the Consumer protection Act, 2019 (‘CPA‘) confers a solemn duty on the consumer forums to ensure timely and effective administration of justice to the consumer.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (‘NCDRC‘), the apex consumer forum, has a particularly salient role in ensuring the preservation of the interests of the consumers. However, the NCDRC has been rendered unable to administer justice to consumers as a substantial number of its judgments are being assailed before the Apex Court and other High Courts on the ground of Coram Non Judice.
The issue of validity of the judgments passed by NCDRC while the bench constitution was Coram Non Judice is currently pending before the Apex Court. Accordingly, this blog piece has three principal objectives. First, it aims to establish that the issue of Coram Non Judice has rendered the judgments of NCDRC unenforceable. Second, it aims to demonstrate that the issue of Coram Non Judice is merely a symptom of the larger issue of staffing in NCDRC. Finally, it posits that this issue can be effectively resolved at least at the NCDRC level by issuing a clear set of directions.
THE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT: CORAM NON JUDICE
The term ‘Coram Non Judice‘ in this context refers to an improperly constituted bench. The issue with NCDRC is that of technical members sitting singly and adjudicating upon matters involving intricate legal issues. Historically, the Apex Court has consistently held that the non-judicial members of the tribunals must not adjudicate upon matters requiring legal acumen while sitting singly. For instance, in State of M.P. v. B.R. Thakare, the Apex Court denounced the practice of non-judicial members sitting singly and consequently, set aside the order of the administrative tribunal. In terms of consumer matters, the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Kamal Travels Kokks International (‘Kamal Travels‘) has refrained from interfering with the judgment of Rajasthan High Court holding that a bench of the state commission must comprise two members, including a judicial member.
Pertinently, the supplementary legislative framework of the CPA prohibits the practice of technical members sitting singly, as is evident from Clause 12 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 (‘The Regulations‘). This clause provides that when a bench does not include a Judicial Member and a complex question of law arises without any precedent to decide the issue, the matter must be referred to the President of the State Commission or the National Commission for the constitution of a bench with the President as a member.
SUB JUDICE BEFORE THE APEX COURT: CONSUMER ORDEAL CONTINUES
The gravity of the issue of improper bench composition in NCDRC is underscored by the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court and other High Courts. Evidently, this issue is sub judice before a three-judge bench of the Apex Court in The New India assurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s Aczet Private Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 3743/2023. The matter has been pending before the Apex Court for more than a year and has been subjected to irregular hearings and constant adjournments. The latest order in the case was passed on 25.04.2025, wherein the matter was adjourned without passing any substantive order. This delay further illustrates how procedural flaws are undermining timely justice for consumers. Meanwhile, several other appeals have been filed before the Supreme Court seeking stay of the execution proceedings initiated in pursuance of the judgments of NCDRC on the same ground. The most recent ones filed in the current year before the Apex Court are S S v. Rajat Gupta & others, Rajendra Sadanand Jujare and & others v. Dr. Lata M Patil & others, and Manik Chandra Khan v. Amit Saha & others.
Additionally, several appeals are also pending before the Jurisdictional High Courts against orders of the NCDRC. For instance, the Delhi High Court stayed the execution proceedings of the orders issued by NCDRC in four civil writ petitions involving the same issue vide a common order dated 28.02.2024. The stay was granted as the issue raised in these petitions is currently under consideration before the Supreme Court. Per contra, in National Insurance Company v. Guljit Choudhary, CM(M) 37/2025, (‘Guljit Choudhary‘) a recent judgment of the Delhi High Court wherein the court did not grant any stay rather the order of the NCDRC was set aside on the ground of Coram Non Judice in light of clause 12 of the regulations and remitted back the matter with directions that the same be heard afresh by properly constituted bench. Notably, the judgment was a consent order and did not decide the matter on merits. However, the position in this judgment is in consonance with clause 12 of the regulations and the position of the Rajasthan High Court in Kamal Travels which was also upheld by the Apex Court.
Presently, the severity of the Coram Non Judice issue is such that, even when a consumer prevails before the NCDRC, the favourable judgment remains stayed indefinitely, or at best, the matter is remitted to the NCDRC for reconsideration. This cyclical ordeal is often employed as a delaying tactic by the deep-pocketed institutions to frustrate the consumers. Resultantly, the consumer forums are failing to protect the interests of the very consumers for whom they were purportedly created under the CPA.
THE UNDERLYING MALADY OF STAFFING IN NCDRC
The present issue of Coram Non Judice is merely an offshoot of the much larger issue of staffing in the consumer forums. The NCDRC has a sanctioned strength of total 12 members, including the president as per The Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020. Unfortunately, even out of the sanctioned strength, two members positions are currently vacant. Notably, out of the 10 currently incumbent members only 3 are judicial members and the rest 7 are technical members. Resultantly, several judgments are being passed by single or division benches comprising only technical members of the NCDRC.
THE SIMPLE YET ELUSIVE SOLUTION
The Apex Court noted that its ruling on the Coram Non Judice issue concerning the NCDRC would set a precedent for other tribunals as well. Accordingly, the three-judge bench while hearing the matter, directed the Attorney General to be present. This belief of the court may be justified however, it would better serve the interests of consumers as a class to confine the scope of inquiry to consumer forums and settle the position by holding that orders passed single technical member benches must be set aside and remitted back for fresh consideration in light of Clause 12 of the Regulations. Pertinently, the Rajasthan High Court and Delhi High Court have already endorsed this approach in Kamal Travels and Guljit Choudhary respectively. Emphasis must be placed on the fact that the Apex Court had upheld the position of Rajasthan High Court in Kamal Travels.
Therefore, to resolve the underlying causation of vacancy behind the issue of Coram Non Judice at least for NCDRC, the Supreme Court must take prompt action and issue appropriate directions. These directions must be issued with a categorical stipulation that any wilful non-compliance shall invite contempt proceedings against the concerned secretaries.
The legal position on the issue of Coram Non Judice is clear with respect to the consumer forums in light of clause 12 of the regulations and the two judgments of Rajasthan and Delhi High Court. The Apex Court must not hesitate in giving effect to the said clause. The emphasis must be placed on addressing the underlying malady of vacancy and disproportionate representation of technical and judicial members in the NCDRC. This would eradicate the vice of Coram Non Judice at its very inception.
The Apex Court must be cognizant that the preamble to the CPA promises a timely resolution of disputes. This promise cannot be upheld unless the Apex Court promptly issues an order encompassing the suggested direction and ensures that the same is given effect within an expedited timeframe.
Author is a fourth year law student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur. Views Are Personal.