Supreme Court Directs States to Adopt Model Rules for Consumer Fora: State of Uttar Pradesh vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association (2018)

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2018
Citation: Not Available in the source.
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J, Indu Malhotra, J.
Can the infrastructure of consumer courts be improved to better serve the public? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the lack of adequate facilities in Consumer Fora across the country. The Court directed the State Governments to adopt model rules framed by the Union Government to ensure uniformity in the functioning of these forums. This judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice Indu Malhotra, with Justice Indu Malhotra authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from concerns about the inadequate infrastructure in Consumer Fora throughout India. This lack of infrastructure was hampering the effective functioning of these bodies, which are crucial for protecting consumer rights. The Supreme Court took cognizance of this issue and initiated measures to address it.

The primary concern was the lack of uniformity in the rules governing the functioning of Consumer Fora across different states. This inconsistency led to operational inefficiencies and hindered the smooth delivery of justice to consumers. The Court sought to establish a standardized framework to ensure that all Consumer Fora operate under similar guidelines.

The case involved the State of Uttar Pradesh as the appellant and the All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association as the respondent. The core issue was the need for uniform rules and better infrastructure for Consumer Fora.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initially constituted a three-member committee, headed by Justice Arijit Pasayat (Retd.), to examine the infrastructure of Consumer Fora. This committee submitted a detailed report on March 4, 2017. Following this, the Court directed the Union Government to frame Model Rules to ensure uniformity in the functioning of Consumer Fora across all states. The Union Government prepared draft rules and regulations, which were then discussed in court.

During the proceedings, several parties suggested modifications to the Model Rules. The Union of India then filed an affidavit on March 22, 2017, with the Final Draft Model Rules. The Court, after hearing all parties on April 27, 2018, accepted the Model Rules. The State Governments were directed to frame appropriate rules based on these Model Rules, using their rule-making power under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, specifically:

• Section 10(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section deals with the rule-making power of the State Governments concerning the appointment of members to the District Consumer Fora.
• Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section pertains to the rule-making power of the State Governments regarding the appointment of members to the State Consumer Commissions.
• Section 10(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section deals with the appointment of members to the District Consumer Fora.
• Section 16(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section pertains to the appointment of members to the State Consumer Commissions.
• Section 20(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section pertains to the appointment of members to the National Consumer Commission.
• Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section grants the State Governments the power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.
• Section 30A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section empowers the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to formulate regulations with the previous approval of the Central Government.
• Section 24(B)(1)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section deals with the administrative control of the National Commission over the State Commissions.
• Section 24(B)(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: This section deals with the administrative control of the State Commissions over the District Fora.

The Court emphasized the need for uniformity in the rules framed by the State Governments under these sections to ensure the effective implementation of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Model Rules were framed by the Union Government to provide a template for the State Governments to follow.

Arguments

The primary argument presented before the Court was the urgent need for uniform rules and better infrastructure for Consumer Fora. The submissions can be summarized as follows:

• Need for Uniformity: The lack of consistency in rules across different states was causing operational inefficiencies and hindering the effective delivery of justice to consumers.
• Infrastructure Deficiencies: The Consumer Fora were facing severe infrastructure deficiencies, including a lack of adequate space, staff, and other necessary resources. This was affecting their ability to function effectively.
• Model Rules: The Union Government was directed to frame Model Rules that could be adopted by the State Governments to ensure uniformity. These rules would cover aspects such as the appointment of members, their salaries, and other conditions of service.
• Implementation: The State Governments were expected to implement these Model Rules by framing appropriate rules under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

1. How to ensure uniform application of rules and regulations for the functioning of Consumer Fora across all the States in India?

The sub-issues included the need for adequate infrastructure, the framing of model rules by the Union Government, and the implementation of these rules by the State Governments.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court did not specifically cite any previous cases or books in this judgment. The authorities considered by the Court were primarily the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the Model Rules framed by the Union Government.

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment focused on ensuring uniformity and improving the infrastructure of Consumer Fora across the country. The Court accepted the Model Rules framed by the Union Government and directed the State Governments to adopt these rules by framing appropriate rules under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Court also addressed the infrastructure issues at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).

The Court also addressed the issues of infrastructure at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). It noted that the NCDRC required additional posts, space, and an increase in the salaries and allowances of its President and Members. The Court directed the Union Government to consider the NCDRC’s requirements and take appropriate action.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the need to ensure that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is effectively implemented across the country. The lack of uniformity in rules and the inadequate infrastructure were identified as major impediments to the effective functioning of Consumer Fora. By directing the adoption of Model Rules and addressing infrastructure issues, the Court aimed to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of these bodies.

The Court emphasized the importance of attracting suitable talent to the adjudicating bodies by providing adequate salaries and allowances to the members of the Consumer Fora. This was considered essential to ensure the quality of adjudication and the effective protection of consumer rights.

The Court directed the Union Government to consider the requirement of the NCDRC for sanctioning additional posts. It also directed the Union Government to make additional space available to the NCDRC. The Court further directed the Union Government to expedite the amendment to Rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules 1987, regarding the salaries, honorarium, and other allowances of the President and Members of the NCDRC.

The Court stated that the State Governments shall frame appropriate rules in exercise of the rule-making power under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in accordance with the Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The Union Government shall for the purpose of ensuring Uniformity in the exercise of the rule making power under Section 10(3) and Section 16(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 frame model rules for adoption by the State Governments.”

“The Union Government shall also frame within four months model rules prescribing objective norms for implementing the provisions of Section 10(1)(b), Section 16(1)(b) and Section 20(1)(b) in regard to the appointment of members respectively of the District fora, State Commissions and National Commission.”

“The State Governments shall frame appropriate rules in exercise of the rule-making power under Section 30 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 in accordance with the Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s primary concern was to ensure that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is effectively implemented across the country. The sentiment analysis reveals that the Court was heavily influenced by the need for uniformity and the practical difficulties caused by inadequate infrastructure. The Court emphasized the importance of attracting suitable talent to the adjudicating bodies by providing adequate salaries and allowances to the members of the Consumer Fora. This was considered essential to ensure the quality of adjudication and the effective protection of consumer rights.

The ratio of fact to law shows that the Court was more influenced by the legal requirements and the need to implement the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 effectively. While the factual circumstances of inadequate infrastructure were a concern, the legal framework and the need for uniformity played a more significant role in the Court’s decision-making process.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• State Governments are required to adopt the Model Rules framed by the Union Government for the functioning of Consumer Fora.
• The Union Government must address the infrastructure issues at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), including the creation of additional posts and the allocation of additional space.
• The State Governments must now frame rules under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in accordance with the Model Rules.
• The judgment emphasizes the need for uniformity and efficiency in the functioning of Consumer Fora across the country.
• The judgment also highlights the importance of attracting suitable talent to the adjudicating bodies by providing adequate salaries and allowances to the members of the Consumer Fora.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The State Governments shall frame appropriate rules in exercise of the rule-making power under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in accordance with the Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India.
• The Union Government was directed to consider the requirement of the NCDRC for sanctioning additional posts.
• The Union Government was directed to make additional space available to the NCDRC.
• The Union Government was directed to expedite the amendment to Rule 11 of the Consumer Protection Rules 1987, regarding the salaries, honorarium, and other allowances of the President and Members of the NCDRC.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State Governments are bound to adopt the Model Rules framed by the Union Government to ensure uniformity in the functioning of Consumer Fora across the country. This judgment sets a precedent for the implementation of uniform rules and regulations for Consumer Fora. There is no change in the previous position of law but it provides a clear direction for the implementation of the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. All U.P. Consumer Protection Bar Association is a significant step towards ensuring the effective functioning of Consumer Fora in India. By directing the State Governments to adopt the Model Rules framed by the Union Government, the Court has paved the way for uniformity and efficiency in the delivery of justice to consumers. The judgment also addresses the critical infrastructure issues at the NCDRC, ensuring that these bodies are equipped to handle the increasing number of consumer complaints. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting consumer rights and ensuring that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is implemented effectively across the country.