- (1.) This matter has been pending here for about three years now. With a view to making the Act operate effectively and for the benefit of the consumers, we have made various orders. At our request Mr. Justice Eradi, Chairman of the National Commission, has gone round the entire country and made his reports. Deficiencies indicated in his report have been highlighted in the submissions in Court and we have also made different orders to meet the loopholes indicated in the report of Mr Justice Eradi; yet we find that in most of the States, the statutory scheme is not fully operative yet.
(2.) The Act envisages appointment of a District Forum in every district. Though the Act has been in force for about four years now, we find that in most of the States, the practice prevalent is of appointing a forum at the divisional level or appointing the District Judge as Ex-Officio Chairman of the District Forum. On account of this position, many consumers who have smaller grievances to ventilate are not able to go to the divisional headquarter, and the Judicial Officers who have been given additional duty to act as Chairman of the District Forums under the Act are not able to sit to work everyday. As a consequence the District Forum sits only once a week. The statement of institutions placed before us indicates that inflow is more than the disposal. It is obviously on account of the fact that full attention is not possible to be given by the District Forums to the complaints.
(3.) We have told counsel appearing for the different States as also he learned Additional Solicitor General and there are no two opinions, that the scheme of the statute is that every district must have its forum. If that be the legislative mandate, there can be no dispute that most of the States have failed to comply with the statutory requirement.;