Orissa High Court Condemns Consumer Commission's Casual Approach in Long-Pending Appeal
In a strongly worded observation, the Orissa High Court has expressed deep disappointment over the "lack of seriousness" and "casual approach" demonstrated by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha. The court's criticism came after it discovered that the commission disposed of a consumer appeal that had been pending for more than one-and-a-half years without following proper procedures.
Procedural Lapses and Missing Records
Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, in his order dated February 27, noted that the commission, which serves as a statutory quasi-judicial authority, failed to exhibit basic procedural diligence. The appeal in question had its judgment reserved on July 19, 2024, but instead of delivering the pending judgment, the commission inexplicably relisted the matter in February 2026, citing missing records, and then disposed of the plea arbitrarily.
The high court found that the commission disposed of the appeal without the presence of either party involved and without providing any explanation regarding how the case record was allegedly "misplaced." The eventual order passed on February 13, 2026, was delivered without the appearance of either party, and it lacked clarity on whether the missing record was ever reconstituted.
Court's Strong Rebuke and Remand Order
Labeling the commission's conduct as "unacceptable," the high court emphasized that such lapses reflect poorly on the functioning of a body entrusted with adjudicating consumer grievances across the state. The court stressed that consumer forums must handle appeals with the utmost care, especially at a time when delays and vacancies have already strained consumer justice mechanisms in Odisha.
"Such an approach cannot be countenanced," the court observed, adding that quasi-judicial forums must maintain procedural discipline to preserve public confidence. The order pointed out that despite the bench reserving judgment in 2024, the matter lay unattended for nearly 18 months.
Consequently, the high court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the commission for a fresh hearing. It directed the commission to provide adequate opportunity to all parties and to dispose of the appeal within two months.
Systemic Issues and Staff Shortages
The functioning of the commission has been hampered for several years due to significant staff shortages. It did not have a stenographer for over a year to type orders, and the bench delivered only 13 orders on merit in three years. This case highlights systemic issues affecting the state's consumer dispute redressal bodies.
Social worker Alok Kar commented, "The commission is already under scrutiny for delays, vacancies, and procedural bottlenecks. The government should look after it with seriousness." The case underscores the need for improved resources and accountability in consumer justice mechanisms to ensure timely and fair resolutions for grievances.
