<p>The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the Centre's failure to inform about vacancy positions in consumer fora across the country, after the 2019 amendment into the law, which expanded pecuniary jurisdiction and allowed these bodies to deal with Ecommerce transactions.</p>.<p>"We note with regret that despite a lapse of a month and a half the government of India has not found time to file response to specific aspects posed in our order," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta said.</p>.<p>As the Union government's counsel sought two more weeks, the bench said we will not show any further indulgence and if response was not filed, and Secretary concerned would be called upon to explain the position.</p>.<p>Similarly, the court gave two weeks to 14 states that did not file their response, saying if it was not done within the time, Chief Secretary would be asked to answer the situation.</p>.<p>The court was dealing with a Suo Motu matter registered earlier this year as 'inaction of governments in appointing of presidents and members/staff of district and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and inadequate infrastructure across the country'.</p>.<p>The court had in earlier in February noted the information on vacancy position in State Commission and District Forums on the website of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) was updated on November 30, 2020. </p>.<p>"The surprising part is that the position vis-a-vis different states is anterior in time i.e. in some states it is updated to October, 2020, while in some states it is as far back as 2014. This is something which cannot be countenanced as the states should be upgrading and informing the National Commission website about the vacancy position existing as on date," the bench said.</p>.<p>It further pointed out it was all the more necessary, in view of Section 17(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which assigned the task of overseeing the issue of functioning of the State Commissions and District forum to the National Commission.</p>.<p>The 2019 amendment covered all Ecommerce transactions and enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of district forum upto Rs 10 lakh and State Commission upto Rs one crore and the National Commission above Rs one crore.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the Centre's failure to inform about vacancy positions in consumer fora across the country, after the 2019 amendment into the law, which expanded pecuniary jurisdiction and allowed these bodies to deal with Ecommerce transactions.</p>.<p>"We note with regret that despite a lapse of a month and a half the government of India has not found time to file response to specific aspects posed in our order," a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta said.</p>.<p>As the Union government's counsel sought two more weeks, the bench said we will not show any further indulgence and if response was not filed, and Secretary concerned would be called upon to explain the position.</p>.<p>Similarly, the court gave two weeks to 14 states that did not file their response, saying if it was not done within the time, Chief Secretary would be asked to answer the situation.</p>.<p>The court was dealing with a Suo Motu matter registered earlier this year as 'inaction of governments in appointing of presidents and members/staff of district and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions and inadequate infrastructure across the country'.</p>.<p>The court had in earlier in February noted the information on vacancy position in State Commission and District Forums on the website of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) was updated on November 30, 2020. </p>.<p>"The surprising part is that the position vis-a-vis different states is anterior in time i.e. in some states it is updated to October, 2020, while in some states it is as far back as 2014. This is something which cannot be countenanced as the states should be upgrading and informing the National Commission website about the vacancy position existing as on date," the bench said.</p>.<p>It further pointed out it was all the more necessary, in view of Section 17(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which assigned the task of overseeing the issue of functioning of the State Commissions and District forum to the National Commission.</p>.<p>The 2019 amendment covered all Ecommerce transactions and enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of district forum upto Rs 10 lakh and State Commission upto Rs one crore and the National Commission above Rs one crore.</p>
