Plea in Telangana High Court says consumer forums following civil court procedures, taking long to decide cases

A plea has been filed before the Telangana High Court raising concern that the adjudication process followed by consumer forums in the State is not in line with the streamlined procedure laid down in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019..The petitioner has argued that this is causing hardships for consumers who have filed consumer complaints and is affecting thousands of complainants across the State.In particular, the petitioner has contended that the procedure being followed by the Sangareddy District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) - where a consumer complaint filed by him is pending - is improper.The petitioner, Kesanakurthy Srinivasa Rao claims that the procedure presently being followed by the Sangareddy DCDRC is more aligned with the lengthy procedures laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which is leading to unnecessary delays in the disposal of consumer cases. A Bench of Justices Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Tirumala Devieada has sought the response of the Sangareddy district consumer court, the State and the Central government, among other respondents in the matter. The plea is listed for a hearing next on April 10. .Notably, Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 outlines the procedure for admitting complaints, including sending notice of the complaint to the opposite party, allowing the opposite party some time to respond, and then conducting hearings to decide the matter.If the opposite party fails to respond within the time limit, the case can be decided without hearing such a party.The Act also lays down that consumer cases should ideally be decided within 90 days from the date on which the opposite party receives notice..However, the petitioner claims the DCDRC at Sangareddy is following a different, more lengthy procedure, which includes multiple steps after the complaint is filed - including seeking a written response from the respondent/ opposing party, calling for evidence affidavits, marking of evidence, recording written arguments, and then hearing oral submissions.Rao has contended that this violates Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as well as Rule 26 of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020. Rule 26, the petitioner points out, specifically calls on consumer fora to avoid invoking the procedures laid down in the CPC..The petitioner had earlier filed a consumer complaint before the DCDRC against Rudra Developers in December 2024. Rudra Developers failed to file a response to the matter within 45 days of being served notice. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the DCDRC, urging it to post the matter for a final hearing so that it may be decided ex parte. However, on February 28 this year, the DCDRC dismissed the petitioner's application, reasoning that it cannot proceed only based on the petitioner's consumer complaint as the complaint's contents cannot be treated as evidence. It opined that it has the discretion to call for evidence affidavits from the complainant/ petitioner as well as the opposite party (Rudra Developers). The petitioner has questioned this course of action. He has contended that once the opposite party fails to file a written response within time, the consumer commission should proceed with dealing with the case ex parte. The petitioner has challenged the DCDRC's decision to call for an evidence affidavit from him (the complainant) instead. He has, therefore, urged the Court to declare that such a process is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He has also sought directions so that his complaint is decided by the DCDRC, Sangareddy in a timebound manner (within 30 days). .Advocates Vijay Gopal and Darvesh Anishwar Rao appeared for the petitioner.