Bengaluru Consumer's 3-Year Wait for Justice Exposes Karnataka's Slow Redressal System

For Uma Maheswari, a resident of south Bengaluru, the path to justice moved at a painfully slow pace. She endured a nearly three-year-long battle to secure relief in a consumer dispute against Samsung over a television, gifted by her mother, that was never delivered. Her frustrating ordeal is not an isolated incident but a symptom of a widespread malaise affecting consumers across Karnataka, where the justice delivery system remains slow, cumbersome, and often discouraging, despite strong legal protections.

A System Burdened by Delays and Backlogs

Maheswari's case is far from unique. Thousands of consumer complaints languish for years in the state's redressal commissions, bogged down by frequent adjournments, massive pendency, low public awareness, and procedural roadblocks. Disputes involving real estate, insurance, and e-commerce dominate the dockets, with some complaints—particularly those concerning structural defects—pending for five to six years.

Consumers and advocates point to multiple deterrents that cripple the system. These include confusing filing formats, poorly designed online portals, non-compliance with summons by opposite parties, significant delays in pronouncing orders, and compensation amounts that frequently fail to match the hardship endured by the complainant.

Vacancies and Procedural Bottlenecks Cripple Timelines

As India observed National Consumer Day, activists, legal experts, and officials reiterated calls for greater public awareness, streamlined procedures, and better dissemination of information. They warned that justice delayed continues to erode public faith in the consumer protection framework.

Muralidharan YG, founder-trustee of the Consumer Rights Education and Awareness Trust (CREAT), stated that consumers are increasingly questioning why the promise of speedy justice under the Consumer Protection Act remains unfulfilled. "Cases are taking five to six years, largely due to persistent vacancies in consumer commissions and procedural bottlenecks. While awareness about filing complaints has improved, poor online systems and complex processes continue to pose major challenges," he explained.

Ramalingeswara Rao KV, a Bommanahalli resident who fought a case against Reliance Jio, highlighted that delays often escalate when companies fail to respond to repeated notices. "Even the issuance of orders is delayed. Greater awareness about consumer courts will help create accountability among large companies and fraudsters," he added.

Official Acknowledgment and the Road Ahead

While advocates and courts maintain that consumer commissions are striving for faster case disposal, they acknowledge that delays are often beyond the control of presiding officers. Severe staff shortages and vacancies remain a critical concern. The Consumer Protection Act mandates that cases be disposed of within 90 days, extendable to three months, or up to five months where technical inspection is involved. However, these timelines are rarely met in practice.

TG Shivashankare Gowda, president of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, detailed the challenges. "Even if advocates do not appear, cases are decided on merit. However, repeated adjournments sought by opposing parties, procedural timelines for evidence and arguments, and a heavy caseload—with some districts handling over 800 cases—slow down disposal," he said.

Gowda revealed a staggering statistic: nearly 50% of posts across the state's 33 district consumer commissions are vacant. Recruitment has been stalled for the past six months due to Supreme Court-mandated amendments to the Consumer Protection Act. "Most staff are outsourced and untrained, requiring continuous capacity-building. Until vacancies are filled and trained personnel are in place, delays stretching into years will remain a challenge," he conceded.

Stakeholders unanimously agree that without structural reforms, adequate staffing, and stricter control on adjournments, the promise of speedy and accessible consumer justice will remain elusive. Activist Muralidharan YG emphasized that with better awareness, improved technology, and fully functional commissions, consumers should be empowered to assert their rights confidently.

Advocate Abhishek MR, founding partner of Lawsmith & Co, called for urgent measures: "There is an urgent need to strengthen the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by constituting additional benches and revamping its administrative machinery to build a more robust and efficient system."

Key Consumer Rights to Remember

No one can demand or misuse your phone number.
Forced payment for carry bags is an unfair trade practice.
Logo-bearing carry bags amount to indirect advertising and cannot be charged.
Hotels cannot levy mandatory service charges.
Deepfakes fall under consumer protection regulations.
Always read terms carefully and beware of misleading advertisements (e.g., in real estate).