Supreme Court Directs Centre to Publicise Road Accident Interim Compensation Scheme, 2026

Road Accident Compensation: Supreme Court Directs Centre to Publicise Interim Relief Scheme, 2026

What accident victims and their families should know about interim relief, the proposed application process and the question of uninsured vehicles.

After a serious road accident, victims and their families may face medical expenses, loss of income, disability and financial uncertainty. Even where the law provides a remedy, many people struggle to understand which benefits are available and how to claim them.

On 16 October 2026, the Supreme Court of India directed the Union Government to give wide publicity to the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, which the Government informed the Court it had framed under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court also directed the Centre to ensure publication of the scheme in the Official Gazette at the earliest.

The directions were issued in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India, a continuing road-safety matter. The Court also sought clarification on whether the scheme would cover accidents involving uninsured vehicles.

The order highlights an important public-interest concern: a legal benefit cannot reach eligible people if they are unaware of it or cannot access the procedure for claiming it.

What Is the Interim Relief Scheme?

Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Central Government to frame schemes providing interim relief to claimants seeking compensation under the relevant chapter of the Act. The provision also contemplates recovery of funds disbursed under a scheme from the vehicle owner or other prescribed sources.

The scheme presented to the Supreme Court is intended to provide a mechanism for eligible claimants to seek interim financial relief while their motor accident compensation claims are being dealt with.

Interim relief is not the same as final compensation. Interim payments are subject to the scheme's terms and may have to be accounted for in the eventual settlement or award. The underlying compensation claim remains a separate matter.

Current status: The Supreme Court's order of 16 October 2026 directed Gazette publication and further steps towards operationalisation. Before applying, claimants should verify the final official notification, the applicable conditions and whether the designated electronic portal is operational.

What Did the Supreme Court Direct?

The proceedings arose in the context of compliance with earlier judicial directions concerning road safety and implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In an earlier order dated 28 April 2025, the Court had directed the Central Government to frame a scheme under Section 164A expeditiously, within four months.

During the hearing on 16 October 2026, the Union Government informed the Court that the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways had framed the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026.

The Court's subsequent directions addressed three practical concerns:

• Publicity: The scheme should be widely publicised so that ordinary citizens know about the potential remedy.
• Official Gazette: The Centre was directed to ensure publication of the scheme at the earliest.
• Implementation: The Union was required to inform the Court how it proposed to make the scheme operational and to obtain instructions concerning uninsured vehicles.

The matter was reported as listed for further hearing on 25 November 2026. Any subsequent directions or notification should be checked before relying on this article for the latest procedural position.

Who May Be Eligible for Interim Relief?

Clause 6 of the scheme, as reproduced in the Supreme Court proceedings, identifies the claimant as the accident victim or the legal heir or heirs of a deceased victim.

The procedure described in that clause links the application for interim relief to details of a compensation application filed or pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).

However, this does not establish that every accident victim automatically qualifies. Eligibility depends on the final notified scheme, its conditions, the nature of the accident and the applicable procedure.

How Does the Proposed Application Process Work?

Clause 6 of the scheme, as reproduced in the Court proceedings, describes the following process:

1. Submit Form I: The victim or the legal heirs of a deceased victim apply through the electronic portal designated by the Central Government, providing details of the compensation application filed or pending before the MACT.
2. Provide the prescribed undertaking: The claimant must affirm their entitlement to apply and acknowledge the obligation to return interim compensation if the Tribunal subsequently passes an order against them.
3. Electronic transmission: The application is transmitted to the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, and the investigating officer concerned. The Department of Financial Services is to forward it to the insurer of the vehicle involved.
4. Accident report: The scheme provides for the investigating officer to upload the Detailed Accident Report within 90 days of the accident.
5. Insurer's decision: The insurer is to accept or reject the application, with reasons, within 30 days after the report is uploaded, according to the procedure reproduced before the Court.
6. Payment following acceptance: Where liability is accepted, the scheme provides for payment before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days of acceptance.

Important qualification: These are procedural provisions described in the scheme placed before the Court. Their practical use depends on formal notification and implementation. The existence of a prescribed electronic procedure does not, by itself, establish that a public portal is currently live or that applications are being processed.

What About Accidents Involving Uninsured Vehicles?

The treatment of uninsured vehicles is an important unresolved issue raised during the hearing.

The amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal, and an applicant appearing in person drew attention to the apparent limitation of the scheme to accidents involving insured vehicles. The Court asked the Union Government to obtain instructions on whether uninsured vehicles would also be covered.

The position should not be treated as finally settled by the order of 16 October 2026. The Court's request for clarification does not, on its own, establish that uninsured vehicles are covered or excluded under the final scheme.

Victims should not assume that the absence of insurance removes every possible legal remedy. Depending on the facts, it may be necessary to examine a claim against a legally liable person or another applicable statutory compensation mechanism. The correct remedy requires an assessment of the individual circumstances and the law in force.

Does Interim Relief Replace a MACT Claim?

No. Interim relief and final motor accident compensation serve different purposes.

The MACT adjudicates compensation claims under the applicable law. Interim relief under the proposed scheme is subject to its own conditions and procedure.

The scheme provisions reproduced before the Supreme Court also address the treatment of interim payments in subsequent settlements or awards. Amounts already paid are to be accounted for in accordance with the scheme, and recovery may arise where the Tribunal subsequently passes an order against the claimant.

Applicants should read any undertaking carefully before signing it and obtain legal assistance if they are uncertain about their obligations.

What Should Accident Victims and Families Do Now?

While checking whether the scheme has been formally notified and operationalised, accident victims and their families can take steps to preserve evidence and protect their existing claims:

• Keep copies of the FIR, accident records, medical reports, bills and other relevant evidence.
• Preserve the vehicle registration and insurance details, if available, along with the driver and owner details.
• In fatal accident cases, keep documents establishing the identity of the deceased and the legal heirs, as applicable.
• Maintain the MACT application, case number, orders and other compensation-related records.
• Check the official Gazette notification and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways website for the final scheme, prescribed form and designated portal.
• Seek legal aid or advice if there is uncertainty about eligibility, limitation periods, documentation or the appropriate forum.

These are general preparatory steps, not a substitute for complying with the specific scheme requirements. Victims should not delay an existing compensation claim while waiting for the interim-relief mechanism to become operational.

Interim Compensation Is Different from Cashless Accident Treatment

Another important distinction is between compensation and emergency medical assistance.

The Government has separately notified the Cashless Treatment for Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025, under Section 162 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has described treatment coverage of up to ₹1.5 lakh per victim, subject to a maximum of seven days from the accident and the applicable scheme conditions.

That treatment scheme is distinct from the interim compensation mechanism under Section 164A. People should check which scheme applies to their immediate need rather than treating the two as interchangeable.

Why Public Awareness and Implementation Matter

For an injured person or a bereaved family, navigating insurance procedures, medical expenses and Tribunal proceedings can be difficult. Legal information must reach people in an understandable form and at the point when they need it.

Effective implementation requires more than announcing a scheme. It requires formal publication, a functioning application mechanism, clear eligibility rules, accessible instructions and clarity on claims involving uninsured vehicles.

The Supreme Court's directions bring these practical questions into focus. Public awareness is an essential part of access to justice, particularly where delay or lack of information can deepen the financial hardship faced by accident victims.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's directions of 16 October 2026 highlight the need to make the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026, accessible to the people who may need it.

The next steps are significant: formal Gazette publication, effective operationalisation, clear public guidance and clarification concerning uninsured vehicles. Until these details are verified, claimants should preserve their records, pursue existing legal remedies where necessary and rely on official notifications for the applicable procedure.

A legal entitlement becomes meaningful only when people can understand it, access it and use it in practice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Compensation to Victims (Interim Relief) Scheme, 2026?

It is a scheme framed by the Central Government under Section 164A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, intended to provide interim relief to eligible motor accident compensation claimants, subject to the applicable terms and procedure.

Did the Supreme Court order payment to every road accident victim?

No. The directions concerned publicity, Gazette publication, implementation and clarification of coverage. Eligibility and payment remain subject to the applicable scheme.

Can the legal heirs of a deceased victim apply?

Clause 6 of the scheme as reproduced before the Court identifies the legal heirs of a deceased victim as potential claimants, subject to the applicable conditions.

Are uninsured vehicles covered?

The Court sought clarification from the Union Government on this issue. The position should be checked against subsequent court orders and the final official scheme.

Is interim compensation the same as cashless treatment?

No. Cashless treatment concerns medical treatment under a separate scheme. Interim compensation is a distinct mechanism linked to accident compensation claims.

Where can I check the latest official information?

Consult the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the Official Gazette and subsequent Supreme Court orders for the notified scheme, current eligibility requirements and operational procedure.

Official and Further Reading

• LiveLaw: Supreme Court Directs Centre to Publicise Scheme for Interim Compensation to Road Accident Victims
• Order dated 16 October 2026 in S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India
• e-Gazette of India — official notifications
• Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
• National Legal Services Authority — legal aid
• PRAN Foundation — public awareness and access to justice
• Further reading: Where Can You File a MACT Claim?

Disclaimer: This article is intended for public legal awareness and general information. It is not individual legal advice. The official notification, applicable scheme conditions and subsequent judicial directions should be checked before taking action.

Digital Consumer Justice or Paperwork by Another Name? My e-Jagriti Experience in Delhi

By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN Foundation

India has made significant progress in digitising access to justice. The introduction of e-Jagriti was expected to make consumer dispute redressal faster, easier and more accessible.

But sometimes, the real test of a digital system is not the launch presentation or the portal interface. It is what happens when an actual consumer complaint is filed.

My recent experience of filing a consumer complaint for a client before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-East Delhi left me with serious questions about how far we have really travelled from paper-based consumer justice.

The first problem: Which Commission?

I filed the complaint through e-Jagriti.

One would expect that after entering the relevant jurisdictional details, the system would either:

• automatically identify the appropriate Consumer Commission; or

• provide a clear, intuitive list of the relevant commissions from which the correct one could be selected.

That did not happen.

The complaint ended up being filed before DCDRC South-East Delhi-I, whereas the appropriate forum was DCDRC South-East Delhi-II.

There was no obvious system-based mechanism that prevented this error at the filing stage.

The complaint remained there for several days before it was returned with the observation that the wrong Commission had been selected.

So the process had already consumed valuable time before the actual scrutiny of the complaint even began.

For an experienced advocate, this is frustrating. For an ordinary consumer trying to navigate the system without legal assistance, it can be considerably worse.

Then came the second submission

After the complaint was returned, I submitted it again to DCDRC South-East Delhi-II.

This time, the complaint remained under scrutiny for several days.

Eventually, I was asked to submit hard copies at the Commission.

That was the point where the promise of digital consumer justice began to look rather different from the reality.

I had already prepared and submitted the complaint electronically.

Yet I now had to physically travel to the Commission carrying three sets of the complaint and accompanying documents.

I visited the Commission on 20 August 2026 for the physical submission.

And then came another practical hurdle.

During scrutiny, it was pointed out that one page was missing from the set.

That can happen. Documents can be missed.

The bigger problem was what happened next.

There was no convenient facility at the Commission to print or photocopy the missing page.

I requested assistance in getting a printout/copy made, but there was no facility available to do so.

I therefore had to leave the premises and travel to the nearby Katwaria Sarai market to get the required copy.

Only after returning could the filing process move forward.

This is not about one missing page

Someone might reasonably say:

"The advocate missed one page. Why blame the system?"

Fair point.

But that misses the larger issue.

A modern consumer justice system should be designed around accessibility, efficiency and convenience.

If a document is filed electronically, the system should ideally identify missing documents before the litigant has to travel to the Commission.

If physical submission is still mandatory, the Commission should at least have basic facilities such as:

• printing;

• photocopying;

• scanning;

• document uploading;

• assistance for correcting filing defects; and

• clear guidance regarding scrutiny requirements.

These are not extravagant demands.

They are basic requirements for a system that claims to be moving towards digital justice.

What exactly are we digitising?

This experience raises a fundamental question:

Are we actually digitising consumer justice—or merely digitising the first step of a paper-based process?

A genuinely digital consumer filing system should ideally work something like this:

File online → automated jurisdiction check → document checklist → defect notification → online correction → scrutiny → registration → notice → hearings → orders → compliance.

Instead, the experience can become:

File online → select the wrong Commission → wait → complaint returned → file again → wait for scrutiny → travel to Commission → carry three paper sets → discover missing page → search for photocopy shop → return → submit papers.

That is not end-to-end digital justice.

It is digital entry followed by physical bureaucracy.

The problem is bigger for consumers

As an advocate, I could manage this.

I could prepare multiple sets.

I could travel to the Commission.

I could locate a photocopy shop.

I could understand what the scrutiny objection meant.

But what about an ordinary consumer?

Consider a senior citizen pursuing a defective product complaint.

Or a consumer from another district.

Or a person with a disability.

Or someone who has never visited a Consumer Commission before.

Or someone who cannot afford to take a day off work simply to submit documents that have already been uploaded electronically.

For such people, every additional physical step becomes a potential barrier to justice.

And consumer disputes are often about relatively modest amounts of money. The system must therefore ensure that the cost and inconvenience of pursuing justice do not become disproportionate to the claim itself.

And this is Delhi

Perhaps the most troubling part of my experience was the location and condition of the Commission itself.

The Consumer Commission is located in the Qutub Institutional Area.

The overall accessibility and physical infrastructure do not create the impression of a modern, citizen-centric justice delivery system.

And this is Delhi—the national capital.

If consumer commissions in the national capital face such infrastructural and procedural difficulties, one can only imagine the challenges faced by consumers in smaller cities, districts and remote areas.

Digitalisation was supposed to reduce these geographical barriers.

Instead, if the digital process ultimately requires physical visits, multiple paper sets and local printing facilities, much of that benefit is lost.

Consumer justice should not depend on a photocopy shop

There is something deeply ironic about a supposedly digital consumer justice process ending with an advocate searching for a photocopy shop.

The problem is not the photocopy.

The problem is what the photocopy represents.

It represents a system caught between two models:

The old paper-based system
and
the new digital system.

We need to move beyond simply putting forms online.

Digital transformation should redesign the process itself.

What should change?

1. Automatic jurisdiction identification

e-Jagriti should use the information entered by the complainant to identify the appropriate District Consumer Commission wherever possible.

If multiple forums are possible, the portal should clearly explain the jurisdictional options.

2. Clear Commission names and mapping

The portal should provide simple, consumer-friendly descriptions of each Commission rather than leaving users to figure out which similarly named commission is applicable.

3. Pre-submission document validation

Before allowing final submission, the system should check whether mandatory documents/pages have been uploaded.

A simple document checklist could prevent many physical defects.

4. Online scrutiny objections

If a complaint has a defect, the litigant should receive a clear online objection:

Document missing → upload replacement → resubmit → scrutiny completed.

There should be no unnecessary physical visit merely to rectify a minor documentary defect.

5. No unnecessary multiple hard copies

If the complaint and documents are already available electronically, the requirement of three physical sets should be reconsidered.

If physical copies are legally necessary for a particular stage, the system should clearly explain why and when they are required.

6. Basic facilities at Consumer Commissions

Until the transition to a genuinely paperless system is complete, every Consumer Commission should have basic litigant facilities:

Printing. Photocopying. Scanning. Internet access. Document assistance. Drinking water. Proper seating. Clear signage.

Consumer justice infrastructure should not be treated as an afterthought.

7. Track the filing journey

A consumer should be able to see:

Submitted → Under Scrutiny → Defect Raised → Defect Rectified → Registered → Notice Issued → Hearing → Order.

Transparency reduces uncertainty and unnecessary visits.

The larger question

India has built impressive digital platforms for many public services.

Consumer dispute redressal should be no different.

The purpose of e-Jagriti should not merely be to replace a physical filing counter with an online upload button.

The objective should be to remove unnecessary friction from the entire consumer justice journey.

A consumer should not need legal expertise merely to understand which Commission to select.

A consumer should not have to wait several days to discover that the complaint was filed before the wrong forum because the portal did not adequately guide the user.

A consumer should not have to travel to a Commission simply because a page was missing from an electronically submitted document.

And an advocate should certainly not have to leave a Consumer Commission to find a photocopy shop to complete a supposedly digital filing.

A personal experience—but a systemic question

This article is not intended as criticism of individual Commission staff. The difficulties I experienced are symptoms of a larger institutional problem.

Staff working within the existing system also operate within the infrastructure, rules and processes available to them.

The question therefore is not:

"Who is responsible for this inconvenience?"

The better question is:

"How do we redesign the system so that this inconvenience does not occur in the first place?"

That is the real promise of digitalisation.

PRAN's view

At PRAN Foundation, we believe that consumer protection is meaningful only when consumers can actually access the remedies available to them.

Digitising consumer justice is welcome.

But digitalisation must be measured by the reduction in barriers faced by consumers—not by the existence of an online portal.

The ultimate test should be simple:

Can an ordinary consumer file, correct, track and pursue a consumer complaint without unnecessary physical visits, paperwork and procedural confusion?

If the answer is still "not always", then the job of digital transformation is not finished.

e-Jagriti is an important step forward. But e-Jagriti should not become e-file-and-then-come-with-three-hard-copies.

India needs a consumer justice system that is not merely digital at the front end, but accessible, efficient and genuinely paperless from filing to final relief.

Because justice delayed by a defective process is still a problem—even when the first click was digital.

---

About PRAN Foundation

PRAN Foundation (Policy Research Action Network Foundation) works on consumer rights, legal awareness, public policy, access to justice and public-interest interventions.

By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN Foundation

Disclaimer: This article is based on the author's personal experience of filing a consumer complaint and reflects observations and opinions regarding the filing process and consumer justice infrastructure. It is not intended to attribute individual misconduct to any particular officer or staff member.

#eJagriti #ConsumerRights #ConsumerProtection #ConsumerJustice #DigitalJustice #ConsumerCommission #ConsumerCourts #AccessToJustice #Delhi #DCDRC #LegalReform #DigitalIndia #JusticeDelivery #ConsumerAwareness #PRANFoundation #EaseOfJustice #CitizenCentricGovernance #LegalAid #ConsumerLaw #India

Policy Research Action Network

PRAN Foundation

LEGAL AWARENESS  ·  CONSUMER RIGHTS  ·  PUBLIC POLICY

Policy Analysis  /  Consumer Protection

Consumer Commissions in Crisis: Why the Supreme Court's Concern Should Worry Every Litigant

By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN Foundation 13 August 2026

In Re: Pay and Allowance of the Members of the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case No.

W.P.(C) No. 1144/2021

Court

Supreme Court of India

Bench

CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V Mohana

Date

13 August 2026

Source

LiveLaw.in

In a sharply worded intervention, the Supreme Court has confirmed from the bench what consumer litigants and their advocates have known for years: the forums built to deliver speedy, simple, and inexpensive justice have themselves become slow, procedurally hostile, and, at the district level, indifferent to the merits of the complaints before them. Having practised before these very commissions, I can say without hesitation that the Court has understated, rather than overstated, the problem.

7 yrs2019 filing → still pending

2 wksNCDRC report deadline

4 yrsSince SC's last intervention

§1 The Core Issue

The matter began as a proceeding on the pay and service conditions of consumer commission members. On Thursday, it turned into something larger — a direct reckoning with how these forums actually function.

The Chief Justice referred to a news report describing a consumer case filed in 2019 that was listed only once, in 2022, and had not received a further hearing date even by mid-2026. That is not an isolated failure. It is symptomatic of what the Court itself called a "quality crisis" at the District Consumer Forums, where, in the CJI's words, there is little engagement with the actual merits of a complaint before it is decided.

Illustrative Timeline — The Case the CJI Cited

2019

Consumer complaint filed.

2022

Matter listed for hearing — for the first and only time.

— 3 years of silence before this listing —

Mid-2026

No further hearing date assigned. Matter remains pending.

— 4+ years of silence since —

The Bench raised two connected concerns:

• Lack of infrastructure — many commissions are short-staffed, poorly equipped, and in some cases lack even basic facilities.
• Deficiency in accountability — the Court questioned whether consumer commissions were becoming "rehabilitation centres" for retired judges, appointed without any subsequent performance evaluation.

The Court has directed the NCDRC President to submit, within two weeks, a report on total pendency, the Commission's composition and strength, its average disposal rate, and the estimated time needed to clear the backlog — including a year-wise pendency chart and the oldest pending matter. State Commissions have been asked to furnish the same data, with State Consumer Affairs Departments assisting in compiling it. Presidents of State Commissions have also been directed to evaluate the performance of every District Commission under their jurisdiction over the last three years.

§2 Why This Matters — and Why the System Has Failed

The Consumer Protection Act was built on a specific promise: that a person cheated by a builder, an insurer, a bank, or a service provider would not need to fight a war of attrition through the regular civil court system to get relief. The forum was meant to be accessible without a lawyer, resolve disputes quickly, and cost the complainant next to nothing. In practice, the system now administering that promise has become everything it was designed to avoid.

That promise has been broken, not merely strained.

• A consumer who files a complaint today may wait years before the matter is even substantively heard — not because the law demands it, but because the system administering the law has been allowed to stagnate.
• Adjournments, defective filings, and administrative bottlenecks routinely push hearing dates a year or more apart, often for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the dispute.
• By the time a decision arrives, many consumers have lost the appetite — or the means — to see the matter through to execution, and some simply give up, which is precisely the outcome a wrongdoer benefits from.

A "speedy remedy" that takes half a decade is not a slower version of justice. It is a different, weaker right altogether — one that favours whichever party can outlast the process, which in practice is rarely the consumer. Adv. Amarjeet Singh, PRAN Foundation

§3 The Larger Structural Problem

Having handled consumer disputes across builder-refund matters, banking and credit card grievances, and product and service complaints, I can confirm from direct experience that the Court's characterisation is accurate — if anything, it is conservative. The move to e-filing through e-Jagriti was meant to ease access, and on paper it should have. In practice, it has added a layer rather than removed one. Complaints filed online are frequently held up at scrutiny, with commissions insisting on hard copies of the same paperwork before the case is even registered. Until that hard copy is physically submitted and accepted, the complaint does not count as filed for the purpose of hearing — which means a consumer can complete online filing and still find their matter in limbo for weeks or months before it is formally on record. This is not confined to smaller towns or under-resourced states; even commissions in Delhi, seated a short distance from the Supreme Court itself, follow this practice. A portal designed to remove one bottleneck has, in effect, created a second one — online filing plus physical scrutiny, rather than online filing instead of it.

Beyond this registration bottleneck, e-Jagriti has not solved what happens after a case is finally on record — listing delays, vacant member posts, and commissions operating without the staff or infrastructure to keep pace with the caseload they are legally required to carry.

This is not a new problem, and that is precisely what should trouble the Court further. It flagged vacancies and infrastructural gaps as far back as its 2021 suo motu intervention in the same subject matter. Four years on, momentum has not merely stalled — it has reversed. Vacancies that were once being filled are again piling up. Arrears that were meant to be cleared have grown instead. An institution that requires the same Court to intervene twice on the same failures within half a decade is not experiencing teething trouble. It is experiencing systemic neglect.

Two structural gaps stand out, and both are squarely within the government's and the Commission's own control to fix — neither requires new legislation:

1. An appointment process that rewards proximity to power over merit. A troubling pattern runs through appointments to President and Member posts across many State and District Commissions: these posts function, in practice, as a landing spot for retired judicial officers and, in a significant number of cases, individuals with political connections rather than a demonstrated record of consumer law expertise. Merit-based selection — genuinely open to younger lawyers, subject-matter specialists, and professionals with domain expertise in insurance, banking, real estate, or product liability — has been the exception rather than the rule. A forum meant to move fast cannot be staffed primarily through post-retirement placement and patronage; it needs people selected for the job, not people for whom the job was found.
2. No performance accountability for members. Appointment to a consumer commission currently carries no attached mechanism to measure disposal rates, quality of reasoning, or adherence to statutory timelines.
3. No regional distribution of caseload. A consumer in a remote district must often travel to a distant State or National Commission bench for a matter that, by design, should have been resolved close to home.

§4 Issues That Deserve the Court's Attention

The NCDRC's pendency report, due within two weeks, will likely speak in numbers — cases filed, cases disposed, cases pending. Numbers will not explain why litigants experience these forums as hostile rather than helpful. Based on direct practice before consumer commissions, the following ground-level failures are not incidental — they are structural, they are avoidable, and they deserve to be placed on record before the Court, not glossed over in an administrative report:

• FilingDuplicate filing burden. e-Jagriti requires online filing, yet commissions routinely refuse to register a case until an identical hard copy is submitted and clears scrutiny — doubling the litigant's effort for a single complaint, and doing so even in commissions located in the national capital.
• ScrutinyNo fixed scrutiny timeline. There is no statutory or administrative deadline by which a registrar's office must complete scrutiny of a filed complaint. A complaint can sit at the scrutiny stage indefinitely, with no remedy available to the litigant beyond repeated follow-up visits.
• ListingNo consequence for repeated non-listing. When a matter is not listed for hearing for months or years at a stretch — as the CJI's own example of the 2019 case shows — there is no built-in mechanism that flags this to the Commission's leadership or triggers automatic priority listing.
• ExecutionExecution delays after a favourable order. Even where a consumer succeeds and obtains an order in their favour, execution proceedings to actually recover the awarded amount frequently take as long, or longer, than the original complaint — defeating the purpose of having won at all.
• PracticeInconsistent practice across commissions. Filing and scrutiny requirements vary from one commission to another, with no uniform standard operating procedure, leaving litigants and advocates to learn each forum's informal practices through trial and error.
• AccountabilityNo measurable KPIs for members. There is currently no defined key performance indicator — cases disposed per month, average time to first hearing, adherence to statutory decision timelines — against which any President or Member is measured. Without a number to fall short of, there is nothing to be held accountable to.

From Practice — Not Hypothetical

• A consumer complaint filed via e-Jagriti before a Delhi District Commission was, despite completed online filing, returned at the scrutiny stage with a direction to submit a physical hard copy before registration — precisely the duplicate-filing burden described above, delaying registration of an otherwise complete complaint.
• A car insurance dispute filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram, has remained pending since 2022, without final disposal — a delay of over three years for a claim dispute that the Consumer Protection Act intends to resolve within months.

Neither matter is exceptional. That is precisely the point: these are not edge cases requiring extraordinary circumstances to arise. They are what ordinary practice before these commissions now looks like.

These are not abstract observations. They are the recurring, avoidable friction points that turn a two-year matter into a five-year one — and no amount of filling sanctioned posts will fix them unless they are named and addressed directly. If the NCDRC's report to the Court speaks only to staffing and vacancy numbers while staying silent on these operational failures, it will have answered the Court's question without addressing the Court's concern.

§5 Your Rights / What You Can Do

If you have a pending consumer complaint, or are considering filing one, a few practical points are worth knowing:

• Limitation period: A consumer complaint must generally be filed within two years from the date the cause of action arose, though delay can be condoned for sufficient reason.
• File through e-Jagriti, but keep hard copies ready: The Ministry of Consumer Affairs' e-filing portal (e-Jagriti) allows online filing and tracking of your complaint's status. However, many commissions — including in Delhi — do not treat a complaint as registered until a physical hard copy is submitted and clears scrutiny. Prepare your paperwork for physical submission alongside the online filing to avoid registration delays.
• You can seek an expedited hearing: If your matter has been inordinately delayed, you are entitled to move an application seeking early listing, citing the specific dates of non-hearing.
• Approach the High Court in extreme delay: Where a consumer forum has failed to list or decide a matter for an unreasonable period, a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to expedite hearing is a legitimate — if last-resort — remedy.
• Track this order's outcome: Once the NCDRC's pendency report is filed, it will become part of the public record and can be cited in individual matters to press for expedited hearings.

§6 PRAN's Perspective

PRAN welcomes this intervention, but welcomes it with scepticism born of experience. India's higher judiciary has intervened in this exact subject matter before, in 2021, and the underlying failures have since worsened rather than improved. A report, however detailed, changes nothing on its own — only enforced timelines and consequences will. The ruling recognises realities that we have observed, flagged, and argued for years, directly from practice — realities that should not have needed a Supreme Court order to surface:

1

Appointments Must Be on Merit, and Accountability Must Follow

The pattern is well known within the profession, even if rarely said aloud in print: President and Member posts in many State and District Commissions have become a landing spot for retired judicial officers and, too often, for individuals with political backing rather than any demonstrated record in consumer law. This is precisely what the CJI's "rehabilitation centre" remark points to, and PRAN's experience before these forums bears it out directly. A consumer commission is not a reward for service elsewhere or a favour extended for political loyalty — it is a specialised adjudicatory body that consumers depend on for their livelihood, their savings, and their basic entitlements. Younger lawyers with genuine consumer law practice, and domain experts in insurance, banking, real estate, and product liability, deserve a real and transparent path to these posts — not a process where retired officials and political appointees are selected first and expertise is an afterthought.

This is also why the present case — concerning pay and allowances of commission members — is the right occasion for the Court to go further than it already has. Fixing better pay and service conditions without fixing accountability rewards the status quo. The Court should use this very proceeding to direct that clear, measurable Key Performance Indicators — cases disposed per month, average time to first hearing, adherence to statutory decision timelines — be fixed for every President and Member, recorded and published periodically, and made a factor in reappointment or extension. Performance evaluation, as the Court has now directed for District Commissions, should be a standing, transparent, and public exercise — not an internal note that never leaves the file.

2

Infrastructure Is an Access-to-Justice Issue, Not an Afterthought

Vacant posts, absent basic facilities, and inadequate staffing are not administrative footnotes — they are the reason cases sit unheard for years. A consumer forum without the infrastructure to function is, in practice, a forum that denies the very access to justice it was created to guarantee.

3

Regional and Circuit Benches Would Restore the Act's Original Promise

The suggestion of regional and circuit benches for the National Commission, raised during the hearing, deserves serious follow-through. Consumers should not have to travel to Delhi for a remedy Parliament intended to be local, fast, and low-cost.

4

Digitisation Must Replace Paper, Not Duplicate It

e-Jagriti was meant to remove the burden of physical filing. In practice, requiring hard copies for scrutiny before a case is registered — a practice seen even in Delhi commissions — means consumers now do the work twice: once online, once on paper, with the case counted as filed only after the second step clears. Genuine digitisation should mean one filing, not two. Until scrutiny itself moves fully online, e-Jagriti will remain a parallel process rather than a replacement for the old one.

§7 Conclusion

The Supreme Court's order is a welcome and overdue acknowledgment of what consumer litigants already know from experience. But an order seeking a report is only the first step, and the report itself must not be allowed to stop at headline pendency figures. Since this proceeding already concerns the pay and service conditions of commission members, the Court has a ready opportunity to go one step further and fix measurable KPIs and a transparent accountability record for every President and Member — and to direct that future appointments be made openly, on demonstrated merit and consumer law expertise, rather than through post-retirement placement or political proximity. The Amicus Curiae and the NCDRC would do well to solicit direct input from practising advocates and litigants on the operational failures — duplicate filing, unbounded scrutiny timelines, execution delays, inconsistent practice — that numbers alone will never reveal. PRAN intends to place these observations formally before the concerned authorities and will continue to track this matter and its follow-up hearings closely.

Consumer commissions were created so that an ordinary citizen would not have to fight the system to get justice from the system. Right now, in too many cases, they have become exactly that. The Court has said so plainly. It is time the institutions responsible said so too, and acted on it — not in the next four years, but now. Adv. Amarjeet Singh, PRAN Foundation

Disclaimer: This article is intended for legal awareness and public policy discussion purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice.

PRAN – Policy Research Action Network Foundation

www.publicrightaction.org

#ConsumerRights  #NCDRC  #SupremeCourt  #ConsumerProtectionAct  #AccessToJustice  #JudicialDelay  #LegalAwareness  #PRAN  #ConsumerCommission  #SocialJustice

हिंदी सार

उपभोक्ता आयोगों की स्थापना सस्ते, सरल और त्वरित न्याय के लिए हुई थी, लेकिन आज कई मामले वर्षों तक सुनवाई का इंतज़ार करते हैं। सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने 13 अगस्त 2026 को इस गंभीर स्थिति पर चिंता जताते हुए राष्ट्रीय उपभोक्ता विवाद प्रतितोष आयोग (NCDRC) के अध्यक्ष से दो सप्ताह में लंबित मामलों की रिपोर्ट माँगी है। न्यायालय ने जिला उपभोक्ता आयोगों में "गुणवत्ता संकट" की भी बात कही। PRAN का मानना है कि सदस्यों की जवाबदेही, बुनियादी ढांचे में सुधार और क्षेत्रीय बेंचों की स्थापना के बिना यह समस्या हल नहीं होगी।

PRAN — Policy Research Action Network Foundation  ·  Section 8 Non-Profit  ·  Chamber No. 536, Patiala House Court Complex, New Delhi

Introducing the PRAN Consumer Justice Initiative- Get in touch if you have any consumer complaint

 Consumer Rights · Access to Justice

Almost every consumer dispute I have handled at the Bar begins with the same question.

A builder has not refunded the money. An insurer has rejected or delayed a legitimate claim. A bank has imposed charges the customer never knowingly agreed to. An e-commerce order has gone wrong, and the customer cannot get a satisfactory response.

The person usually does not come to me thinking about litigation. They come with a much simpler question: "What can I actually do about this?" That question is where many consumers get stuck.

Not necessarily because they have no rights. But because they don't know which right to exercise, which forum to approach, what evidence to collect, or what should happen next.

They may not know whether the problem can be resolved through a direct complaint, requires mediation, should be taken to a regulator, or calls for a formal consumer complaint.

So they wait. They send another email. Make another phone call. Follow up with customer care. Visit an office. Receive another generic response. And eventually, many simply give up. 

Consumer disputes rarely begin with a lawsuit. They begin with a question — and too many people get stuck right there. — Amarjeet Singh

The First-Step Problem

Most consumers don't lack rights.

They lack a map.

India has a substantial consumer protection framework. But knowing that consumer protection laws exist is very different from knowing how to use them when something goes wrong.

For a consumer facing a dispute, the difference between mediation, a regulatory complaint, and litigation can be significant.

Which option is appropriate?

What documents are required?

Is a legal notice necessary?

Can the matter be resolved without going to court?

Which authority or forum has jurisdiction?

What happens if the opposite party simply ignores the complaint?

These questions can make an otherwise straightforward grievance feel overwhelming.

And when the process appears complicated, people often make the easiest decision:

They do nothing.

The Cost of Giving Up

That silence has consequences.

A consumer who gives up may lose money, time, or an entitlement that was legitimately theirs. But there is a wider cost too. Every unresolved consumer grievance contains information about how markets are functioning.

Repeated complaints about delayed refunds may reveal a systemic problem. Repeated insurance claim rejections may point to unfair practices. Recurring hidden charges may indicate a larger consumer-awareness or compliance issue.

When consumers remain silent, these patterns remain harder to see.

Individual consumer problems can therefore become signals for institutional and policy reform.

That is one reason PRAN believes that consumer assistance should not stop at helping one person understand one complaint.

The Law Is Already There. The Challenge Is Knowing Where to Start.

India already has mechanisms for consumer protection and dispute resolution, including Consumer Commissions, mediation, sector-specific grievance mechanisms and online filing systems such as e-Jagriti.

The problem for many consumers is not simply the absence of law. It is the distance between:

"Something has gone wrong."

and

"I know what I should do next."

That is the gap the PRAN Consumer Justice Initiative is designed to address.

From Grievance to Remedy

The Initiative is built around a simple principle:

Don't push every consumer towards litigation. First help them understand their options.

Depending on the facts, the appropriate path may involve:

• approaching the business or service provider;
• seeking a negotiated resolution;
• exploring mediation;
• approaching the appropriate regulatory or grievance mechanism;
• filing a consumer complaint; or
• pursuing litigation where necessary.

The objective is not to make every dispute a legal battle.

The objective is to help consumers make an informed decision about what comes next.

That starts with listening to the actual problem.

A legal expert reviews the grievance. The consumer can understand the possible avenues available to them. Where an early resolution appears possible, mediation or other appropriate steps can be considered before embarking on lengthy litigation.

Sometimes a consumer needs a case.

Sometimes they need a notice.

Sometimes they need mediation.

And sometimes, they simply need someone to tell them that they have a legitimate grievance and explain where to begin.

What the Consumer Justice Initiative Means

PRAN's Consumer Justice Initiative is intended to make that first step easier.

We are building a consumer-support model around four ideas:

Human review. Your grievance should be understood by a person — not reduced to a scripted customer-service response.

Accessible first-step guidance. Consumers should be able to understand their options before deciding whether to spend money or time pursuing a formal case.

Resolution before escalation. Where appropriate, mediation and other resolution mechanisms should be considered before litigation.

Justice beyond individual cases. Consumer experiences can also help identify recurring problems and inform PRAN's wider policy research and advocacy.

PRAN Foundation is a Section 8 non-profit, with 12A and 80G registrations and registration on NGO Darpan.

Our aim is not simply to tell consumers that they have rights.

It is to help them understand how those rights can be exercised.

What You Can Do

1. Tell Us What Happened

If you have a consumer grievance that has not been properly resolved, submit the details to PRAN.

You don't need to begin with legal terminology.

Start with what happened.

What did you pay for? What went wrong? What response did you receive? What outcome are you seeking?

The details help us understand where the problem may fit within the available remedies.

2. Don't Assume You Have to Fight Alone

A consumer dispute can feel intimidating when you are trying to navigate it alone.

Before giving up, understand your options.

The first step does not necessarily have to be litigation.

It can simply be getting clarity.

3. Help Us Identify Larger Problems

If you have experienced a recurring or systemic consumer problem, telling us about it can also contribute to a larger picture.

PRAN's work combines consumer assistance with research and policy advocacy.

Individual grievances can help reveal patterns.

Patterns can help inform reform.

And reform can prevent the same problem from affecting thousands of other consumers.

Our Goal

The Consumer Justice Initiative is being developed with a straightforward objective:

• Make first-step consumer guidance more accessible.
• Help consumers understand the difference between resolution, mediation, complaint and litigation.
• Connect genuine grievances with appropriate legal and institutional pathways.
• Document recurring consumer problems to strengthen evidence-based policy advocacy.
• Make access to consumer justice more human, practical and less intimidating.

If You're Facing a Consumer Problem, Start Here

You do not have to know the entire legal process before asking for help.

You don't need to draft a perfect legal complaint.

And you don't have to decide today whether you are going to court.

Start by telling us what happened.

👉 Explore the PRAN Consumer Justice Initiative and submit your grievance: Consumer Justice Initiative — PRAN Foundation

Your problem may be bigger than a refund, a rejected claim, an unexplained charge, or a missing order.

But the first step can still be small.

Ask the question. Understand your rights. Find the right path.

You're not being difficult for wanting what you're owed.

---

Adv. Amarjeet Singh Founder & Executive Director, PRAN Foundation | Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Amarjeet Singh is a practising advocate with over 20 years of experience and works in the areas of consumer protection, public interest litigation, real estate, compensation claims and public policy. He is the Founder of PRAN (Policy Research Action Network) Foundation, a Section 8 non-profit working to advance consumer rights, legal aid, rights education and evidence-based policy advocacy across India.

Ten real barriers homebuyers face before HRERA hampering access to justice

Consumer Rights · Policy Analysis · HRERA

Winning is not the end. Ten real barriers homebuyers face before HRERA.

A closer look at the procedural and structural gaps between a favourable HRERA order and actual justice — from the moment a homebuyer tries to file, to the moment they finally get paid.

Adv. Amarjeet Singh · Founder, PRAN — Policy Research Action Network Foundation · 9 min read

For thousands of homebuyers, obtaining a favourable order from the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) is not the end of their struggle — it is the midpoint. What follows is often a second, largely invisible process: chasing compliance, restarting proceedings, and absorbing costs that never show up in any official disposal statistic.

⚖️

Basis of this analysis

Drawn from the author's experience as a homebuyer and as an advocate appearing before HRERA, Gurugram, and from PRAN Foundation's ongoing public consultation on "HRERA Reform 2.0: A Consumer Justice Blueprint for Haryana."

The Core Issue

RERA was enacted because Parliament recognised that individual homebuyers were the weaker party in the real estate market. A regulatory framework built to protect that weaker party should progressively reduce the consumer's procedural burden as a dispute moves forward — not redistribute it across successive stages of filing, adjudication and enforcement.

In practice, the burden rarely moves away from the homebuyer. It shifts from the builder to the complaint, from the complaint to the order, and from the order to its enforcement — with the consumer carrying it at every stage. The ten issues below are the specific, recurring points where that burden lands.

A homebuyer approaches HRERA because the builder failed. The system should not require the consumer to suffer again because enforcement failed.

Ten Barriers Homebuyers Face Before HRERA

1. Procedural Complexity at the Filing Stage

   The first challenge is rarely proving the builder's default — it's surviving the filing process itself: prescribed formats, paginated annexures, fee calculation, service of copies and proof of service, all before the matter is even listed.

2. A Digital Process That Still Ends in Paper

   Filing begins online, creating an expectation of a paperless process. In practice, it's digitally initiated but physically completed — multiple hard copies and an electronic copy must still be submitted in person.

3. The Thirty-Day Filing Trap

   Once Proforma B is generated, hard-copy filing is accepted only within a fixed thirty-day window — with no relaxation for weekends, holidays, or genuine cause. Miss it, and the complainant must generate an entirely new Proforma B with a fresh complaint number, revising the already-prepared complaint to match.

4. A Defunct Advocate-Registration Process

   Advocates seeking to represent complainants on the HRERA portal must first complete an online registration — a process that is largely non-functional, leaving homebuyers unable to secure proper representation through no fault of their own.

5. Hidden Costs Beyond the Filing Fee

   Printing, scanning, indexed annexures, courier service, repeated travel and professional assistance rarely appear in official statistics — but they are real, recurring costs stacked on top of a homebuyer already paying EMIs and rent simultaneously.

6. Adjournments Without Scheduling Discipline

   Fair opportunity for both sides is essential, but unlimited adjournments are not the same thing. When procedural flexibility consistently benefits the party already in default, it reinforces the very imbalance the law was meant to correct.

7. The Compliance Gap After a Favourable Order

   HRERA typically grants promoters around three months to comply. If that period lapses without payment, the process doesn't move automatically into enforcement — the consumer must notice the default and act on it themselves.

8. Execution Proceedings as a Second Battle

   To enforce an order already passed in their favour, a consumer must obtain certified copies, prepare a fresh execution petition, pay another fee, and re-enter a process that looks, procedurally, like starting all over again.

9. One Wrong, Multiple Proceedings

   A single builder default can require separate proceedings for refund, interest, compensation and execution — even though the parties, facts and evidence never change. Each additional proceeding is another filing, fee and wait.

10. No Transparency on Builder Compliance History

    There is no public record of how often a promoter complies with HRERA orders on time, how many execution petitions are pending against them, or whether they are a repeat defaulter — information that would materially help a prospective buyer.

Save or share this summary — or read the full breakdown of all ten issues above.

Why This Matters

• Every additional procedural step is a point at which a genuinely wronged consumer may simply give up.
• Delay currently carries little institutional cost for the promoter, but real, compounding cost — EMIs, rent, interest — for the consumer.
• A regulator's legitimacy rests as much on enforcement of its orders as on the orders themselves.
• Measuring success by cases disposed of, rather than relief actually delivered, hides exactly this pattern.

The Larger Structural Problem

Viewed individually, each requirement above may seem reasonable. Viewed together, they reveal a burden-transfer cycle: the builder defaults, the consumer prepares the complaint, pays the costs, serves the promoter, attends the hearings, wins the order, waits for compliance, and — when compliance doesn't come — becomes the one who has to chase it. At almost every stage, responsibility moves toward the person who was already wronged, not away from them.

Your Rights — and What You Can Do

• You are entitled to file a complaint without hiring a lawyer, though representation can help navigate the procedural steps above.
• Keep independent records of every compliance deadline HRERA sets — don't rely on the Authority to flag a default automatically.
• If you've faced any of the ten barriers above, PRAN Foundation is actively collecting homebuyer, advocate and developer experiences as part of its HRERA Reform 2.0 consultation — your account directly shapes what gets proposed to the government.

PRAN's Perspective

PRAN believes these are not isolated inconveniences but a consistent institutional pattern — one that HRERA can correct largely through administrative reform, without amending the parent Act. Three principles guide our recommendations:

Principle One

A homebuyer should not need legal expertise merely to ask a regulator for protection.

Principle Two

A consumer who has already won should never have to initiate a second legal battle merely to obtain the benefit of the first.

Principle Three

The regulatory system should make compliance easier than non-compliance, and delay more costly than timely performance.

Conclusion

None of this diminishes what HRERA has achieved since 2017 — thousands of complaints decided, and a regulatory presence that simply didn't exist before. But the measure of a consumer protection regime isn't the number of orders it passes. It's how many homebuyers receive complete, timely relief without being drawn into a second, third or fourth procedural battle to get what was already theirs.

Add Your Experience to the Record

PRAN Foundation is finalising its HRERA Reform 2.0 Policy Brief before it goes to the Government of Haryana. If you've dealt with any of these ten barriers — or had a smoother experience — we want to know.

Read the Policy Brief → Join the Consultation → Share Your Experience →

Want the complete legal reference? Read Real Estate Law in Haryana on Kindle.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for legal awareness and public policy discussion purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The observations reflect the author's professional experience and interactions with homebuyers, and are offered constructively, not as criticism of HRERA, its officers or its members.

Share this article: LinkedIn WhatsApp X / Twitter

#HRERA#RERA#ConsumerRights#RealEstateLaw#HaryanaRERA#AccessToJustice#PolicyReform#PRANFoundation

हिंदी सार

हरियाणा रेरा (HRERA) के समक्ष शिकायत जीतना अक्सर संघर्ष का अंत नहीं, बल्कि आधा रास्ता होता है। शिकायत दर्ज करने की जटिल प्रक्रिया, तीस दिन की सख्त समय-सीमा, वकील पंजीकरण की अधूरी व्यवस्था, आदेश पारित होने के बाद पालन न होने पर उपभोक्ता को फिर से क्रियान्वयन (execution) की प्रक्रिया शुरू करनी पड़ना, और एक ही मामले के लिए कई अलग-अलग कार्यवाहियाँ — ये सभी उपभोक्ता पर बोझ डालते हैं, न कि नियामक संस्था पर। PRAN फाउंडेशन इन अनुभवों के आधार पर "HRERA सुधार 2.0" नीति दस्तावेज़ तैयार कर रहा है, और आम नागरिकों से अपने अनुभव साझा करने का आग्रह करता है।

AS

Adv. Amarjeet Singh

Founder & Executive Director, PRAN Foundation

Practising advocate at the Supreme Court of India and Patiala House Court Complex, with over 20 years of experience in constitutional law, consumer protection, road safety and public interest litigation. Author of "Real Estate Law in Haryana" and other works on consumer and real estate law.

PRAN

Policy Research Action Network Foundation

Advancing consumer justice.

JOP Palms Society, Sector 28, Rohtak, HR 124001

pranfoundationindia@gmail.com

WhatsApp +91-8920798501

Quick Links

About PRAN Get Legal Help Campaigns Research Contact

Registration

Section 8 Non-Profit

CIN: U88900HR2026NPL141904

12A & 80G Approved

NGO Darpan: HR/2026/0995847

Follow & Connect

X IG in f ▶

© 2026 PRAN Foundation. All rights reserved. publicrightaction.org

Share Your Experience