<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.0" article-type="general-sciences" lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">IJCRR</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">I Journ Cur Res Re</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Current Research and Review</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">I Journ Cur Res Re</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2231-2196</issn><issn pub-type="opub">0975-5241</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Radiance Research Academy</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">595</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi"/><article-id pub-id-type="doi-url"/><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>General Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE OF STATE COMMISSIONS - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS&#13;
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Manoharan</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Auxcelian</surname><given-names>M. Anto</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><volume/><issue/><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>6</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>This article is copyright of Popeye Publishing, 2009</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2009</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>Backround: In India consumer protection has gained momentum especially after independence and the enactments of many acts benefited to the consumers from exploitation from unfair trade practices. Consumer protection can also be asserted by many ways like government and non government organizations. Technological advancement throughout the globe especially after the institution of multi national companies had widened the gap between the manufacturers and consumers in all disciplines.&#13;
Need of Study: To evaluate the products and services he needs expert knowledge, which is usually beyond his capability. As per current scenario, there is no reliable agency to provide true and fair information. The Government of India realizing the need of consumer protection and eliminating consumer exploitation enacted many acts and the most important one for the consumers is the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which was exclusively designed to redress the grievances of the consumers by establishing three tier quasi judicial redressal machineries at the central, state and district level.&#13;
Analysis: In this paper the researcher has made an attempt to analyze the working performance of Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Puducherry UT consumer disputes redressal commissions The performance of these commissions are analyzed in terms&#13;
of disposal of original complaints, rate of pendency, and filing of cases with some meaningful suggestions for qualitative and quantitative enhancement in its performance. Conclusion: From the analysis under study, it is observed that the overall disposal rate of Andra Pradesh state commission is much better when compared to the other two commissions&#13;
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Consumer protection</kwd><kwd> Consumer disputes redressal commissions</kwd><kwd> Consumer exploitation</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front></article>
