CPC Has No Role in Consumer Forums: National Commission Slams Procedural Missteps in Insurance Complaint Transfer Case

“Jurisdiction Cannot Be Conferred by Consent; CPC Provisions Inapplicable Unless Expressly Incorporated”, In a significant ruling aimed at protecting consumers from procedural entanglements, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) exercised its power under Section 62 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to transfer a consumer complaint—tossed between forums in Chandigarh and Haryana—to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), Amritsar, where territorial jurisdiction was conclusively established.

The Commission emphatically ruled that Consumer Fora cannot invoke the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) such as Order VII Rule 10A, unless such provisions are specifically made applicable under the Consumer Protection framework, and declared that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction across States, in the absence of a statutory basis.

"Return of Complaint Based on Consent, Without Statutory Backing, Is Legally Unsustainable": NCDRC

Delivering the order in Transfer Application No. NC/TA/7/2025, a Bench comprising Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya (Member) was appalled by the procedural "legal gymnastics" that had continued for over three years after M/s Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint against National Insurance Co. Ltd. for non-settlement of an insurance claim.

After the complaint was initially dismissed by the State Commission at Chandigarh for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, the matter was later admitted before the District Commission, UT Chandigarh, and proceeded to the final hearing stage with pleadings and evidence completed. However, during final arguments, a joint consent by the counsels led to the complaint being returned for presentation before the District Commission at Panchkula, Haryana, under Order VII Rule 10A CPC.

This action was later repudiated by the Panchkula Commission, which rightly pointed out that only the State Commission has power to transfer a complaint within the State under Section 48 of the Act, and that no provision exists for cross-State transfer by District Commissions, especially under CPC.

“Consent Cannot Cure Jurisdictional Defect or Authorise Transfer Across States”: NCDRC Clarifies

Coming down heavily on the invocation of CPC provisions in consumer forums, the Commission stated:

“The DCDRC could not have exercised powers under Order 7 Rule 10A nor the said powers could have been exercised on the consent of the counsel for the parties. It is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent nor a statutory provision can be applied unless provided for under the 2019 Act.”

The Commission further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo, (2011) 8 SCC 539, holding:

“The legislature expressly made only limited provisions of CPC applicable to consumer proceedings. The rest stand excluded by implication, and cannot be brought in through procedural shortcuts or convenience.”

The same position had earlier been reaffirmed by the NCDRC in Suhas Madhukar Bhalerao v. M/s Sunshree Flowers, (Order dated 11.09.2023), which the Commission now cited with approval to reiterate that consumers must not be prejudiced by technical misapplications of civil procedure.

“Consumer Forums Are Meant to Deliver Justice, Not Be Hubs of Procedural Chaos”

Highlighting how the complainant had been "tossed from one place to another", the Bench found that District Commissions had erred in bypassing statutory jurisdictional criteria under Section 34(2), and instead relied on the residence of a Director and consent statements, rather than legally tenable territorial connections.

“Merely because one of the Directors of the complainant resides in Panchkula, the territorial jurisdiction would not automatically transfer. District Commissions must determine jurisdiction strictly under Section 34(2), not based on convenience or agreement between parties.”

Transfer to Amritsar, Restoration of Case at Final Stage

With both parties in agreement that the insurance policy had been issued by the branch office at Amritsar, and with no dispute as to pecuniary jurisdiction (the premium paid was only ₹2,43,120/-), the Commission invoked its powers under Section 62, which enables the National Commission to transfer cases between District Commissions of different States.

The Commission ordered:

“We direct that the entire records be transferred to the District Commission at Amritsar, Punjab. The complaint shall be registered and proceeded with from the stage already reached before the previous District Commissions, including hearing all pending applications.”

Both parties were directed to appear before DCDRC, Amritsar on 09.02.2026, and the local Commission was asked to proceed expeditiously.

This judgment marks a decisive stand by the National Commission against procedural shortcuts and unauthorized applications of civil procedure within consumer forums. It sends a clear message that statutory discipline and jurisdictional rules must be strictly followed, and that consumer redressal mechanisms must not become arenas of endless litigation due to technical missteps.

As the Commission rightly observed:

“The Act is designed to comfort the Consumer and not to confine, restrict or prevent them from staking a genuine claim.”

Date of Decision: 07 January 2026