CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case

"Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent; CPC provisions like Order 7 Rule 10A have no place in consumer disputes" – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, exercised its powers under Section 62 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, directing the transfer of a consumer complaint from the District Commission, Chandigarh to the District Commission, Amritsar (Punjab).

The ruling settles a prolonged and troubling trajectory of the consumer complaint being shuttled between forums in different States due to jurisdictional confusion, consent-based orders, and impermissible invocation of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Commission categorically held that Order VII Rule 10A CPC has no applicability in consumer proceedings, reaffirming the settled law that CPC provisions are excluded unless specifically incorporated under the Consumer Protection Act.

"Consumer Fora are not civil courts, and CPC provisions are not automatically applicable" – Court reaffirms Ethiopian Airlines Principle

The central legal issue in the case was whether a District Consumer Commission can return a complaint for presentation in another State's Commission under Order VII Rule 10A CPC, especially when both parties consent. The Commission answered in the negative, declaring that neither statutory jurisdiction can be conferred by consent, nor can procedural shortcuts override the express statutory scheme.

Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ethiopian Airlines v. Ganesh Narain Saboo, (2011) 8 SCC 539, the Bench of Justice A.P. Sahi (President) and Member Bharatkumar Pandya reiterated:

“Because the legislature expressly made the aforementioned provisions of CPC applicable to the consumer proceedings, the legislature is, therefore, deemed to have intentionally excluded all other provisions of CPC from applying.”

The NCDRC noted that the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020, under Regulation 26, also discourage the use of CPC provisions except where explicitly incorporated. Therefore, the use of Order VII Rule 10A CPC by the District Commission at Chandigarh was legally impermissible.

A Complaint Shuttled Across States Despite Reaching Final Arguments

The case stemmed from a complaint by M/s. Nirmal Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. over repudiation of an insurance claim by National Insurance Co. Ltd. After the initial dismissal of the complaint by the State Commission, UT Chandigarh, on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, the complainant filed a fresh complaint (CC No. 89 of 2022) before the District Commission, Chandigarh, where it was admitted and proceeded for over a year — including filing of replies, evidence, and written arguments.

However, at the stage of final arguments, the District Commission-I, Chandigarh returned the complaint for presentation at DCDRC, Panchkula, based on territorial jurisdiction objections and a consent order between counsels. The Commission purported to exercise powers under Order VII Rule 10A CPC, noting that the Director of the complainant resided in Panchkula, Haryana.

But the DCDRC, Panchkula rejected the matter, correctly observing that only the State Commission has the power under Section 48 of the Act to transfer complaints within a State. The Panchkula forum returned the records, pointing out that inter-State transfers fall exclusively within the domain of the National Commission under Section 62.

Thus began a procedural maze where the complaint kept circulating between forums, despite having been fully argued at one stage, leading to severe hardship for the complainant and a waste of judicial time.

“Jurisdiction must be determined under Section 34(2), not by Aadhaar card or oral consent” – NCDRC criticizes lower forum’s casual approach

The NCDRC made scathing observations on how territorial jurisdiction was wrongly assessed. The District Commission had returned the complaint based on the complainant Director’s Aadhaar card indicating residence in Panchkula. The Commission observed:

“Merely because one of the Directors of the complainant resides in Panchkula, the territorial jurisdiction would not get automatically transferred.”

It held that Section 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, lays down clear parameters for determining territorial jurisdiction — based on the location of the opposite party’s branch office, where cause of action arose, or where the complainant resides or works for gain. None of these statutory elements were adequately considered by the Chandigarh forum.

The NCDRC also noted that OP-2, the Regional Manager at Chandigarh, was part of the correspondence in the claim repudiation, further supporting that a part of the cause of action did arise within Chandigarh's jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction Cannot Be Created by Consent — Only Law Can Confer Jurisdiction

The Commission categorically ruled that the District Commission’s action in returning the complaint based on the consent of counsels and invoking CPC provisions was legally flawed:

“Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent nor a statutory provision can be applied unless provided for under the 2019 Act.”

It emphasized that consent of parties cannot override statutory limitations, especially in a beneficial legislation like the Consumer Protection Act, whose purpose is to facilitate adjudication, not create procedural hurdles.

Exercise of Section 62 Powers: Complaint Transferred to DCDRC, Amritsar

Given the prolonged pendency, the NCDRC invoked its powers under Section 62, which authorizes it to transfer complaints from a District Commission of one State to another, if the interest of justice so requires. The parties, through their counsel — Mr. Salil Paul for the complainant and Mr. Yogesh Malhotra for the Insurance Company — agreed that Amritsar, where the insurance policy was admittedly issued (DO-3 branch office), had the proper territorial jurisdiction.

Accepting this submission, the NCDRC passed the operative direction:

“We direct that the entire records available with either the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana or the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, UT Chandigarh shall be transferred to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar, Punjab.”

The Commission further clarified that the DCDRC, Amritsar shall proceed from the advanced stage already reached, without requiring a de novo trial. All pending applications were directed to be decided before proceeding to final hearing.

The parties were directed to appear before the District Commission at Amritsar on 09.02.2026, and the forum was asked to expedite proceedings considering the matter had been pending for over three years.

A Landmark Clarification on Inter-State Transfer and CPC Inapplicability in Consumer Cases

This decision is a clear reaffirmation of the non-applicability of general CPC provisions to consumer fora, unless expressly incorporated, and an important precedent affirming that jurisdiction must be assessed solely under the statutory framework of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

More importantly, the NCDRC sent a strong message against procedural misadventures, especially by lower fora who act outside their statutory mandate, and underscored the consumer-centric objective of the legislation:

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

The Commission’s exercise of Section 62 powers in this case will provide clarity and relief for litigants who find themselves caught in procedural traps due to jurisdictional misapplications or informal arrangements.

Date of Decision: 07 January 2026