Supreme Court Holds NCDRC Orders Appealable Only Under Specific Provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019, Directs Parties to Approach High Court for Remedies

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified the scope of appealability of orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment, delivered by a Bench comprising Justices J.B. PARDIWALA and MANOJ MISRA, has far-reaching implications for litigants seeking redressal in consumer disputes.

The Court pronounced that an appeal to the Supreme Court would be maintainable solely when the NCDRC order is issued under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, in cases where the order is passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv), no appeal can be filed before the Supreme Court.

Bench held, “Therefore, an appeal against the order passed by the National Commission to this Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or under Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act. No further appeal to this Court is provided against the order passed by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the 2019 Act.”

The Court emphasized that in cases falling under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or (iv) of the Act, the aggrieved party should approach the concerned High Court, either by filing a writ petition under Article 226 or invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Elaborating on the importance of approaching the High Court first, the Court stated, “Also, in a given case, this Court may not exercise its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in view of the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it is appropriate that aggrieved party approaches the concerned High Court by way of writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

The judgment highlighted the significance of providing an accessible and cost-effective remedy to the aggrieved party, making the recourse of a writ petition under Article 227 more favorable over Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136.

The Court further clarified that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) can be considered as a “Tribunal” under Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. This classification makes the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction applicable to the NCDRC’s orders, ensuring they exercise judicial powers vested in a sovereign state.

The Court concluded that it shall not examine the merits of the present petition and directed the petitioner to first approach the jurisdictional High Court. After the High Court’s adjudication, either party may seek special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court if required.

Date of Decision: July 26, 2023

M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.  vs SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.     

• Lawyer E- News Android Mobile App
• Latest Legal News

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/26-Jul-2023_Univeresal_Insurance_Vs_Sunil.pdf"]