Article 136: Appeal Against Order Of NCDRC Is Maintainable Only If Powers Are Exercised U/s. 21(a)(i) Of Consumer Protection Act- SC
|The Supreme Court while dealing with an SLP (Special Leave Petition) has observed that an appeal against the order of NCDRC (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) is maintainable only if the order passed by it is in the exercise of its powers under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra held, “Adverting to the case at hand, the appeal before the NCDRC was against the order passed by the SCDRC under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act 1986. Such appeal to the NCDRC was maintainable, as provided under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act 1986. As per Section 23 of the Act 1986, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i), may prefer an appeal against such order to this Court. Therefore, an appeal against the order passed by the NCDRC to this Court would be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(i) of the Act 1986.”
The Bench said that no further appeal to the Apex Court is provided against the order passed by the NCDRC in the exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act 1986. It further said that there is no provision for filing any further appeal against the order passed on the appeal filed against the order of the SCDRC and in such circumstances, the petitioner came before the court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Advocate Abhay Kumar appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocates S.K. Verma and Rajesh Singh Chauhan appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Facts of the Case -
The petition seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution was at the instance of M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (petitioner), against the decision of NCDRC by which it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner thereby affirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) of Delhi, holding that the respondent no. 1 /complainant was entitled to receive the claim amount and appropriate compensation from the petitioner and its joint venture partner viz. Allahabad Bank (respondent No. 2) for the goods stolen from the premises in question. Two policies were issued to the complainant covering a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs for the risk of fire and burglary and then a theft took place.
An FIR was lodged and the petitioner as well as the bank were informed about the said theft. The complainant informed that a fire also broke out on the premises and hence claimed Rs. 49 lakhs for both fire and theft. The SCDRC partly allowed the complaint holding the petitioner and bank jointly liable and being aggrieved with such an order, the petitioner challenged it before the NCDRC but the appeal got dismissed. Hence, the petitioner approached the Apex Court seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136.
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts noted, “… the moot question that falls for our consideration is whether we should entertain this petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution directly against the order passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction or relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?”
The Court said that as per the Consumer Protection Act, the remedy of appeal to the apex court is only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
“… the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever, they be are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations”, further noted the Court.
The Court added that the power will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern the exercise of overriding constitutional powers.
“… we have reached to the conclusion that we should not adjudicate this petition on merits. We must ask the petitioner herein to first go before the jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Of course, after the High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of the parties to thereafter come before this Court by filing special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution”, held the Court.
The Court, therefore, directed the Registry to refund the amount to the petitioner after due and proper verification as it refused to entertain the petition on merits.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the SLP with liberty to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court and challenge the order of NCDRC in accordance with the law.
Cause Title- M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023 INSC 649)