A two-judge bench of Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna dismissed an appeal against Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited challenging the order of the Delhi High Court whereby a Single Judge had stayed the order of the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
The Bench held, "the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
The Court while dismissing the appeal also observed that "While exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has to act within the parameters to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. It goes without saying that even while considering the grant of interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court has to bear in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution."
In this case, the appellant had booked a flat in a project floated by Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited (the respondent). According to the appellant despite the payment of sale consideration, the possession of the flat was not handed over and therefore the appellant filed a consumer complaint before the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Forum on the grounds of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The State Commission ruled in the favour of the appellant and directed Omaxe to hand over the possession subject to the appellant meeting requirements. The commission also directed that the respondent would have to pay a compensation for the delay as simple interest at the rate of 9% calculated from the date the delivery of possession was due till the date the delivery of possession was complete.
The appellant then filed a contempt and execution proceeding before the State Commission. The State Commission directed the appellant to place on record the bank details or the details of the properties which are to be attached. Aggrieved by the order the respondent approached the National Commission. The National Commission stayed the order of the State Commission, subject to the respondent depositing the entire amount along with the 9% interest with the State Commission Registry. Aggrieved by the order of the National Commission the respondent approached the High Court challenging the order on the ground that the National Commission ought not to have directed the builder to deposit the entire cost of the apartment along with the compensation awarded by the State Commission.
The High Court stayed the order of National Commission subject to the respondent depositting 50% of the compensation amount by way of interest towards compensation with the State Commission Registry. This order was followed by the National Commission upholding the order of the State Commission. The respondent approached the High Court against the final order of the National Commission which was stayed by the High Court in an interim order.
The issue which was dealt with by the Court was -
Whether, against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a writ petition before the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable.
The Apex Court noted that an appeal against the order of the National Commission lies before the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act. However, it would only be maintainable only in case the order is passed by the National Commission in the 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 the exercise of its powers conferred under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or under Section 58(1)(a)(iv) of the 2019 Act.
The Bench also held that the National Commission can be said to be a Tribunal which is vested by the Statute
the powers to determine conclusively the of two or more contending parties with regard to any matter in controversy between them.In this context, the Court opined -
"...it is observed and held that against the order passed by the tribunal, the aggrieved party may approach the concerned High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."
The Supreme Court observed that, "the High Court has not committed any error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission which has been passed in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the 2019 Act. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. However, at the same time, it goes without saying that while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court subjects itself to the rigour of Article 227 of the Constitution and the High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 within the parameters within which such jurisdiction is required to be exercised."
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
|