Skip to main content

NCDRC appellate order can be challenged before High Court

Citation : Ibrat Faizan Versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 3072 Of 2022

Date of Judgment/Order : May 13, 2022

Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India

Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.

Background

The Appellant/original complainant here had filed a consumer forum application against the Respondents before the State Consumer Forum. With the forum ordering in favour of the Appellant, the Respondents appealed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). The NCDRC by its final order confirmed the State forum order. The Respondents appealed against the NCDRC order before High Court, whence HC stayed the final order of NCDRC. In appeal before the Supreme Court against the order of the HC, one of the primary objections raised by the Appellant was the issue jurisdiction of the HC  against the order of the NCDRC.

Judgment

The Supreme Court however opined that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution has jurisdiction over order passed by the NCDRC in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a) (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Referring to judgments in Associated Cement Companies Limited v. P.N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabarathi House Building Co-operative Society and Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 412, Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd., (2001) 8 SCC 97 and Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, 2022 SCC Online SC 29), the Supreme Court said :-
  1. The National Commission satisfies the test of an authority vested with the judicial powers of the State and therefore may be regarded as a ‘Tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 227 and/or 136 of the Constitution of India. Under the circumstances, it is not necessary for Supreme Court to entertain appeals from NCDRC when remedy in the form of High Courts are present and 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.
  2. As per Section 58 and 67 of the 2019 act, the restriction on the jurisdiction of the High Court is related only to appeals against orders of NCDRC  under sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 58. No such restriction is present against appeals against orders under any other clauses of the said section which includes appeals against orders of the State forum.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more