“SUPREME COURT HELD THAT NEITHER THE OLD NOR THE REPEALED CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT PROVIDE REMEDY OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) IN EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE OR REVISONAL JURISDICTION”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 5263 OF 2023

M/s UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL      …….…PETITIONER(S)

V/S

SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.                       ………RESPONDENT(S)

In the instant case the Allahabad Bank as an intermediary issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and Burglary Insurance Policy in favour of the Complainant (Consumer) through an Insurance Co./Petitioner.

The above said both the policies covered the risk to the tune of Rs. 50 lakhs for the risk of fire and burglary. The term of the policies was for the period from 25-11-2011 to 24-11-2012.

On 29-06-2012, a theft took place at the premises of the Complainant (Consumer) against which FIR was lodged on 30-06-2012 by the Complainant.

The Petitioner i.e., the Insurance co. and the Bank were subsequently informed about the alleged theft and therefore a surveyor was appointed by the petitioner to inspect the premises of the complainant and subsequently on 01-07-2012, a formal complaint was lodged by the complainant with the petitioner.

Further on 18.10.2012 a fire had also broken out in the premises of the complainant and therefore, the complainant filed claims for both, theft and fire amounting to the tune of Rs. 49 lakhs.

However the insurance co./petitioner repudiated the theft claim of the complainant and also the fire claim of the complainant was closed on account of non-submission of documents by the complainant.

The complainant being aggrieved by the above inaction of the petitioner, filed a complaint before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Delhi under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act 1986’).

The complainant sought a relief from SCDRC claiming Rs. 49 lakhs along with compensation to the tune of Rs. 20 lakh and interest at the rate the Allahabad Bank was charging from the complainant, with costs of the complaint.

The SCDRC partly allowed the complaint holding that the insurance co./petitioner and the Allahabad bank were jointly and severally liable for the deficiencies in providing services to the complainant and the complainant was entitled to be compensated for the theft of goods worth Rs. 41,31,180/- at the rate of 12 percent interest per annum from the date of the claim.

Moreover the insurance co./petitioner and the Allahabad bank were also directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in providing services.

Also the insurance co./petitioner was further directed to finalise the fire claim of Rs. 4 lakhs of the complainant.

Aggrieved by the above order of SCDRC, the insurance co./petitioner filed an an appeal against the above order of SCDRC before the NCDRC. However the NCDRC dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, thereby holding the impugned order.

The petitioners thereafter filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court thereby seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Before the Supreme Court the preliminary issue for consideration was whether the said petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution directly against the order passed by the NCDRC should be entertained by the Court 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 perused Section 58 and Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act 1986’) as the complaints were instituted under the Act, 1986 and also highlighted the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which are pari materia to the provisions of the Act 1986.

It was observed by the Court that Section 21 and 23 of the Act, 1986 and Section 58 and 67 of the repealed Act, 2019, confirms that the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court is available only with respect to the orders passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i) of the Act, 1986 and 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act, 2019.

Therefore, the Court held that both the Acts provide for the remedy of appeal to the Supreme Court only with respect to the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as the Court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against the orders which are passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.

Further, regarding the scope and grant of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court relied upon various previous case laws of the Supreme Court which held that in normal course Supreme Court shall not grant special leave, unless it is shown that exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review of the decision appealed against.

Therefore, it was reiterated by the Court that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances. The Court additionally stated that 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, the Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave.

It was concluded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it should not adjudicate the said petition on merits and thus directed the petitioner 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. After the final decision of the High Court, the parties can always file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

***