By Rupin Chopra and Nihit Nagpal
Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated May 13, 2022 in Ibrat Faizan versus Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited1 has held that an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can be challenged via a writ petition filed before a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Brief Facts
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had held, vide its order dated December 22, 2021, upon hearing a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in which the Respondent had challenged the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 250/2021, that a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the National Commission dated December 09, 2021.
Judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the scope and ambit of jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 , which has been recently upheld by the apex court in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel3 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that 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 keep in mind the limited jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, and while granting any interim stay/relief in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the same shall always be subject to the rigour of the powers to be exercised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that it cannot be said that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the concerned High Court against the order passed by the National Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the 2019 Act is not maintainable.
Conclusion
As per Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the remedy of appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is available only with respect to orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 58(1)(a)(i) or Section 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Simply put, the remedy of appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court is only with respect to original orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and no further appeal remedy is given with respect to the appellate orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Therefore, the remedy which may be available to the aggrieved party against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a)( iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, would be to approach the concerned High Court having jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
1CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3072 OF 2022
2(2001) 8 SCC 97
32022 SCC Online SC 29
Related Posts
Appeals from NCDRC Orders in Execution Proceedings not Maintainable u/Consumer Protection Act