Common Sense Approach: Supreme Court On NCDRC Third Member Who Decided Appeal Instead Of Just Answering Reference U/S 58(3) Consumer Protection Act 2019
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment directing the third member to hear the matter afresh and send the matter back to the National Commission.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has clarified that by not returning the reference with the answers to the question referred and, instead, by deciding the appeal itself, it cannot be said that the third member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) committed an illegality warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Apex Court was considering a civil appeal challenging the judgment of the Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing an application under Article 227 and directing the third member to hear the matter afresh, give his opinion on the questions referred and send the matter back to the Division Bench of the National Commission.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu held, “The third member, necessarily, had to survey the entire gamut of material and the rival contentions raised before the referring Bench. It is in this backdrop that the third member, while answering the questions referred, also decided the appeal on merits based on the majority opinion (his opinion and the opinion of the companion member, being ad idem). Viewed thus, the approach of the third member does reflect a common sense approach, which this Court in Salil Sabhlok (supra) acknowledged is available in exceptional cases. We, therefore, ought not to disapprove the approach of the third member, at this distance of time.”
“On facts and in the circumstances, we hold that by not returning the reference with the answers to the question referred and, instead, by deciding the appeal itself, the third member did not commit such an illegality that the situation warranted an interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution”, it added.
Advocate L. B. Rai represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The first respondent had carried an appeal to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, from a final order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh in a complaint lodged by the appellants. The SCDRC had allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs 95 lakh to the appellants together with interest of 15%. While hearing the appeal, the two members on the Bench of the NCDRC differed in their opinions. The presiding member allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint lodged by the appellants. However, the companion member, while disposing of the appeal, modified the order under challenge by reducing the compensation and interest to Rs 93 lakh and 12%, respectively.
A reference accordingly followed under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The third member, to whom the matter was referred, rendered his opinion disagreeing with the opinion of the presiding member of the referring Bench and agreeing with the opinion of the companion member. Aggrieved thereby, the first respondent had approached the High Court.
Reasoning
The Bench reiterated that normally, the course that should be adopted by the referring Bench is to return the questions referred with the answers to the Bench that made the reference to facilitate the said Bench to decide the issues arising for decision bearing in mind such answers. “However, as held in Salil Sabhlok (supra), the referee Bench may answer any subsidiary question that may logically and unavoidably arise by adopting a common sense approach”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that though, in cases arising out of the CP Act, the statutory mandate is to opine on the point or points on which the members of a Bench differ but in the case in question, the members of the referring Bench did not state the point or points on which they differed. However, five questions were formulated for an answer by the third member. “These questions, as formulated, in our opinion required a consideration of the facts alleged and rebutted on merits”, it added.
The Bench thus concluded that by not returning the reference with the answers to the question referred and, instead, by deciding the appeal itself, the third member did not commit any illegality. Considering that the Single Judge did not take exception to the answers given by the third member to the questions referred to him, the Bench held that it was imperative for the High Court to decide the application under Article 227 on its own merits.
Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal by ordering a remand of the application under Article 227 to the High Court. “All issues on facts and law are left open to be raised by the first respondent, the appellants and the other parties before the roster Bench for a decision by it”, it stated.
Cause Title: Askari Hussain and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 929)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates L. B. Rai, Kartik Rai, Satvik Rai, AOR Shankar Divate
Respondent: Senior Advocate Nikhil Goel, AOR Gaurav Goel, Advocates Rajesh Kumar, Ashutosh Gupta, Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahendra Vikram Singh