NCDRC Bench Need Not Mandatorily Include Judicial Member: Delhi High Court
A petition was filed by real estate developer who had challenged an NCDRC order on the grounds of improper bench composition.
Justice Manoj Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is not legally bound to include a judicial member in every bench it constitutes.
A petition was filed by real estate developer who had challenged an NCDRC order on the grounds of improper bench composition.
A Bench of Justice Manoj Jain held that the law does not impose any obligation on the President of the NCDRC to ensure the presence of a judicial member in each bench. It added, “It is entirely upto the Hon‟ble President of National Commission to constitute a Bench and there is no requirement in law, making it obligatory for any such Bench to have one Judicial Member. Moreover, as noted above, if there is any complex question of law and if there is no unanimity between the two Members of a given Bench, matter can always be referred to the President for constitution of another Bench.”
The Court referred to Section 20(1A)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which grants the President of the NCDRC the authority to constitute benches comprising one or more members. The provision does not specify the nature—judicial or technical—of such members.
“Members can be judicial or technical or both. Since the ratio of Judicial Members cannot exceed fifty percent, as a necessary inference, non-judicial members may, in a given scenario, outnumber judicial members,” the Court observed.
The Court further clarified that even if there is a defect in the constitution of a particular bench, that alone does not invalidate the orders passed by it. Additionally, if a complex legal issue arises and the members of a bench are unable to reach a consensus, the matter can be referred to the NCDRC President for reconstitution of the bench with appropriate members.
Background
The observations were made while hearing the petition where petitioner challenged an order passed by the NCDRC in connection with delays in the Revanta housing project in Gurugram.
The NCDRC had, in its order, had directed his real estate company to refund certain buyers with interest at 9% per annum (12% in case of delay), while directing delivery of completed units within three months to others, along with compensation.
He approached the Delhi High Court contending that the NCDRC’s order was invalid, as it had been passed by a bench that included only technical members and no judicial member, thus allegedly rendering the decision without jurisdiction.
Finding
The High Court emphasized that the President of the NCDRC is empowered to form benches "as deemed fit" under the Consumer Protection Act. There is no statutory mandate requiring the inclusion of a judicial member in every bench. As a result, the Court upheld the validity of the NCDRC's decision and dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Navin M Raheja & Anr. v. Dinesh Goyal & Ors., [2025:DHC:7986]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Yogendra Mishra, Manmeet Kaur, Rohan Anand, and Aashna.
Respondents: Advocates Arjun Mahajan, Sumit R. Sharma, Raghuvendra N. Budholia, Sagar Agarwal, Piyush Gautam, Nandan Malhotra, Harshit Kapoor, Aryan Verma, and Bhavya Arora.
