SLP under Article 136 not maintainable against NCDRC order passed on appeal or revision plea: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) orders cannot be directly challenged before the top court by way of a special leave petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution unless the order was passed in exercise of the NCDRC’s original jurisdiction. [M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited v. Suresh Chand Jain and Another].A division bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra explained that under the Consumer Protection Act, the remedy of a direct appeal before the Supreme Court is only available in respect of orders passed by the NCDRC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction or as the court of first instance..In other words, no such appeal before the Supreme Court would lie against orders that are passed by the NCDRC in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, the Court held.."The remedy of appeal to this 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 Consumer Protection Act 1986 and 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. In other words, both the Acts provide for the remedy of appeal to this 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," the judgment stated..The Court made the observation while dismissing an SLP filed under Article 136 against an NCDRC order that had affirmed a State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) order. The NCDRC order was passed in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.The bench reasoned that the Supreme Court’s power to grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 can be invoked only in very exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances include where a question of law of general public importance arises or where a decision is taken which shocks the conscience of the Court..The bench proceeded to opine that when a party has an alternative remedy to go before a High Court, the Supreme Court should not entertain a special leave petition and “thereby short-circuit the legal procedure prescribed.”.Therefore, the Court dismissed the SLP before it without considering its merits.“We must ask the petitioner herein 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,” the Court said..The Court added that after the High Court renders its final order, it is always open for either of the parties to then come before the Supreme Court by filing an SLP under Article 136..Advocates Abhay Kumar, Varadarajan and Rajat Khattry represented the petitioner, an insurance company. Advocates SK Verma, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, and Anil Kumar Singh appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]