Summary
The Court declined to examine an insurer’s direct special-leave challenge to an NCDRC appellate order and directed it to approach the jurisdictional High Court first. The consumer statutes provided a Supreme Court appeal for specified original orders, not appellate or revisional orders. Article 136 remained an exceptional discretionary power; the insurance dispute’s merits were left open and the deposited amount ordered refunded after verification.
Issues
- Whether a direct Article 136 petition should be entertained against the NCDRC’s appellate order.
- What statutory and constitutional remedies applied and what should happen to the Court deposit.
Provisions considered
- Sections 21(a) and 23, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The statutory Supreme Court appeal attached to specified original-jurisdiction orders, not the NCDRC order deciding an appeal from the State Commission. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18)
- Sections 58(1)(a) and 67, Consumer Protection Act, 2019The corresponding distinction between specified original orders and appellate orders reinforced the route identified under the 1986 Act. (¶¶ 16, 17, 33, 34)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaSpecial leave remained discretionary and exceptional; the Court declined to bypass an available High Court remedy in this case. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 37, 38)
- Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of IndiaThe petitioner was relegated to the jurisdictional High Court; supervisory review, including interim relief, remained subject to Article 227’s restricted parameters. (¶¶ 26, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43)
Held
- Neither consumer enactment provided a further statutory Supreme Court appeal against an NCDRC appellate or revisional order. Here the NCDRC had decided an appeal from the State Commission, so the insurer’s approach was under Article 136 rather than the statutory appeal provision. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Article 136 is not jurisdictionally extinguished by another remedy, but its exceptional character normally requires the available High Court route to be used first. The Court followed Ibrat Faizan and declined merits adjudication, leaving either party free to seek special leave after the High Court’s decision. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 34, 36, 37, 38)
- The NCDRC is a statutory tribunal amenable to the relevant High Court’s constitutional supervision. That jurisdiction is not an unrestricted further factual appeal, and any interim relief must respect its limits. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37)
- Because the deposited fifty per cent award remained with the Supreme Court Registry and the petition was not being entertained on merits, refund to the insurer was directed after due verification. The underlying liability and merits were left for the High Court. (¶¶ 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
Result
Petition disposed of with liberty to challenge the NCDRC order before the jurisdictional High Court. Registry to refund the deposit after verification. No opinion expressed on the insurance dispute’s merits.