Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a consumer dispute where the complainant, Suresh Chand Jain, had obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy and a Burglary Insurance Policy from M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Allahabad Bank as an intermediary. The policies covered a sum of Rs. 50 lakh each for fire and burglary risks for the period 25.11.2011 to 24.11.2012. The complainant shifted his stock to a new premises at Bawana, Delhi, and informed the bank by letter dated 28.03.2012, requesting the bank to inform the insurer. The bank claimed to have informed the insurer by letter dated 31.03.2012. On 29.06.2012, a theft occurred at the Bawana premises, and an FIR was lodged. The insurer appointed a surveyor. Subsequently, a fire also broke out on 18.10.2012. The complainant filed claims for both theft and fire amounting to Rs. 49 lakh. The insurer repudiated the theft claim on 22.08.2013 and closed the fire claim due to non-submission of documents. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Delhi, under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The SCDRC partly allowed the complaint on 18.03.2016, holding the insurer and the bank jointly and severally liable for deficiency in service, directing payment of Rs. 41,31,180/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of claim, Rs. 2 lakh as compensation for mental agony, and finalisation of the fire claim. The insurer appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) under Section 19 of the Act, which dismissed the appeal on 16.01.2023. The insurer then filed a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the SLP and held that an order passed by the NCDRC in its appellate jurisdiction is not subject to Article 136 jurisdiction. The Court observed that the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the special leave petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy before the High Court. The Court did not examine the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Maintainability of SLP under Article 136 - Section 21(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - The Supreme Court held that an order passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Act is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the special leave petition on this ground, without examining the merits of the case. (Paras 12-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in its appellate jurisdiction, or whether the aggrieved party should be relegated to avail the remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution before the jurisdictional High Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that the remedy against an appellate order of the NCDRC lies under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution before the jurisdictional High Court, and not under Article 136 directly. The Court did not examine the merits of the case and left it open for the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Law Points
- Article 136 of the Constitution
- Section 21(a) of the Consumer Protection Act
- 1986
- alternative remedy under Article 226/227
