CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & VICE CHAIRMAN, GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD versus SH. HAJI DAUD HAJI HARUN ABU AND TWO ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 839 · Decided: 20-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER & VICE CHAIRMAN, 
GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD 
v. 
SH. HAJI DAUD HAJI HARUN ABU AND TWO ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1996· 
[ B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Consumer Protection Act. 1986: Sections 21 (a}(i), 22, 13(4), (5) 
&(6) and 14(1). 
A 
B 
National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission-Jurisdiction C 
of-To entertain and decide complaints-Scope of-Maritime Board 
financed one R for purchase of vessel-Vessel mortgaged in favour of 
Board-As per Finance Agreement between Board and R - R was required 
to take out a Comprehensive Risk Insurance Policy and assign same in 
favour of Director of Port representing State Government-R sold vessel to D 
purchaser-Insurance Policy taken out by purchase contained endorsement 
in terms of Agreement-Vessel<1Jn its voyage sank at sea-Purchaser filed 
complaint before National Commission claiming insurance amount from 
insui·ance company-Fact that Boai-d had interest vessel as mortgagee 
clearly brought to notice of Commission-However, Commission directed 
insurance company to n1ake payment of entire insurance an1ount to E 
purchaser-Board filed application before Commission stating that as it 
was mortgagee and assignee of said vessel to knowledge of Commission, 
the direction to payn1ent of insurance an1ount to purchaser \Vas 
unsustainable in law-Hou1ever, Commission affirn1ed its earlier order and 
left Board to adopt such remedies as were open to it in law-Held: 
Commission was not justified in doing so-Where plurality of persons claim F 
same relief, simultaneously disputing each other's right to claim said relief,. 
Commission had necessary power to adjudicate rival claims and decide 
said disputes also---As a power incidental and ancillary to substantive 
power conferred by the Act, Commission had jurisdiction to go into rival 
claims of Board and purchaser in the complaint-Hence, matter remitted G 
to National Commission for fresh disposal. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Power-Exercise of-Incidental or ancillary-Held: Where substantive 
power was conferred upon court or tribunal, all incidental and ancillary H 
839 
840 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A powers necessary for effective exercise of substantive power had to be 
inferred. 
• • 
The appellant had provided finance to one R for purchasing a 
vessel. The vessel was mortgaged in favour of the appellant. As per 
the Finance Agreement between the appellant and R, the latter was 
B required to take out a comprehensive Risk Insurance Policy and assign 
the same in favour of the Director of Ports representing the State 
qovernme11t. Subsequently, R sold the vessel to the respondent. An 
insurance policy was taken out by the respondent containing an 
endorsement in terms of the Finance Agreement. 
C 
The vessel on its voyage sank at sea. The respondent filed a 
complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission claiming the insurance amount from the insurance 
company. The fact that the appellant had an interest in the vessel as 
a mortgagee was clearly brought to the notice of the Commission. 
However, the Commission directed that the entire insurance amount 
D be paid to the respondent. The appellant filed an application before 
the Commission stating that in asmuch as it was the mortgagee and 
assignee of the said vessel to the knowledge of the Commission, the 
direction to pay the entire insurance amount to the respondent was 
unsustainable in law. However, the Commission affirmed its earlier 
E order leaving the appellant to adopt such remedies as were open to it 
in law. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the 
Commission had no jurisdiction to decide the rival claims of the 
appellant and the respondent in a complaint filed under the Consumer 
F Protection Act, 1986. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I.I. The jurisdiction of the National Consumer Disputes 
G Redressal Commission to entertain and decide complaints necessarily 
means that where plurality of persons claim the same relief, 
<If. 
simultaneously disputing each other's right to claim the said relief, 
the Commission has the necessary power to adjudicate the rival claims 
and decide the said dispute also. As a power incidental or ancillaty to 
the substantive power conferred by Section 21(a)(i) read with Section 
H 22 which applies Section 13(4), (5) & (6) of the Consumer Protection 
.. 
(,UJ l:X'o OHll'LR A,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.