M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1155 · Decided: 26-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1155
M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023)
JULY 26, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Art. 136 – Special Leave to appeal – Order passed by the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-NCDRC in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction u/s.58(1)(a)(iii) – Petition
seeking special leave to appeal u/Art. 136 – Entertainability of,
when remedies available by way of writ petition u/Arts. 226 and
227 before the High Court – Held: 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 s. 21(a)(i) of the 1986 Act and
s. 58(1)(a)(i) or s. 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 2019 Act – 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 – Thus, the petition should
not be adjudicate on merits – Petitioner to avail remedy either u/
Art.226 or u/Art. 227 before the High Court – Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 – ss. 17, 19 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Art. 136 – Special leave to appeal under – Scope and grant
of – Discussed.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A plain reading of the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, respectively would indicate that the remedy of appeal
to this Court is available only with respect to the orders passed
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-
NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i)
of the Act 1986 and 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) of the 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
1155
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1155 : 2023 INSC 649
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
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. [Para 17][1162-D-F]
1.2 In the instant case, the appeal before the NCDRC was
against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act 1986.
Such appeal to the NCDRC was maintainable, as provided under
Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act 1986. As per Section 23 of the Act
1986, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the NCDRC in
exercise of its powers conferred by Section 21(a)(i), may prefer
an appeal against such order to this Court. Therefore, an appeal
against the order passed by the NCDRC to this Court would be
maintainable only in case the order is passed by the NCDRC in
exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(i) of the Act
1986. No further appeal to this Court is provided against the
order passed by the NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred
under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act 1986. There is no provision for
filing any further appeal against the order passed on the appeal
filed against the order of the SCDRC. In such circumstances, the
petitioner has come before this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution. [Para 18][1162-F-H; 1163-A]
1.3 The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant special
leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances.
The question of law of general public importance or a decision
which shocks the conscience of the Court are some of the prime
requisites for the grant of special leave. The provisions of Article
136 of the Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any
limitation. But when the party aggrieved has alternative remedy
to go before the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or
supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, this Court should
not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit
the legal procedure prescribed. The limitation, whatever, they
be are implicit in the nature and character of the power itself. It
being an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it has to be
exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional
situations. The power will only be used to advance the cause of
justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

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