The Supreme Court has seen that NCDRC is empowered to interfere with State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission’s orders provided that they are in the exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it by law, in failure to practice the same or are illegal or corrupted with material irregularity while exercising its jurisdiction.
The division-bench containing Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V Ramasubramanian held that jurisdiction of NCDRC under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is similar to the revisional jurisdiction gave under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and not that of an Appeal’s Court.
The appealing party thus had challenged the NCDRC order wherein the compensation granted by State Commission was reduced in a Revision Petition.
The Court explained that as per Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the NCDRC could interfere with the order for the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its purview unlawfully or with material irregularity.
In the current case, the order for NCDRC doesn’t show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were fulfilled by it to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order of State Commission.
“The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it.”
Therefore, the appeal was permitted and the reprimanded judgment has been given.