Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Chand Jain & Anr. - Respondents
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 of 2023
Decided on : 26-07-2023
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 23 – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67 – Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal to Supreme Court – Both Acts provide for remedy of appeal to Apex Court only with respect to orders which are passed by NCDRC in its original jurisdiction or as court of first instance (original orders) and no further appeal lies against orders which are passed by NCDRC in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction – Appeal against order passed by NCDRC to Supreme Court would be maintainable only in case order is passed by NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(i) of Act 1986 – No further appeal to Supreme Court is provided against order passed by NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)(ii) of Act 1986 – There is no provision for filing any further appeal against order passed on appeal filed against order of SCDRC. (Paras 17 and 18)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Grant of Special Leave – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked in very exceptional circumstances – Question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks conscience of Court are some of prime requisites for grant of special leave – Provisions of Article 136 of Constitution as such are not circumscribed by any limitation – But when party aggrieved has alternative remedy to go before High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction or supervisory jurisdiction as the case may be, Supreme Court should not entertain petition seeking special leave thereby short-circuit legal procedure prescribed – Limitation, whatever they be are implicit in nature and character of power itself – It being an exceptional and overriding power, it has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations – Power will only be used to advance cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles which govern exercise of overriding constitutional powers. (Para 24)
(C) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(iii) – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Remedy against appellate order passed by NCDRC – Remedy which may be available to aggrieved party against order passed by National Commission in appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) or Section 58(1)(a)(iv) would be to approach concerned High Court having jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India – Petitioner herein to first go before jurisdictional High Court either by way of a writ application under Article 226 of Constitution or by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of Constitution. (Paras 34 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Moot question that falls for consideration is whether we should entertain this petition seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution directly against the order passed by NCDRC in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction or relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of the jurisdictional High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution?
Findings of Court:
After High Court adjudicates and passes a final order, it is always open for either of parties to thereafter come before this Court by filing special leave petition, seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of Constitution.
Result : Petition disposed of with observations.
Please provide the content of the legal document (to be placed within
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.:
1. This petition seeking leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution is at the instance of M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited, Original appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the NCDRC’) in the First Appeal No. 376 of 2016 by which the NCDRC dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein thereby affirming the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, ‘the SCDRC’) of Delhi, holding that the respondent No. 1 /complainant was entitled to receive the claim amount and appropriate compensation from the petitioner and its joint venture partner viz. Allahabad Bank (respondent No. 2) for the goods stolen from the premises in question.
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. It appears from the materials on record that the respondent Bank, acting as an intermediary issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy dated 05.12.2011 in favour of the complainant through the petitioner herein. Similarly, a Burglary Insurance Policy was also issued in favour of the complainant dated 08.12.2011. Both the policies covered a sum of Rs. 50 lakh for the risk of fire and burglary. The policies were for the period between 25.11.2011 and 24.11.2012.
3. By way of letter dated 28.03.2012, the complainant informed the respondent Bank that the construction of his new premises at Bawana, Delhi had been completed and he had transferred his stock to the above premises situated in Bawana from the premises situated in Rajgarh Ext., Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. In this letter the complainant had also instructed the Bank to inform the petitioner.
4. The respondent Bank acknowledged the aforesaid intimation and claims to have informed the petitioner by way of letter dated 31.03.2012. The Bank claims to have also forwarded the letter dated 28.03.2012 of the complainant to the petitioner.
5. On 29.06.2012, a theft took place at the Bawana premises and for that FIR No. 213/2012 was lodged on 30.06.2012 at the PS Bawana. Both, the petitioner and the Bank were also informed about the theft. A surveyor was appointed by the petitioner to inspect the premises and on 01.07.2012, a formal complaint was lodged by the complainant with the petitioner.
6. After the theft, the complainant informed that a fire had also broken out in the premises at Bawana on 18.10.2012, and the status report in that regard was issued by the fire department. Subsequently, the complainant filed claims for both, theft and fire amounting to Rs. 49 lakh. The petitioner repudiated the theft claim vide letter dated 22.08.2013 and the fire claim was closed on account of non-submission of documents by the complainant.
7. On 03.06.2013, the complainant aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the petitioner approached the SCDRC, Delhi under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act 1986’), by way of Complaint No. 357/2013. He prayed for his claim of Rs. 49 lakh to be processed along with compensation of Rs. 20 lakh and interest at the rate the respondent Bank was charging from the complainant, with costs of the complaint.
8. By order dated 18.03.2016, the SCDRC partly allowed the complaint holding that the petitioner and the respondent bank were jointly and severally liable for the deficiencies in providing services to the complainant and the complainant was entitled to be compensated for the theft of goods worth Rs. 41,31,180/-@ 12 % interest per annum from the date of the claim. The petitioner and the bank were also directed to pay Rs. 2 lakh to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and deficiency in providing services. The petitioner was further directed to finalise the fire claim of Rs. 4 lakh of the complainant.
9. The petitioner herein feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the SCDRC challenged the same before the NCDRC by filing the First Appeal No. 376 of 2016 under Section 19 of the Act 1986. T
(1) Appeal to Supreme Court – Appeal against order passed by NCDRC to Supreme Court would be maintainable only in case order is passed by NCDRC in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 21(a)....
(1) Against order passed by National Commission in an appeal under Section 58 (1)(a)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, writ petition before concerned High Court under Article 227 of Constitution....
The supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 is confined to tribunals located within their territorial limits, and cannot be exercised over tribunals situated outside those limits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the Constitution, particularly regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article ....
The court upheld that when an alternative efficacious remedy exists, it shall refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of statuto....
The main legal point established is that a party should not suffer due to the mistake of its counsel, and that the court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition is determined by the territories w....
The discretionary nature of special leave petitions to the Supreme Court and the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under article 227 were central to the judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
