Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 1048
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SHEEL NAGU, JJ.
Askari Hussain And Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Kumar And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11988 of 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19685 of 2025]
Decided On : 24-08-2026
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. L. B. Rai, Adv. Mr. Kartik Rai, Adv. Mr. Satvik Rai, Adv. Mr. Shankar Divate, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Goel, AOR Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Adv. Mr. Mahendra Vikram Singh, Adv. Mr. Ankur Sood, AOR
The referee member under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, may decide the appeal itself instead of only answering referred questions if the referring Bench failed to specify points of difference and framed questions requiring full merits determination, adopting a common sense approach.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 58(3) - Reference procedure - Where members of a Bench differ in opinion, they shall state points of difference and refer to President who may hear or refer to other member - The referee member is to give opinion on points referred - However, if referring Bench fails to delineate points of difference and instead formulates questions that go to root of complaint, the referee member may adopt a common sense approach and decide the case on merits based on majority opinion - Such approach does not amount to excess of jurisdiction warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. (Paras 16-19)
(B) Reference - Scope - Normally, referee Bench should only answer referred questions and return matter to referring Bench - But if subsidiary question logically and unavoidably arises, referee can answer - Also, if reference is flawed, referee may decide entire matter adopting a common sense approach. (Paras 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was allowed by the State Commission awarding compensation. An appeal before the National Commission resulted in a split decision: the presiding member allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, while the companion member modified the compensation. A reference was made under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The referring order did not state the points of difference but framed five questions requiring consideration of facts and evidence. The third member, after answering those questions, decided the appeal itself, concurring with the companion member and forming a majority. Aggrieved, the first respondent approached the High Court under Article 227, which quashed the third member’s order holding that he exceeded his jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was moved against that order.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the third member’s approach, though technically deviating from the normal procedure, was justified in the peculiar facts. The referring Bench’s failure to specify points of difference and the formulation of questions that went to the root of the complaint necessitated a full merits assessment. The third member’s decision of the appeal itself, aligning with the companion member, reflected a common sense approach recognised in precedent. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was not warranted. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the Article 227 application on its own merits.
Issues: Whether the third member was justified in deciding the appeal itself instead of merely returning the answers to the referred questions to the referring Bench.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the referee member is to give opinion on the points referred. However, where the referring Bench fails to state the points of difference and instead frames questions requiring full adjudication on merits, the referee may adopt a common sense approach and decide the case, particularly when his opinion forms a majority with one of the original members. Such an approach does not constitute an illegality warranting interference under Article 227.
Result: Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide the application under Article 227 afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. All issues of fact and law are left open. The National Commission shall not proceed further till the High Court’s final decision. (Paras 23-25)
JUDGMENT :
Dipankar Datta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This civil appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11th December, 20241[impugned order] of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2[High Court]. Vide the impugned order, the Single Judge allowed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution3[Matters under Article 227 No. -901 of 2024] of the first respondent by directing, inter alia, as follows:
“…21. In the present case, the order impugned has gone in excess of the powers conferred on the referring member. On the said limited ground, there being an improper exercise of jurisdiction by the member, to whom the question has been referred, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The matter shall now be heard afresh by the 3rd member who shall give his opinion on the questions referred and send the matter back to the Division Bench of the National Commission to be decided accordingly.”
3. Facts reveal that the first respondent had carried an appeal4[First Appeal No. 156 of 2013] to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi5[NCDRC] from a final order dated 4th December, 2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh6[SCDRC] in Complaint No. 13 of 2006, lodged by the appellants. The SCDRC had allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.95 lakh to the appellants together with interest of 15%.
4. While hearing the appeal, the two members on the Bench7[referring Bench] of the NCDRC differed in their opinions. The presiding member allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint lodged by the appellants by his order dated 19th March, 2021. However, the companion member while disposing of the appeal, vide his order of even date, modified the order under challenge by reducing the compensation and interest to Rs.93 lakh and 12%, respectively.
5. A reference accordingly followed under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 20198[CP Act]. The third member, to whom the matter was referred, rendered his opinion on 9th January, 2024 disagreeing with the opinion of the presiding member of the referring Bench and agreeing with the opinion of the companion member thereof. While so opining, the third member directed as follows:
“…23. With the aforesaid observations, these appeals are disposed off after concurring with the findings of the Hon'ble Member Mr. ***, with the modifications that the total compensation awardable to the Respondents/Complainants is now reduced from Rs. 95 lakhs to Rs. 93 lakhs, out of which, the personal share of the complainant No. 3 is reduced to Rs. 23 lakhs, while the entitlement of the Complainant No. 1 is retained at Rs. 20 lakhs, and the balance amount of Rs. 50 lakhs is found payable to the Complainant No. 2. It shall be paid to her directly if the concerned specialist Doctors in the Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow can certify that now her condition has now so improved that she is in a position to rationally and practically utilise the amount directly for her own welfare. If not, the same shall be paid to a Guardian of her own choice, if she is in a position to choose and communicate about her chosen Guardian personally, or otherwise, the payment shall be made to her husband (Complainant No. 1) in which event, needless to mention, his duty shall be to ensure that the said amount is strictly and faithfully utilised for her welfare and future treatment as warranted. The amount of interest on the compensation thus awarded in the case, which was reduced from 15% to 10% by Hon'ble Mr. ***, is retained from the date of passing of the impugned order by the state commission, i.e., 04.12.2012. In addition, litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- are awarded in favour of the Complainant No. 1/respondent No. 1 in each of the appeals.
24. The complete compensation with up-to-date interest till the date of actual payment is to be paid by the Appellants to the complainants within three months from
