The High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 over orders from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission even when appeal rights under the Consumer Protection Act are limited.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This matter has been taken up on priority basis in view of the order dated 21st March, 2022, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 4281/2022. The said order reads thus:

"The jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is the moot question for consideration. As the matter is pending before the High Court and the next date of hearing is reported to be 29.03.2022, we request the High Court to decide the issue with respect to the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) first which may be decided on or before 18.04.2022. The decision of the High Court on the jurisdiction shall be placed before this Court on or before the next date of hearing.

Put up on 21.04.2022.

It is agreed by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties that they shall not ask for any adjournment on any ground whatsoever before the High Court."

2. As directed by the Supreme Court, I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the issue of maintainability of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and proceed to pass orders thereon.

3. Mr. Pal, learned Counsel for the respondent, first invited my attention to Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ("the Act", hereinafter), which reads thus:

"67. Appeal against order of National Commission.--Any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order:

Provided that the Supreme Court may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period:

Provided further that no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed."

4. Clearly, Section 67 provides for appeals, to the Supreme Court, only against orders passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("the learned NCDRC") under Section 58(1)(a)(i) and (ii). Section 58(1)(a) of the Act read thus:

"58. Jurisdiction of National Commission.--

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction-

(a) to entertain-

(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore:

Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit;

(ii) complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore rupees;

(iii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission;

(iv) appeals against the orders of the Central Authority;."

5. Mr. Pal candidly acknowledges that the impugned order of the NCDRC has not been passed under either Clause (i) or Clause (ii) of Section 58(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, but has been passed under Section 58(1)(a)(iii).

6. He also acknowledges, therefore, that no appeal, under Section 57 of the Consumer Protection Act would lie to the Supreme Court against the impugned order of t