Quasi-judicial bodies must provide reasons for decisions affecting rights; failure to do so constitutes legal infirmity, particularly when reducing awarded compensation.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

Heard Mr. U.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1—5.

2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order, dated 26.04.2024 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein after National Commission), New Delhi, in First Appeal No.1986/2019 and also prayed for affirming the order dated 05.09.2019, passed by the Assam State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (herein after State Commission).

3. The background facts leading to filing of this petition are briefly stated as under:

“Sometimes in the year 2011, a complaint was filed by the petitioners herein, before the State Commission, Guwahati, for being suffered monetary loss, amounting Rs.23,85,600/- and also for mental agony, due to theft of their valuables from the locker of the State Bank of India and others, the respondents herein. The State Commissioner after hearing both the parties, passed the final judgment and order dated 05.09.2019 directing the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.23,85,600/- being the value of the ornaments and jewelleries with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization and further, directed the respondents herein to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- only as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Then being aggrieved, the respondents herein, had filed an appeal before the National Commission, New Delhi, in the month of October, 2019. Thereafter, hearing both the parties, the NCDRC vide impugned order dated 26.04.2024 has modified the order, so passed by the State Commission and awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- only, for deficiency of service, without assigning any reason for plummeting the amount of compensation so awarded by the State Commission.”

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition on the following grounds:-

A. The impugned Order of the National Commission is improper and suffers from many legal infirmities on the face of it and therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed on this ground itself.

B. The National Commission has categorically held that there was deficiency in services and gross negligence on the part of the respondents and the same has not been disputed by the respondents herein and therefore, National Commission ought not to have reduced compensation payable to the petitioners herein, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bawa Pollins (P) Ltd. Vs UPS Freight Services P. Ltd. reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1551, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the "NCDRC has categorically has held that there was deficiency in rendering services by the respondent and therefore, NCDRC ought not to have reduced compensation payable."

C. The National Commission had erroneously relied upon the case ofAmitabha Dasgupta vs. United Bank of India, reported in(2021) 14 SCC 177, the facts of which do not apply to the instant matter and hence cannot be relied upon for adjudicating this matter.

D. The National Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that during trial before the State Commission, the examination and cross examination of the witnesses were conducted in detail and all the available evidences were examined by the State Commission, and the order, dated 05.09.2019, was passed after thorough consideration in the matter.

E. The National Commission had failed to