Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 726
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI
Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member, Shashi Nandkeolyar, Member
PANDIT BHAGWAT DAYAL SHARMA POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE ROHTAK Through its dean – Appellant
Versus
VED PARKASH S/o. sh. surajbhan – Respondent
SA No. 548 of 2026 | IA/8428/2026 | IA/8429/2026
Important Points
Subject
Consumer Law - Deficiency in Service
Headnote
(B) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Concurrent findings - Where District and State Commissions have passed well-reasoned orders on deficiency in service, the National Commission will not interfere absent material irregularity. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the appeal involved a substantial question of law justifying interference with the concurrent findings of the lower commissions.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sahil A. Garg Narwana, Dipesh Singhal, Honey Yadav
For the Respondents:
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and summary of lower court orders regarding deficiency in service. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. requirement of listing a substantial question of law in the memorandum of appeal for a second appeal. (Para 4) |
| 3. dismissal of appeal due to concurrent findings and absence of substantial question of law. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
2. SA has been filed with a delay of 38 days as per calculations made by the Registry. IA No.8429 of 2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. IA is allowed after considering the reasons stated therein and the case is taken up on merits.
3. Challenge is to the order dated 24.04.2026 of the State Commission vide which First Appeal filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission vide its order dated 11.04.2026 allowed the Complaint with the following reliefs to the Complainant/directions to the Appellant:
“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of ?22374Z- {Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Four only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 28.09.2003 till its realization and also to pay ?5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and ?5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.’1
4. Section 51 (2) envisages Second appeal before this Commission if it involves substantial question of law. What constitutes substantial question of law and how it differs from mere question of law has been elaborated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan (deceased) Through Legal Representatives and Others Vs. Saraswati and Others (2022) 20 SCO 199. Further, Section 51 (3) envisages that such substantial question of law needs to be listed in the memorandum of appeal. In the present case, no substantial question of law has been listed by the Appellant in the memo of appeal. In the memo of appeal, it is contended that the Respondent is not a consumer, there is no deficiency in service, the award of interest is unjust, the award of compensation is perverse.
5. We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, the District Commission and the other relevant records and the contentions of the Appellant herein. In this case, both the fora below have given concurrent findings against the Appellant herein with respect to deficiency in service. The State Commission and the District Commission have passed well-reasoned orders and we see no ground to interfere with their findings. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The case involves no substantial question of law. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission is upheld. Consequently, SA No.548 of 2026 is dismissed.
6. All pending IAs, If any, shall also stand disposed of.
