I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

12^TH FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITON NO.2684 of 2025 (M/ S)

Dalip Singh Adhikari ..…Petitioner Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .…Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate.

Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The petitioner had filed a Complaint (Consumer Complaint No.281 of 2013, “Sh. Dalip Singh Adhikari vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Principal Officer”) before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, “Commission”). The Commission passed the final order on 29.04.2025. The Commission, while partially allowing the complaint, directed the opposite party to pay the claim of Rs.1,28,61,082/- preferred by the Complainant based on the estimate of the PWD after deducting the amount of Rs.7,39,085/- paid towards repairs for the entire stretch of the Rikhari- Bachham road and applicable deductions with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim. The Commission further directed that the said amount shall be paid within eight weeks’ of the order, failing which the applicable rate of interest shall be 9% per annum till realization.

2. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to grant 18% interest instead of 6% interest awarded by the Commission.

3. Heard Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the maintainability of the writ petition.

4. Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate submitted that the present writ petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Universal Sompo General I nsurance Company Limited vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Another, ( 2024) 9 SCC 148”.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the question as to whether against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a)(iii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short, “Act, 2019”), a writ petition before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable?.

6. According to Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate, the said complaint (Consumer Complaint No.281 of

2013) was filed directly before the Commission.

7. An order passed by the Commission in an appeal under Section 58(1)(a) (iii) of the Act, 2019 can be challenged before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but, the appeal against the original order of the Commission must be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Act, 2019.

8. Therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

___________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date: 12.02.2026 JKJ/Pant