Ex-Parte Order Of State Consumer Commission Can Be Challenged Before NCDRC, hence HC will not exercise its extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction.

Harshit Sharma | Amity Law School, Madhya Pradesh | 24th December 2019

M/S. SHIUR SAKHAR KARKHANA PVT. LTD. V/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9317 OF 2019

FACTS OF THE CASE  

1. The present appeal is preferred and filed against the impugned order dated 03.05.2018 passed by the Aurangabad Bench of High Court of Bombay.
2. The impugned order specifically set-aside the ex-parte order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Mumbai Circuit Bench.
3. The records reveal that the Respondent-Bank was placed ex parte before the State Commission for failing to appear before it despite service of notice. Subsequently, an application was filed by the respondent-Bank to set aside the order placing it ex parte, which came to be dismissed by the State Commission on the ground that it does not have jurisdiction to recall its own prior order.
4. The order of the High Court which set-aside the ex-parte order of the State Commission is called in question by way of filing of the present SLP on the basic ground that, the presence of alternative and efficacious remedy was present before ousting the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court by way of Section-21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which prima facie quotes that all orders shall be appealable before the NCDRC (National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission), say contended by the present petitioner, before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES RAISED

1. What nature of orders are appealable of State Commission before the NCDRC u/s. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether the ex-parte order passed by State Commission is appealable before NCDRC or Writ Jurisdiction of High Court be invoked for this purpose?
3. Whether High Court erred in invoking its Extraordinary Jurisdiction by admission of WP in respect of setting aside the ex-parte order passed by the State Commission?

RULING OF THE COURT/ THE COURT HELD THAT

In the considered opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the following was observed:

1.  A plain reading of Section 21(a) (ii) read with Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 makes it clear that the National Commission has jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders passed by the State Commission. Section 21(a)(ii) does not state that appeals cannot be entertained against orders that have been passed ex parte. The plain and simple meaning of the said provision is that appeals will be entertained by the National Commission against any order passed by the State Commission. The word “orders” as used in Section 21(a)(ii) means and includes “any orders”. Thus, an order of the State Commission placing a particular party ex parte can also be questioned before the National Commission.
2. We may note at this juncture that the presence of an alternative and efficacious remedy is not an absolute bar on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and is a rule of discretion and self-imposed limitation rather than that of law. However, entertaining a writ petition in such a case may be proper in certain circumstances, for instance when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, or has been passed invoking repealed provisions. [CIT v. Chhabil Dass Aggarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603]
3. But, in the present case no such circumstances have been invoked and therefore the presence of alternative remedy bars the invoking of Writ Jurisdiction by the High Court, whereby it is directed that the High Court’s impugned order be set-aside giving liberty to the Respondent for filing the appeal before the NCDRC.