New Delhi, March 14, 2022: Finding that the NCDRC had exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it, the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by the NCDRC and restored the order passed by the State Commission awarding compensation by Insurance company for goods damaged in transit, but with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of complaint till realization.
Observing that Insurance Company had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,78,881 with the State Commission, the Division Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. ramasubramanian directed that the appellant (Narendran) will pay the amount awarded by the State Commission after adjusting the amount disbursed to the appellant in terms of the order of NCDRC, if any.
The observation came pursuant to an appeal challenging the order whereby the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) allowed the revision filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) of Rs. 7,59,660 to Rs.4,06,125.
After considering the submissions, the Top Court found that the jurisdiction of NCDRC u/s 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is akin to the revisional jurisdiction conferred under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, added the Court.
However, the Apex Court noted that the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated u/s 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.
Hence, the Apex Court allowed the appeal.