The Delhi High Court has issued a notice to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) regarding the constitution of its benches and the jurisdiction of single members to pass judgments in consumer cases. The notice was issued in response to a writ petition filed by NBCC India Ltd, challenging an order passed by the NCDRC on February 23, 2023.
NBCC India argued before the High Court that the NCDRC's presiding member lacked the jurisdiction to issue such orders while sitting as a single member. The petitioner relied on Section 58(2)(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which specifies that the jurisdiction, powers, and authority of the NCDRC can only be exercised by a bench formed by the President, consisting of one or more members as deemed appropriate. The petitioner also referred to Section 2(27) of the Act, which defines a member of the NCDRC to include the President and other members of the National Commission, State Commission, or District Commission.
The petitioner contended that the consumer complaint should have been considered by a bench comprising at least two members. In support of its argument, it cited a judgment by the Rajasthan High Court and subsequent rulings by the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan and the Supreme Court, which held that benches of the State and National Commissions must be constituted by at least two members.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, the presiding judge, issued the notice and scheduled the matter for the next hearing on November 2, 2023. The court clarified that its examination would focus solely on the question of the NCDRC's jurisdiction concerning the composition of its benches.
While noting that writ petitions are typically not entertained when an alternative remedy is available, the court acknowledged that the issue raised in this case pertains to whether a single member can pass a judgment when the rules specifically require a minimum of two members on the bench. The court granted a stay on the NCDRC's order until the next hearing and issued the notice based on the petitioner's prima facie case.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
