Case Title: M/S Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Suresh Chand Jain, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5263 Of 2023
Summary
The Supreme Court has granted special leave to appeal to an order issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution. The order is only applicable in extraordinary circumstances, such as a decision that deeply concerns the court or involves a matter of public concern or law. The Supreme Court’s authority to grant special leave to appeal is limited to orders issued by the NCDRC in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, or as the court of first instance (original orders).
In a case involving an insurance policy dispute, the Supreme Court ruled that the aggrieved party could contest the NCDRC’s order by petitioning the appropriate High Court with jurisdiction. The court drew its precedent from the recent ruling in Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, which established that an appeal to the relevant High Court with jurisdiction under Article 227 would be the only recourse for the aggrieved party against the order issued by the NCDRC.
The petitioner was allowed to contest the NCDRC’s order by petitioning the appropriate High Court with jurisdiction, either by filing a writ application in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Both parties retain the prerogative to petition the Supreme Court for permission to appeal in accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution via plea of special leave.
About the case
An order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) that was issued by the Commission in its original jurisdiction is the only one for which an aggrieved party may petition the Supreme Court on Wednesday, in accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution, to be granted special leave to appeal. The orders rendered by the NCDRC in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction will not be subject to any further appeal, the Apex Court clarified. In the aforementioned case, a division bench consisting of Justices Manoj Misra and J. B. Pardiwala examined the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution by referencing a series of decisions from the apex court.
The bench concluded that the provision could only be invoked in the event that the court was moved to intervene in a public interest legal matter or in opposition to a decision that deeply troubled the court’s conscience. “…the Supreme Court’s authority to grant special leave to appeal may be invoked only in the most extraordinary of circumstances.” Special leave is typically granted in response to a decision that deeply concerns the Court or involves a matter of public concern or law. These are examples of circumstances that warrant special leave. Without limitation, the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution are unrestricted. Then again, in situations where the aggrieved party has the option to petition the High Court for special leave under its supervisory jurisdiction or writ jurisdiction, this Court should not grant the petition, thus bypassing the prescribed legal procedure.
Regardless of the constraints, they are intrinsic to the very essence and character of the power. As an extraordinary and supreme force, it is only prudent to employ it judiciously, with restraint, and in extremely rare circumstances. Preceding the exercise of superseding constitutional powers, the power in question shall be applied exclusively to further the cause of justice and shall be regulated by established principles. While the Court deliberated on an SLP filed by the NCDRC in opposition to a dismissal order, the SLP challenged the appeal of an order issued by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC). In exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court deliberated on whether an SLP should be accepted directly against an order issued by the NCDRC when the aggrieved party may petition the appropriate High Court pursuant to Article 226 or Article 277. After careful examination of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (which are relevant to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019), the Apex Court determined that the appeal to the Apex Court is limited to orders issued by the NCDRC in accordance with the authority granted by Section 21(a)(i) of the Act 1986 and 58(1)(a)(i) or 58(1)(a)(ii) of the Act 2019. “…both Acts establish the right to appeal to this Court solely regarding orders issued by the NCDRC in its appellate or revisional jurisdiction, or as the court of first instance (original orders); no additional appeals are permitted against orders issued by the NCDRC in the course of exercising its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.” As observed by the Apex Court.
The Respondent had obtained insurance policies from Allahabad Bank and Universal Sompo General Insurance, the Petitioner in the case before the Apex Court, covering a maximum of Rs. 50 lakh against the risks of fire and larceny. This information is part of the factual matrix of the case. The Respondent filed a claim for Rs. 49 lakh subsequent to experiencing larceny and a fire outbreak at his property. The Respondent filed a complaint with the SCDRC in opposition to the Petitioner’s denial of the claim. The complaint was partially upheld by the SCDRC. The Petitioner, dissatisfied with the SCDRC’s decision, filed a challenge to that effect with the NCDRC; the challenge was denied. The petitioner filed a petition with the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution in opposition to the dismissal in question. The Supreme Court drew its precedent from the recent ruling in Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Private Limited, which was published in 2022 INSC 573. In that case, the Apex Court determined that an appeal to the relevant High Court with jurisdiction under Article 227 would be the only recourse for the aggrieved party against the order issued by the NCDRC.
When a remedy is available under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, the aforementioned decision emphasized the significance of approaching the High Court. The petition was therefore dismissed without due consideration of its merits by the Apex Court. Petitioner was permitted to contest the NCDRC’s order by petitioning the appropriate High Court with jurisdiction: “We have determined that this petition should not be adjudicated on its merits.” It is necessary to request that the petitioner initially appear before the jurisdictional High Court, either by filing a writ application in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution or by invoking the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Undoubtedly, in the aftermath of the High Court’s decision and issuance of a final order, both parties retain the prerogative to petition this Court for permission to appeal in accordance with Article 136 of the Constitution via plea of special leave. It was concluded by the Supreme Court.
