New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has observed that the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) while adjudicating the appeal/revision of Delhi State Consumer Forum can only be challenged in the Delhi High Court while that of other State Consumer Forum has to be challenged in the High Courts of that state from where the appeal/ revision has originated. The Delhi High Court made this observation and said that the NCDRC order of other states cannot be challenged before Delhi High Court as it lacks jurisdiction over such cases. It observed that the challenge to such an order lies with the ‘jurisdictional High Court’ or the ‘concerned high court’ where the cause of action arose in the first instance. The Delhi High Court would not have jurisdiction over the matter merely because NCDRC is situated in Delhi. For example, if the NCDRC decided on an appeal concerning the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the challenge to NCDRC’s order would lie with the Karnataka High Court because this is where the cause of action arose.
The Delhi High Court discussed the case of Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Mitter (Civil Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024). Here, discussing this case, the High Court remarked that “Thus, it is quite obvious that despite the fact that situs of NCDRC was in Delhi, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, observed and held that since cause of action had arisen in Kolkata, the jurisdictional High Court would be Calcutta High Court and mere fact that the petition had been allowed by the NCDRC would not bestow any jurisdiction to High Court of Delhi.”
Noting that NCDRC hears appeals from different State Commissions, it observed, “The Authority in question i.e. NCDRC is a National Commission which entertains appeals and revisions, emanating from the orders passed by State Commissions situated across the country and keeping in mind the aforesaid unique feature of said Commission, it cannot be permitted to be contended that decision given in Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra) would not be a binding one.” It thus held that the present petitions were not maintainable before it for want of jurisdiction. It granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the respective jurisdictional High Courts.
