Supreme Court: NCDRC third member deciding appeal not necessarily illegal

The case concerns whether the Third Member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) acted illegally by deciding the appeal directly instead of merely answering the specific questions referred to them by the Division Bench.

Who it concerns: Appellants: Askari Hussain and Ors.; Respondents: Dinesh Kumar and Ors.; Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta.

What the court decided

• The Court granted leave to appeal.
• The Court examined whether the Third Member was justified in deciding the appeal itself or if they should have returned the case to the referring Bench.
• The Court noted that the High Court had quashed the NCDRC order on the ground that the Third Member acted in excess of jurisdiction.
• The Court cited precedents (Kesho Nath Khurana, Salil Sabhlok) stating that normally a referee Bench should answer questions and return the matter to the referring Bench, but may answer subsidiary questions if they logically arise.
• The Court noted that Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides guidance for such references.

Also in the document

• The judgment is marked as 'REPORTABLE'.
• The underlying dispute involves a compensation award of Rs. 95 lakh (later modified to Rs. 93 lakh) for medical negligence.
• The High Court had previously quashed the NCDRC order under Article 227 of the Constitution.