M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.

M/S UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SURESH CHAND JAIN & ANR.

The Supreme Court will not entertain a special leave petition under Article 136 against an NCDRC order passed in its appellate/revisional jurisdiction (i.e., orders under s.21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or s.58(1)(a)(iii)/(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019); where alternative remedies exist, the aggrieved party must first approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226/227, and only after final adjudication may a party seek special leave to appeal to this Court.

Parties
Petitioner: M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited; Respondent: Suresh Chand Jain; Respondent: Allahabad Bank
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Petition Disposed by Supreme Court; Liberty to Approach High Court Under Articles 226/227
Outcome
Petition disposed of with directions to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court; Registry directed to refund deposited amount after verification
Legal Topics
Article 136, Article 226, Article 227, Appealability of NCDRC Orders, Jurisdiction of NCDRC
Constitutional Law Consumer Law Civil Procedure Article 136 Article 226 Article 227 Appealability of NCDRC Orders Jurisdiction of NCDRC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/s Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited

Petitioner

Suresh Chand Jain

Respondent

Allahabad Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Petition Disposed by Supreme Court; Liberty to Approach High Court Under Articles 226/227

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a petition for special leave under Article 136 is maintainable directly against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) passed in exercise of its appellate/revisional jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner must first approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 or Article 227 when challenging an NCDRC order passed in appellate/revisional jurisdiction
  3. 3 Scope of appeal to the Supreme Court under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court will not entertain a special leave petition under Article 136 against an NCDRC order passed in its appellate/revisional jurisdiction (i.e., orders under s.21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or s.58(1)(a)(iii)/(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019); where alternative remedies exist, the aggrieved party must first approach the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226/227, and only after final adjudication may a party seek special leave to appeal to this Court.

Court Disposition

Petition disposed of with directions to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional High Court; Registry directed to refund deposited amount after verification

Orders

  • Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the NCDRC order before the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 or Article 227
  • Registry to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner after due and proper verification