Revision Petitions Before NCDRC Not Maintainable Against An Order Passed By SCDRC In Its Revisional Jurisdiction: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), while dismissing a revision petition arising out of an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has held that a revision arising from a revision before the SCDRC is not maintainable. This decision follows the NCDRC's earlier judgement in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Ors. decided in January 2025. Issue before the National Commission In the present case before the NCDRC, the Petitioners had filed a revision petition after the SCDRC (in its revisional jurisdiction) upheld the District Commission's order rejecting an amendment application in a pending consumer complaint. They also questioned the National Commission's earlier decision in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Or. and prayed that the matter be referred to a larger bench. The core issue before the National Commission was whether it can exercise its revisional powers under section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, over an order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction under section 47(1)(b) of the Act. Contentions Raised by the Petitioner (1) It was argued that section 58(1)(b) allows the National Commission to exercise its revisional powers in any “consumer dispute” including those where the SCDRC has acted under its revisional jurisdiction over any District Commission's orders. They asserted that the term “consumer dispute” mentioned under section 58(1)(b) includes ongoing complaints even at the stage of revision. Thereby implying that since the matter before the NCDRC was an ongoing complaint, the National Commission could further revise the State Commission's decision under its revisional powers. (2) It was contended that the scope revisional powers of the National Commission under the Consumer Act were wide and supervisory just like Article 227 of the Constitution and should not be narrowly interpreted like section 115 of CPC. As per them, there was no statutory bar on filing a Revision against a State Commission's Revisional Order. (3) The Petitioner relying on Supreme Court rulings in Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd. (2020) 15 SCC 771 and Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC had already been interpreted broadly by the Supreme Court, clarifying that the National Commission can interfere where the State Commission acts with any material irregularity. Therefore, the petitioner requested the NCDRC to refer the Vivo Mobile decision to a larger bench submitting that the decision was rendered by a two-member bench and overlooked the binding judgements of the Supreme Court. Decision of the National Consumer Commission The NCDRC bench presided by J. A.P. Sahi along with Mr. Bharatkumar Pandya as member dismissed the present Revision Petition, upholding its previous decision in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Ors.(2025), ruling that a second revision petition before the National Commission is not maintainable, when the State Commission has already exercised its revisional jurisdiction over a District Commission's order. The bench observed that the legislature did not provide a power of revision to the National Commission against the orders of the District Commission, whether directly or indirectly. While explaining the scope of sections 58(1)(b) and 47(1)(b), the National Forum pointed out that both sections begin with the words “subject to the other provisions of this act” meaning that the powers given under these sections must be used within the limits and hierarchy set out in the Act. Section 58(1)(b) allows the National Commission to revise orders passed by the State Commission but only in matters related to “consumer complaints”. In a similar way section 47(1)(b) enables the State Commission to revise the orders of the District Commission. Therefore, the National Commission said that revising the revisional order of the SCDRC by the National Commission, would mean a second layer of revision of the District Commission's order which is legally impermissible. Case Title: M/s Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Saxena NC/DN/2/2025 Advocates for Petitioner: Karanjot Singh Mainee, Manya Kaushik, Azeem Parvez, Sahil Chopra, Sanjivni Bora Date of Decision: 16/05/2025 Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Revision Petitions Before NCDRC Not Maintainable Against An Order Passed By SCDRC In Its Revisional Jurisdiction: NCDRC

Apoorva Pandita

Tags