Not Mandatory For Two-Member Bench Of NCDRC To Be Comprised Of A Judicial Member: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for a two member bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to necessarily comprise of a judicial member. “If a two-member Bench of National Commission finds legal complexity in matter or if they differ in opinion on any point, the matter can be referred in terms of Regulation 12 of Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 or as per Section 20 (1A) (iii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but there is no mandate in law that such two-member Bench of NCDRC must, necessarily, have a judicial member in it,” Justice Manoj Jain said. The Court said that Section 29A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, lays down that no act or proceeding of District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy or defect in its constitution. It thus held that even where there is a defect in constitution of a Bench, it shall not invalidate the order passed by such Bench.The Court dismissed a plea filed by two individuals challenging two orders passed by the NCDRC. Vide the first order, a batch of 35 complaints filed against an entity, M/s Raheja Developers Ltd was allowed. Vide the second order, in the execution emanating from one of the complaints, certain directions were issued to the Directors of the judgment debtor company.Various complainants approached National Commission against M/s Raheja Developers Ltd. While some sought possession with compensation for delayed-delivery, while others were seeking refund of the amount paid by them towards the sale of units. According to complainants, there was deficiency in service as the construction of the project was delayed. It was submitted that impugned orders were rendered by a Bench comprising of Technical Members only. It was contended that since it was sine qua non for any Bench of National Commission to have at least one Member having judicial background, the orders suffered from vice of coram non judice and were null and void.Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that Section 20 of the Act above talks about composition of National Commission, as a whole and does not prescribe as to what should be the constitution of its Benches.Justice Jain said that there can be multiple benches of National Commission, as Section 20 (1A)(ii) of the Act states that a Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more Members as the President may deem fit. The Court said that the provision does not specify about the description of such Members and, therefore, Members can be judicial or technical or both. “Since the ratio of Judicial Members cannot exceed fifty percent, as a necessary inference, non-judicial members may, in a given scenario, outnumber judicial members,” it added. Further, the Court said that whenever there is a complex question of law, any such Bench, not comprising of a judicial member, can refer the matter to its President and based on such reference, the President is under obligation to constitute another Bench, of which President would also be a member. It added that the decision would then be taken by a Bench of which president, being a judicial member, is an integral part.“As a necessary corollary, any such Bench of National Commission may not, therefore, have a Judicial Member at all, else there would not have been any requirement of coming up with said Regulation (Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 framed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986),” the Court said.Regarding the case, Justice Jain concluded that it could not be said that the composition of Bench was in violation of any statutory provision, adding that it was entirely upto the President of National Commission to constitute a Bench and there was no requirement in law, making it obligatory for any such Bench to have one Judicial Member.“Moreover, as noted above, if there is any complex question of law and if there is no unanimity between the two Members of a given Bench, matter can always be referred to the President for constitution of another Bench,” the Court said.Title: NAVIN M. RAHEJA & ANR v. DINESH GOYAL & ORSCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1098Click here to read order

Not Mandatory For Two-Member Bench Of NCDRC To Be Comprised Of A Judicial Member: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags