The Supreme Court of India has held that when a third referee member of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decides an appeal on merits while answering reference questions that go to the root of the dispute, it does not constitute an illegality warranting High Court interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court that had quashed an NCDRC third member’s decision on jurisdictional grounds, and remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide the Article 227 petition afresh on its merits.
Background of the Dispute
The case originated from Complaint No. 13 of 2006 filed by the appellants (Askari Hussain and others) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (SCDRC). On December 4, 2012, the SCDRC allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 95 lakh along with 15% interest to the appellants.
The first respondent, Dinesh Kumar, challenged this decision before the NCDRC in First Appeal No. 156 of 2013. The two members of the NCDRC Bench delivered differing opinions on March 19, 2021:
- The Presiding Member allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
- The Companion Member modified the SCDRC order by reducing the compensation to Rs. 93 lakh and the interest rate to 12%.
Following the split verdict, a reference was made under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Instead of merely stating the points of difference, the referring Bench formulated five specific questions for the third member concerning the documentary and oral evidence linking the doctor to the medical centre, proof of admission/operation, drawing conclusions from unpleaded oral narrations, withholding of medical records, and acceptance of uncontroverted affidavits in summary proceedings.
On January 9, 2024, the third member rendered an opinion agreeing with the companion member and disposed of the appeal by modifying the compensation structure, interest, and costs, with specific directions for disbursement and medical certification.
Aggrieved by this, the first respondent approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. A Single Judge of the High Court quashed the third member’s order on December 11, 2024, ruling that the referee member had acted in excess of jurisdiction by deciding the appeal itself instead of remitting the opinion back to the referring Division Bench.
Case Law and Statutory Framework Considered
In reviewing the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court examined the general principles governing references. The High Court had relied upon:
- Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India and Others (1981), where it was held that a Division Bench answering a question referred by a Single Judge under Section 100 CPC must return the matter to the Single Judge.
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v. Bansi Dhar and Sons (1986), concerning reference under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Shriram Industrial Enterprises Limited v. The Union of India and Others (1994), a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court also referred to State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok (2013), which surveyed decisions including Kerala State Science & Technology Museum v. Rambal Co. (2006), T.A. Hameed v. M. Viswanathan (2008), and Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan v. State of Maharashtra (2010). The Court reiterated that while a referee bench normally returns the answers to the referring bench, a larger or referee bench may take a common sense approach where subsidiary questions logically and unavoidably arise.
The Court noted that unlike criminal procedure codes, the Code of Civil Procedure has no express statutory mechanism akin to Section 392 CrPC or Section 433 BNSS, but Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides specific statutory guidance for the NCDRC:
“Where the members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority, but if the members are equally divided, they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and make a reference to the President who shall either hear the point or points himself or refer the case for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members who have heard the case, including those who first heard it…”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench, noted that while a plain reading of Section 58(3) might suggest the third member acted in excess of jurisdiction, the factual context of the reference was unique. The referring Bench had not merely stated the points of difference; it had framed comprehensive questions touching upon the entire evidentiary foundation of the complaint.
The Supreme Court observed:
“The objection as to scope of the reference, in our view, is technical. While the statutory mandate under the CP Act requires the third member to confine himself to the point(s) of difference, the present case stands on a different footing. The referring order did not delineate the point(s) of difference; instead, it formulated questions which went to the root of the complaint and are inseparable from the evidence on record. The third member, necessarily, had to survey the entire gamut of material and the rival contentions raised before the referring Bench. It is in this backdrop that the third member, while answering the questions referred, also decided the appeal on merits based on the majority opinion (his opinion and the opinion of the companion member, being ad idem). Viewed thus, the approach of the third member does reflect a common sense approach, which this Court in Salil Sabhlok (supra) acknowledged is available in exceptional cases. We, therefore, ought not to disapprove the approach of the third member, at this distance of time.”
The Court held that the third member’s action did not warrant supervisory interference under Article 227:
“On facts and in the circumstances, we hold that by not returning the reference with the answers to the question referred and, instead, by deciding the appeal itself, the third member did not commit such an illegality that the situation warranted an interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.”
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order dated December 11, 2024, and remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide the first respondent’s Article 227 petition afresh on its merits and in accordance with law.
Noting that the Single Judge had not examined the merits of the findings, the Bench left all issues of fact and law open for determination before the roster Bench and requested the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously.
Case Details
Case Title: Askari Hussain and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 11988 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19685 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: August 24, 2026
