(T.S. Thakur, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
ECGC Ltd. (Formerly Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.) etc. ___________________________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Meenakshi Saxena and Ors. ______________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No.(s). 6108-6109 of 2016 [Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 21085-21086 of 2015], decided on July 11, 2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. Aggrieved by an order dated 3rd December, 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, appellant-company preferred Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi. That revision was by an order dated 24th March, 2015 passed by the National Commission dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the appellant-herein to approach the appropriate forum for appropriate relief. The present appeals now assail not only order dated 3rd December, 2014 but also order dated 24th March, 2015 by which the National Commission has dismissed the revision filed by the appellant against the said order.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the parties to an order dated 9th January, 2015 passed by a Full Bench of the National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1792 of 2012 whereby the National Commission has taken the view that although no appeal is maintainable against the order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, any order passed by the State Commission in exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction can be challenged before the National Commission by way of revision under 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to take resort to the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission in the light of the Full Bench decision of the National Commission, mentioned above, and that the matter could for that purpose be remitted back to the National Commission.
4. We accordingly allow these appeals but only to the extent that order dated 24th March, 2015 passed by the National Commission dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand set aside, Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 restored and remitted back to the National Commission for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the Full Bench decision of the National Commission, referred to earlier.
5. Parties are directed to appear before the National Commission on Monday, the 5th September, 2016.
6. We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion as to the maintainability of the revision petition before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in revisional jurisdiction. The National Commission is free to examine that issue if at all there is an occasion to do so. No costs.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21085-21086/2015
ECGC Ltd. (Formerly Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.) etc ______________________________________________ Petitioner(s)
v.
Meenakshi Saxena and Ors _______________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 11/07/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
(Before T.S. Thakur, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Bharat Sangal, Adv.
Ms. Vernika Tomar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Adv.
Mr. George M. T, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
7. In terms of the signed order, these appeals are allowed:
“Leave granted.
xxxxxxxxx
We accordingly allow these appeals but only to the extent that order dated 24th March, 2015 passed by the National Commission dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant shall stand set aside, Revision Petition No. 614 of 2015 restored and remitted back to the National Commission for disposal in accordance with law in the light of the Full Bench decision of the National Commission, referred to earlier.
Parties are directed to appear before the National Commission on Monday, the 5th September, 2016.
We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion as to the maintainability of the revision petition before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in revisional jurisdiction. The National Commission is free to examine that issue if at all there is an occasion to do so. No costs.”
———
