Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a consumer complaint alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service. The appellants, as complainants, had lodged Complaint No. 13 of 2006 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, which on 4 December 2012 allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.95 lakh with interest at 15% per annum. The first respondent, aggrieved by the State Commission's order, filed First Appeal No. 156 of 2013 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. A two-member Bench of the National Commission heard the appeal and differed in opinion on 19 March 2021: the presiding member allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, while the companion member modified the order by reducing compensation to Rs.93 lakh and interest to 12%. Because of the disagreement, a reference was made under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to a third member. On 9 January 2024, the third member rendered an opinion disagreeing with the presiding member and agreeing with the companion member, but instead of only answering the five referred questions, the third member proceeded to dispose of the appeal itself. The third member directed modifications in compensation allocation among complainants, reduced interest to 10% from the date of the State Commission order, awarded litigation costs, and specified payment timelines. The first respondent challenged the third member's order before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, by order dated 11 December 2024, held that the third member had exceeded jurisdiction by deciding the appeal itself rather than answering the reference and returning the matter to the referring Bench. The High Court quashed the third member's order and directed that the matter be heard afresh by a third member who should give his opinion on the questions referred and send the matter back to the Division Bench of the National Commission for decision. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court by special leave petition, which was granted as Civil Appeal No. 11988 of 2026. The Supreme Court considered the short question whether the third member was justified in deciding the appeal itself. It examined precedents, including Kesho Nath Khurana, Bansi Dhar, Shriram Industrial Enterprises, and State of Punjab v. Salil Sabhlok, and observed that the law is well settled that normally the referee Bench should return the questions with answers to the referring Bench. The Court also noted that the referee Bench may answer subsidiary questions logically and unavoidably arising, but cannot decide the entire appeal. It further discussed Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and contrasted it with Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 433 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The extracted judgment text does not record the final disposal of the civil appeal.
Headnote
A) Consumer Law - Reference to Third Member - Scope of Referee Bench's Jurisdiction - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 58(3) - In a consumer appeal where a two-member Bench of the National Commission differed, the matter was referred to a third member under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The third member, after disagreeing with the presiding member and agreeing with the companion member, proceeded to dispose of the appeal itself and modify compensation, rather than only answering the five referred questions and returning the matter to the referring Bench. The High Court quashed the third member's order as an improper exercise of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court observed that normally a referee Bench must return the questions with answers to the referring Bench to decide the issues. Held that a referee Bench may answer subsidiary questions logically and unavoidably arising, but cannot decide the entire appeal in excess of the reference (Paras 7-14). B) Civil Procedure - Reference Jurisprudence - Limits on Larger Bench on Reference - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100; Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court relied on Kesho Nath Khurana, Bansi Dhar, and Shriram Industrial Enterprises to conclude that the third member exceeded jurisdiction by deciding the appeal. The Supreme Court noted that precedents establish that a Division Bench or Full Bench deciding a reference must not adjudicate issues beyond those referred and should return the matter to the referring court; only logically and unavoidably arising subsidiary questions may be answered. Held that this principle applies equally to references under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Paras 8-14). C) Statutory Interpretation - Consumer Protection Act Reference Procedure - Section 58(3) and Analogous Provisions - Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 58(3); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 392; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 433 - The Supreme Court observed that unlike Section 392 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 433 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which provide for reference procedure, there is no similar express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to guide reference decisions; however, judicial precedents fill the gap. Held that Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prescribes that the points of difference shall be stated and referred, and the referee must answer those points and return the matter for decision by the referring Bench (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the third member under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was justified in deciding the appeal itself while concurring with the opinion of the companion member of the referring Bench, or should have after recording answers to the questions referred returned the case to the referring Bench to pass an appropriate order resting on the majority opinion.
Law Points
- A referee Bench must return the questions referred with answers to the referring Bench to decide issues
- A referee Bench may answer subsidiary questions logically and unavoidably arising
- A larger Bench cannot adjudicate issues beyond those referred
- Section 58(3) of Consumer Protection Act
- 2019 prescribes reference procedure for difference of opinion
- No provision in CPC akin to Section 392 CrPC or Section 433 BNSS for reference procedure
- High Court under Article 227 can quash order of third member for excess of jurisdiction
- Third member cannot decide appeal itself when only reference is made
