DBS BANK INDIA LTD vs NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
IN THE HI COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19-06-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
W.P.No.35927 of 2025
&
W.M.P.Nos. 40265 & 40266 of 2025
1. DBS Bank India Ltd.,
Capital Point, Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
Connaught Place,
New Delhi- 110 001.
2.The Branch Manager,
Lakshmi Vilas Bank (Presently DBS Bank India Ltd),
2025 Rangapillai Street,
Pondicherry -650 001.
3. The Managing Director-Cum-CEO,
Lakshmi Vilas Bank (Presently DBS Bank India Ltd),
LVB Housed 4, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy,
Chennai – 600 003.
4.Lakshmi Vilas Bank (Presently DBS Bank India Ltd)
Commercial Banking Branch
5 Srinivasa Towers,
Cenotaph Road, Teynampet,
… Petitioners
Chennai-600 018.
vs.
1. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi- 110 023.
2.D.Sargurunathan
S/o.S.K. Dhandapani,
th
218, 4 Main Road,
Mahaveer Nagar, Lawspet,
Pondicherry- 605 008.
Page Nos.1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
3.Priyanka,
D/o.Sargurnathan & Valli Sargurunathan,
th
218, 4 Main Road, Mahaveer Nagar,
Lawspet,
Pondicherry- 605 008.
4.The Branch Manager,
Max Life Insurance Corporation Ltd,
st
1 Floor, JK.Towers,
100 Feet Road, Pondicherry.
5.Max Life Insurance Corporation Ltd
rd th th
3 , 11 & 12 Floor,
DLF Square Buildings,
Jacaranda Marg-DLF City Phase-II,
Gurugram, Haryana- 122 002.
6.Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited,
st
ARCIL 560-562, 1G, 1 Floor,
Century Plaza, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 018.
… Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition has filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the order passed by the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No.858 of 2023,
dated 13.10.2023 confirming the order passed in C.C.No.7 of 2019 by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry by way of issuance.
For Petitioners: Mr.W.M.Abdul Azeez
For Respondents: Mr.U.Karunakran, for R2 & R3
M/s.M.Nagalakshmi, for R6
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.)
The writ petitioner is a scheduled bank which has advanced home loan to
one Valli Sarguru. Apart from the terms of contract for repayment in equal
monthly instalments, there was also an understanding and agreement that the
Page Nos.2/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
th
loan is covered by insurance. Thus, the 4 respondent-M/s.Max Life Insurance
Corporation, has come into the picture on 26.08.2019, when the said Valli
Sarguru expired.
2. The attempt to recover the loan by the bank was resisted by the legal
representatives (LRs) of Valli Sarguru on the ground that the loan transaction
was covered by valid insurance. Since the claim was denied by the petitioner
bank, the matter went to State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Puducherry by way of complaint No. 7 of 2019. In the said complaint, the
Branch Manager, Managing Director, CEO and the Bank (formerly Lakshmi
Vilas Bank) were shown as opposite parties 1, 2, and 3. The Insurance
Company and its Managing Director were shown as opposite parties 4 and 5.
The opposite parties filed their counters and the matter stood consideration for
nearly four years. On 19.04.2023, the State Consumer Forum had found
evidence for deficiency of service and therefore directed opposite parties 1, 2,
st
and 3 to adjust the assured sum of Rs.22,83,912/- towards the 1 loan and
nd
Rs.13,66,341/- towards the 2 loan, in the account standing in the name of Valli
Sarguru, along with 6% S.I interest from the date of complaint. Further, they
were directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and
Rs.5,000/- as costs of proceedings.
Page Nos.3/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
3. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner filed Review Petition before the
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which was
unsuccessful. Thereafter, he filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India before the Delhi High Court, wherein the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court passed the following order:-
“The present petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated
09.02.2024 passed by Hon’ble National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘NCDRC’) in
Review Application No. 29 of2024 in FA/858/2023.
2. The above matter was filed before NCDRC
impugning order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Puducherry in
Consumer Complaint No. 09/2019.
3. Since the entire cause of action pertaining to the
present subject matter has arisen within the jurisdiction of
Madras High Court, relying upon judgment dated
04.03.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Siddhartha S Mookerjee vs. Madhab Chand Milter, Civil
Appeal Nos. 3915-16/2024, learned counsel for petitioner
prays that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the
present petition with liberty to approach said
jurisdictional High Court.
4. This Court has gone through the above said
order wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, very
Page Nos.4/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
categorically, observed that merely because NCDRC had
allowed petition, the jurisdiction would not vest with Delhi
High Court and observing that since the cause of action
had arisen in Kolkata and the matter had been dealt with
by the State Commission of West Bengal, it was held that
the jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta should have
been invoked.
5. Moreover, this Court has already vide order
dated 12.09.2024 passed in title M/S.TDl Infrastructure
Ltd. vs. Blrjendra Singh Mallik since Decessednthr LR in
C+M(M) No.2933/2024 observed that in view of
Siddhartha S Mookerjee (supra), any such petitioner
should go to the “jurisdictional High Court”.
6. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
Liberty, as prayed for, is granted.
7. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion, whatsoever, over the merits of the
case.”
4. Since the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court challenging
the order passed by the National Commission was not entertained by the Delhi
High Court on the point of jurisdiction, the writ petitioner has approached the
Madras High Court by invoking its special extraordinary jurisdiction by way of
filing writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the
matter was taken up for consideration on 10.06.2026, the learned counsel
Page Nos.5/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
appearing for the respondent submitted that the writ petition challenging the
order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Puducherry is not maintainable. Hence, the matter was posted for deciding the
maintainability of the writ petition.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner circulated the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Universal Sompo General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Ors. , reported in AIR 2023 SC
3699 , as well as copy of the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court, to
emphasize that under the repealed Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 23
provided for an appeal against order made by the National Commission in
exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 21,
which relates to the original jurisdiction exercised by the National Commission
upon any complaint claiming compensation exceeding Rs.1 crore.
6. After the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the
introduction of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Section 67 provides for an
appeal against orders of the National Commission, passed in exercise of powers
conferred under sub-clause(i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
58, to the Supreme Court within a period of 30 days. Section 58(a)(i)&(ii) deal
Page Nos.6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
with original complaints before the National Commission where the value
exceeds Rs.10 crores and complaints against unfair contracts, where the value
of goods or service paid as consideration exceeds Rs.10 crores.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while comparing the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 with the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, has
categorically held that in case of second appeals against the orders passed by the
National Commission, any person aggrieved has to approach the High Court
either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly,
the writ petitioners first approached the Delhi High Court, where the jurisdiction
of the National Consumer Forum is situated. However, the Delhi High Court,
taking note that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Madras
High Court, declined to entertain the writ petition, which has forced the
petitioners to file the present writ petition before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 relied upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cicily Kallarackal vs. Vehicle Factory,
rendered on 06.08.2012, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering
Special Leave Petition challenging the order passed by the High Court, made
the following observations:
Page Nos.7/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
7. While declining to interfere in the present Special
Leave Petition preferred against the order passed by the
High Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
under A rticle 226  of the Constitution of India, we hereby
make it clear that the order of the Commission are
incapable of being questioned under the writ jurisdiction
of the High Court, as a statutory appeal in terms of
S ection 27  A(1)(c) lies to this Court. Therefore, we have
no hesitation in issuing a direction of caution that it will
not be proper exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts
to entertain writ petitions against such orders of the
Commission.
9. On reading the judgment rendered in Universal Sompo General
Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Others reported in AIR 2023
SC 3699 , which is later in point of time and on comparing the provisions of the
old and new Acts, we are satisfied, on the face of the material placed that the
writ petition is maintainable before this Court since it has been filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 227, which
restricts the supervisory power of the High Court upon Courts and Tribunal
within its territorial jurisdiction, unlike, Article 226(2) which confers
jurisdiction on the High Court beyond its territory, provided the cause of action
arises within its territory. For better appreciation, the said Articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India are extracted hereunder:
Page Nos.8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.—(1)
Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall
have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it
exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority,
including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those
territories directions, orders or writs, including [writs in the
nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue
directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or
person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising
jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause
of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or
authority or the residence of such person is not within those
territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order,
whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is
made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under
clause (1), without—
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and
all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such
order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in
whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such
party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a
period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or
from the date on which the copy of such application is so
furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed
on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day
afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the
application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the
expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the
said next day, stand vacated.
Page Nos.9/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article
shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the
Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32.
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the
High Court.—
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all
courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to
which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provision, the High Court may—
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and
prescribe forms for regulating the practice and
proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books,
entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers
of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be
allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts
and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or
tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be
inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in
force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on
a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or
tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed
Forces.
10. On considering the merits of the appeal, we find that before the State
Consumer Forum, though adequate opportunities were given to the petitioners
Page Nos.10/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
herein, the new points which are now canvassed by way of grounds of appeal
were not placed before the State Consumer Forum. In fact, the Forum has made
a categorical observation in paragraph 17 that, after filing reply version by the
opposite parties 1 to 5 in spite of repeated adjournments under the caption “for
enquiry,” none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties. It has further
observed that, during the time of enquiry, the opposite parties 4 and 5 sought
permission to file their written submissions and the same was entertained,
whereas, the opposite party 1 to 3 remained ex-parte. It is to be noted that the
said opposite parties 1 to 3 are now before this Court by way of the present writ
petition.
11. Not stopping with that, after inviting an adverse order from the State
Consumer Forum, the writ petitioner filed First Appeal No.858 of 2023 before
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. When the
matter taken up for consideration by the National Commission, the Learned
Counsel appearing for the appellant had conceded to comply with the decree of
the State Commission, subject to furnishing the succession certificate in respect
of the deceased Mrs.Valli Sarguru, as well as identity proof for her legal heirs as
per the succession certificate.
Page Nos.11/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
12. Now, challenging this order, the writ petition is filed primarily on the
ground that the counsel had conceded to comply the decree of the State
Consumer Forum without authorization and instructions. A futile attempt was
made by the Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that, out of two policies, in
one of the policies the Insurance Company had informed that Mrs.Valli Sarguru
had suppressed her ailment (cancer) while taking insurance coverage and
therefore they are not liable to indemnify her death. The said communication
enclosed in the typed set of papers is much after the order passed by the
National Commission. In any event, this defence ought to have been canvassed
before the State Commission Forum and if canvassed but not considered, it
should have been further agitated before the National Commission. Having
failed to do so and conceded to comply with the decree on production of the
certificates mentioned, neither Article 226 nor Article 227 of the Constitution of
India can be pressed into service by the petitioners to challenge the order of the
National Commission in the present case.
13. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (N.MALA J.)
19-06-2026
Page Nos.12/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
Index :Yes.
Neutral Citation :Yes.
To,
1. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Puducherry.
2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Sri Aurobindo Marg,
New Delhi- 110 023.
Page Nos.13/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )

W.P.No.35927 of 2025
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
N.MALA, J.
bsm
W.P.No.35927 of 2025
& W.M.P.Nos.40265 & 40266 of 2025
19-06-2026
Page Nos.14/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2026 04:57:00 pm )