Smt Sita Devi vs Punjab National Bank And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Case type
- Writ Petition Civil
- Decided on
- 19-02-2026
$~109
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 503/2025 & CM APPL. 11744/2026
Date of Decision : 19.02.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
SMT SITA DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.P. Sharma, Advocate.
versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Dr. S S Hooda, Mr. Shaurya Banshtu,
Mr. Manpreet Singh, Advocates for
PNB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petition is for setting aside the order of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) dated 02.08.2017,
whereby, the revision petition filed by the respondent was partly allowed.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the following two
grounds:
(i) The National Commission has exceeded in its revisional
jurisdiction by interfering with the findings of facts rendered by
the Commissions below. (Excess of jurisdiction)
(ii) The impugned order having been passed by a single-member
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 1 of 11
Bench suffers from inadequate quorum and, therefore, is
vitiated. ( Coram non-judice )
Coram non-judice
2. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act,
2019 (CPA, 2019) and the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission
Procedure) Regulations, 2020 (Regulations, 2020) indicate that as per the
statutory scheme, the proceedings of the National Commission may be
conducted by Benches comprising of a single-member, who is a judicial
member. What follows is that, single-member Benches comprising of a
judicial member may hear appeals and pass orders.
3. The provision under Section 59 of the CPA, 2019 provides that the
provisions under Section 36 thereof which concerns proceedings before the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, would be applicable to
the National Commission. Sections 59 and 36 of the CPA, 2019 are
extracted below, for reference:
“59. (1) The provisions relating to complaints under sections 35, 36, 37,
38 and 39 shall, with such modifications as may be considered necessary,
be applicable to the disposal of complaints by the National Commission.
(2) Without prejudice to sub-section (1), the National Commission may
also declare any terms of contract, which is unfair to any consumer to be
null and void.”
“36. Proceedings before District Commission.—(1) Every proceeding
before the District Commission shall be conducted by the President of that
Commission and atleast one member thereof, sitting together:
Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a
proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall
continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the
previous member.
(2) On receipt of a complaint made under section 35, the District
Commission may, by order, admit the complaint for being proceeded with
or reject the same: Provided that a complaint shall not be rejected under
this section unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the
complainant: Provided further that the admissibility of the complaint shall
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 2 of 11
ordinarily be decided within twenty-one days from the date on which the
complaint was filed.
(3) Where the District Commission does not decide the issue of
admissibility of the complaint within the period so specified, it shall be
deemed to have been admitted.”
4. A bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 36 would indicate that
proceedings before the National Commission have to be conducted by the
President and atleast one member sitting together. However, under Section
58(2) of the CPA, 2019, an express provision is made for exercise of the
jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National Commission by Benches
constituted by the President with one or more members. The said provision
is extracted below, for reference:
“58. (2) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National
Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof and a Bench may be
constituted by the President with one or more members as he may deem
fit:
Provided that the senior-most member of the Bench shall preside over the
Bench.”
5. Furthermore, under Section 64 of the CPA, 2019, no proceedings
before the National Commission would be invalid by reason only of any
defect in its composition. The said provision is extracted below, for
reference:
“64. Vacancies or defects in appointment not to invalidate orders.—No
act or proceeding of the District Commission, the State Commission or
the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence
of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution
thereof.”
6. Regulation 12 of the Regulations, 2020 provides that if the Bench
constituted by the President does not have a member with judicial
background, and any complex question of law arises and there is no
precedent to decide the same, the matter may be referred to the President for
constitution of another bench of which the President shall be a member. The
said provision is extracted below, for reference:
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 3 of 11
“12. Hearing by Benches.-Where a Bench, constituted by the President of
the State Commission or the National Commission as provided under
sub-section (2) of Section 47 or sub-section (2) of Section 58, as the case
may be, does not have a member with judicial background and any
complex question of law arises and there is no precedent to decide the
law point, the Bench so constituted may refer the matter to the President
of the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be,
to constitute another Bench of which the President shall be a member.”
7. A similar statutory scheme existed under the erstwhile Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 (CPA, 1986) and the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987
(Rules, 1987). Under Section 22 of the CPA, 1986, the provisions contained
in Section 14 thereof, with respect to proceedings before the District
Commission was applicable even to proceedings before the National
Commission. Sections 22 and 14(2) of the CPA, 1986 are extracted below,
for reference:
“22. Power of and procedure applicable to the National
Commission.- (1) The provisions of sections 12, 13 and 14 and
the rules made thereunder for the disposal of complaints by
the District Forum shall, with such modifications as may be
considered necessary by the Commission, be applicable to the
disposal of disputes by the National Commission. (2) Without
prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the
National Commission shall have the power to review any
order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face
of record.”
“14. (2) Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be
conducted by the President of the District Forum and at least one
member thereof sitting together:
Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a
proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall
continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the
previous member.”
8. Under Section 20 (1A) of the CPA, 1986, the jurisdiction, powers,
and authority of the National Commission could be exercised by Benches
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 4 of 11
constituted by the President with one or more members. The said provision
is extracted below, for reference:
“20. (1A) (i) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the National
Commission may be exercised by Benches thereof.
(ii) A Bench may be constituted by the President with one or more
members as the President may deem fit.
(iii) If 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 or 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.”
9. Section 29A of the CPA, 1986 is analogous to Section 64 of the CPA,
2019. Section 29A of the CPA, 1986 is extracted below, for reference:
“29A. Vacancies or defects in appointment not to invalidate orders.—No
act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State Commission or the
National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of
any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution
thereof.”
10. Rule 15A of the Rules, 1987 expressly provides for constitution of
Benches by the President with one or more members as he may deem fit.
The said rule is extracted below for reference:
“15A. Sitting of the National Commission and signing of orders. -
(1) Every proceeding of the National Commission shall be conducted
by the President or the senior most member authorised and at least
two members thereof sitting together except when a bench is
constituted by the President of the National Commission with one or
more members as he may deem fit.
Provided that where the member or members for any reason are
unable to conduct the proceeding till it is completed, the President or
the senior most member, as provided in section 22D of the Act, shall
conduct such proceedings from the state at which it was last heard by
the previous member.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 5 of 11
(2) Every order made by the National Commission shall be signed by
the President or the senior most member as provided in section 22D
and at least two members who conducted the proceeding and if there
is any difference of opinion among themselves, the opinion of majority
shall be the order of the National Commission:
Provided that where the proceeding is conducted by the President or
the senior most member as provided in section 22D and three
members thereof and they differ on any point or points, they shall
state the point or points on which they differ and refer the same to the
other member for hearing on such point or points and such point or
points shall be decided accordingly to the opinion of the majority of
the National Commission.”
11. Mr. V.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, places reliance on
the decisions of the High Court of Rajasthan in Kamal Travels Kokks
1
International v. State of Rajasthan, State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Travels
2
Kokks International, Kamal Travels Kokks International v. State of
3
Rajasthan, which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP No.
4
4969/2020, Iffco-Mc Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Shankar Lal and Ors , and
5
an order of this Court in Navin M Raheja v. Minakshi Choudhary , to
support his submission that proceedings before the National Commission
necessarily ought to be conducted by atleast two members.
12. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of the High
Court of Rajasthan in Kamal Travels Kokks International v. State of
Rajasthan, State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Travels Kokks International,
Kamal Travels Kokks International v. State of Rajasthan is misplaced
since, in the said decisions, the Court was examining propriety of decisions
passed by Benches comprising of a single-technical member, whereas, in the
1
2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3747
2
2019 SCC OnLine Raj 8125
3
Judgement dated S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18/2012
4
2025:RJ-JD:6018
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 6 of 11
instant case, the impugned order has been passed by a Bench comprising of
the President of the National Commission who is a judicial member.
Therefore, the said decisions are not applicable in the present case.
13. It is noted that against the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kamal
Travels Kokks International , a Special Leave Petition was filed in the
Supreme Court, and the same was dismissed in liminie vide order dated
30.09.2021. Therefore, the doctrine of merger does not apply, and the order
of the High Court cannot be said to have merged with the order of the
Supreme Court. Reference, in this regard, can be made to the decision of the
6
Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala .
14. The High Court of Rajasthan, in Iffco-Mc Crop Science Pvt. Ltd.
relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the same Court in Divisional
Manager N.I.C. Ltd., Jodhpur vs. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes
7
Redressal Commission & Ors , and has held that orders passed by single-
member Benches of the National Commission would be without jurisdiction.
The relevant portion of the decision in Iffco-Mc Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. is
extracted below, for reference:
“7. A bare reading of Section 58(2) of the Act of 2019 reflects that the
jurisdiction, power and the authority of NCDRC shall be exercised by a
Bench to be constituted by the President with one or more members.
Further, the proviso to the said section provides that the senior most
member of the Bench shall preside over the Bench.
8. While dealing with a similar provision pertaining to the State
Commission, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Divisional
Manager's case (supra) observed as under:
"11. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that a Bench of the
State Consumer Commission cannot be constituted by a single member
and that the same must be comprised of the President and at least one
5
Order dated 11.02.2025 in WP (C) 1682/2025
6
(2000) 6 SCC 359
7
2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2648
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 7 of 11
member thereof. In reference to Section 2(jj) of the Act, it is clarified
that the word "President" as appearing in the Act, shall always be
referred as including a member except where, the jurisdiction of
constituting the Bench is to be exercised. The said power is with the
President who being the "head of the institution" has the
exclusive [2025:RJ-JD:6018] (10 of 11) [CW-20069/2024]
administrative power to decide the composition of the bench."
9. In Divisional Manager's case (supra), the Court concluded that for
lawful decision of the case, Bench/Benches of the Commission must be
constituted with atleast two members of the Commission, one of whom
may be the President.
10. It is not disputed on record that Section 58 (2) of the Act of 2019 is
akin to the provision of Section 47 (2) of the Act which deals with the
jurisdiction of the State Commission. The ratio laid down in Divisional
Manager's case (supra) therefore, would definitely apply to the present
matters too.
11. In view of the ratio laid down in Divisional Manager's case (supra),
order dated 26.03.2024 (Annx.1) been passed without jurisdiction is
hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded back to the
NCDRC for decision afresh through appropriately constituted
Bench/Benches.”
15. In Divisional Manager National Insurance Company , the Court has
held that Benches of the State Commission must necessarily comprise of the
President along with one or more members. However, this Court is in
respectful disagreement with the decisions in Divisional Manager National
Insurance Company and Iffco-Mc Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. The statutory
scheme under the CPA, 2019, more specifically Section 58(2) thereof,
clearly provides for the constitution of single-member Benches in the
National Commission. In any case, as per Section 64 of the CPA, 2019,
orders of the National Commission are not vitiated by reason solely of any
defect in its composition.
16. The view taken by this Court finds support in the decision of the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh in Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. v. L. Suni
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 8 of 11
8
Reddy and Ors. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted
below, for reference:
“ 26. The Section 29A amendment came into force with effect from
15.06.1991 under the Old Act, whereas the above said New Act came into
force on 09.08.2019. The order of the National Commission assailed
under this revision is dated 16.02.2024. In view of Section 58 (ii) and
Section 64 of the New Act (35 of 2019), the issue of coram non judice
principle does not arise under the above said express provisions of law.
In other words, the President of the National Commission can constitute
a Bench with one or more members as he/she may deem fit and
accordingly assign the work by categorizing the cases filed before the
National Commission. Basing upon the pecuniary value of the cases also
such categorization can be made to be heard by the Benches concerned
with one or more members of the National Commission, as per the
arrangement made by the President for the said purpose exercising
his/her statutory powers.
In Tiki Tar Industries (now known as Tiki Tar Industries (Baroda) Ltd.)
v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and in SR. Divisional Manager, The
New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Panchsheel Organics Ltd. cases,
the above said provisions of law were not brought before the Hon'ble
Apex Court for its consideration and in Divisional Manager N.I.C. Ltd.,
Jodhpur v. Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
case also, the above said provisions of law did not fall for consideration.
Hence this Court is not persuaded with the submission of the learned
senior counsel for the petitioner that there is a defective composition of
the Bench in the NCDRC, New Delhi and the matter be remanded for
fresh consideration by it with full fledged Coram comprising judicial and
non judicial members. Accordingly, it is negatived.”
17. Even the High Court of Allahabad, in its decision in Ansal Properties
and Infrastructure Ltd. v. State Consumer Dispute Redressal
9
Commission , has taken a view similar to that of this Court. Although the
said decision relates to State Commissions under the CPA, 1986,
considering that the provisions relating to the National Commission are
similar, the reasoning adopted by the Court would be applicable for National
Commission as well.
8
2025 SCC OnLIne AP 3283
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 9 of 11
18. Insofar as the reliance placed on the order passed by this Court in
Navin M Raheja is concerned, it is seen that this Court has only rendered a
prima facie opinion therein, and has not passed any final decision.
Therefore, the same may not be of much help to the petitioner.
19. Another aspect that requires to be noted is that in the instant case, the
impugned order dated 02.08.2017 has been passed by a Bench comprising of
the President of the National Commission, who is a judicial member. As per
Regulation 12 of the Regulations, 2020, a judicial member, more so, the
President, is fully empowered to decide cases involving complex questions
of law. As such, there cannot be said to have been any defect in the
composition of the Bench which has passed the impugned order.
Excess of jurisdiction.
20. So far as the submission with respect to exceeding of the jurisdiction
by the National Commission is concerned, the same deserves to be
considered in the context of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
10
Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India & Anr. The Supreme Court in
the said decision has held that revisional jurisdiction of the National
Commission is extremely limited and does not permit re-appreciation of the
evidence. It could be exercised only if the order of the State Commission
suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction or suffers from material
irregularity. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted as under:
“It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National
Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It
should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the
parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to
the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a
9
2017 SCC OnLine All 2932
10
2022 INSC 84
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 10 of 11
jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise
jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction
illegally or with material irregularity.”
21. In the present case, the petitioner had filed a complaint against the
respondent alleging non-payment of interest on the arrears of pension of her
husband and also on his fixed deposits with the respondent-bank. The
complaint had been allowed by the District Commission and the State
Commission has affirmed the said decision. The National Commission in
the impugned order, has reduced the interest awarded to the petitioner upon
considering a circular specifying the rate of interest on fixed deposits. The
National Commission has also rendered new findings that the husband of the
petitioner had not renewed the fixed deposits and without his instructions,
the same could not have been renewed. The National Commission,
therefore, has interfered with the findings of fact rendered by District and
the State Commissions. There does not seem to be any material irregularity
in the orders passed by the District as well as the State Commissions
warranting such interference.
22. In view thereof, the impugned order stands set aside. Accordingly, he
petition stands allowed and pending applications, is any, stand disposed of.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2026
tr/amg.
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:10.03.2026
19:32:51
W.P.(C) 503/2025 Page 11 of 11