Article 226 will not disturb interim consumer directions preserving liability for final adjudication.

Respondent No. 1 purchased a Mercedes-Benz car from Respondent No. 2 in 2014 and filed a consumer complaint in 2016 alleging, among other things, that the car pulled to the left, its steering wheel made noise while turning, and its tyres bulged.

In an interim order dated 29 March 2023, the SCDRC directed that the car be taken to an authorised service station for rectification of defects, with the petitioner bearing the cost.

On appeal, the NCDRC modified that order: it required the service station to rectify the defects, report separately on defects existing when the complaint was filed and those arising later, and submit the costs for the SCDRC to determine the respective liabilities of the manufacturer and dealer.

The petitioner’s subsequent application for clarification was dismissed. It challenged the orders under Article 226, arguing that the direction granted final relief at an interim stage and imposed liability without a finding of manufacturing defect.

The respondents stated that the car remained at the service station and the defects had not been rectified.

Whether the interim direction to rectify the defects should be set aside as granting final relief or imposing liability before the SCDRC determined whether a manufacturing defect existed.

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the NCDRC’s interim order, given that the SCDRC had reserved final determination of the parties’ respective liabilities.

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the procedural significance of the orders under challenge.

It applied the principle that an interim direction which does not finally determine the dispute or liability should not be treated as a final adjudication where the relevant questions are expressly reserved for the tribunal’s final decision.

It also held that an operative judicial direction must be complied with unless stayed; a party cannot avoid compliance merely by disputing the merits.

The Court found that the NCDRC had not determined that the petitioner was responsible for a manufacturing defect. Instead, it required the defects to be categorised by when they arose and the costs to be presented to the SCDRC, which would decide liability after hearing the parties.

The petitioner’s arguments concerning the car’s age, mileage, continued use, service history, wear and tear, and the alleged absence of a manufacturing defect were relevant to the complaint’s final determination, but did not justify setting aside the interim order.

Because the order had not been stayed and remained unimplemented, the petitioner was required to comply with it.

It directed the petitioner to comply with the impugned order within four weeks.

The Court clarified that it had made no finding that the vehicle suffered from a manufacturing defect or that the petitioner was ultimately liable for any repair costs; those questions remained open for the SCDRC’s final decision.

Pending applications were also disposed of.