Consumer Commission orders set aside under Article 227 pursuant to mutual settlement between parties.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated July 9, 2024, passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and April 30, 2024, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No. 324/2016.

During the pendency of this petition, the parties executed a settlement agreement/MoU on December 19, 2025.

Under the terms of the settlement, the respondents agreed to unconditionally withdraw the original consumer complaint and the execution petition, acknowledging that the previous judgments/orders had become infructuous.

Consequently, the parties filed joint applications (CM APPL. 81325/2025 and 81331/2025) seeking to set aside the impugned orders and release the amount of Rs. 41,80,998/- previously deposited by the petitioner.

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the NCDRC and the State Commission should be set aside in view of the settlement agreement reached between the parties during the pendency of the petition.

2. Whether the amount of Rs. 41,80,998/- deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the court's interim directions should be released in light of the settlement.

The court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

It relied on the principle that judicial orders can be set aside or modified to reflect a mutual settlement between parties, citing the Supreme Court’s direction in Bipin Bihari Sinha @ Bipin Prasad Singh v. Harish Jaiswal (SLP (C) No. 25905/2024) and the Kerala High Court judgment in Vinod and Ors. v. Prakashan and Anr. (RFA No. 837/2015).

The court observed that the parties had voluntarily entered into a comprehensive settlement agreement dated December 19, 2025, which resolved the underlying dispute in the consumer complaint.

Specifically, Paragraph 7 of the agreement stipulated that the respondents would withdraw all original proceedings and consented to the setting aside of the impugned orders.

The court verified this settlement through the appearance of the respondents via video conferencing, where they confirmed compliance with the terms and expressed no objection to the petitioner’s prayers.

By applying the precedents cited by the parties, the court determined that since the original cause of action was settled and the respondents no longer sought to enforce the impugned judgments, the orders dated July 9, 2024, and April 30, 2024, were rendered infructuous and should be set aside to give effect to the settlement.

Furthermore, the court allowed the joint application for the release of funds and directed the State Commission to release the deposited amount of Rs. 41,80,998/- to the petitioner. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.