The Delhi High Court has ruled that NCDRC benches need not always include a judicial member. The judgment clarifies bench composition under the Consumer Protection Act, ensuring consumer disputes can be resolved without procedural delays.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has recently delivered an important ruling clarifying the composition of benches at the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Justice Manoj Jain, in a detailed 17-page judgment, held that the law does not mandate the inclusion of a judicial member in every two-member bench of the NCDRC.
The Case
The ruling came while hearing a plea filed by Navin M. Raheja and another petitioner challenging two NCDRC orders. The first order, dated 26 August 2022, directed Raheja Developers to either refund the homebuyers’ money with interest or hand over possession of units with compensation for delay. The second order, passed on 3 February 2025, rejected the company’s argument of protection under insolvency moratorium and directed its directors to personally disclose how they intended to satisfy the decree.
The petitioners argued that the NCDRC bench deciding these cases was invalid as it comprised only technical members and no judicial members.
ALSO READ: From High Courts to Apex Court: Supreme Court Judges’ Parent High Courts Explained
Court’s Key Observations
Justice Jain, while dismissing the plea, made the following clarifications:
- Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act: No act or proceeding of the District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission can be declared invalid merely due to a vacancy or a defect in the constitution of the bench.
- Bench Formation Discretion: Under Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the President of the NCDRC has the discretion to constitute benches with “one or more members as the President may deem fit.” The law does not specify that such benches must necessarily include judicial members.
- Role of Regulation 12 (2005 Regulations): If a bench without a judicial member encounters a complex legal issue with no precedent, the matter must be referred to the President. Being a judicial member, the President can then reconstitute the bench to address the issue. This safeguard makes it clear that non-judicial benches are legally valid.
- Balance of Judicial and Technical Members: Since judicial members cannot exceed fifty percent of the NCDRC’s total strength, non-judicial members may sometimes outnumber judicial members.
- 2019 Consumer Protection Act: The Court also noted that the position remains the same under the amended Act, as its provisions are almost identical to the 1986 law.
The Delhi High Court concluded that:
- There is no statutory mandate requiring every NCDRC bench to include a judicial member.
- Bench composition is entirely within the President’s discretion.
- If legal complexity arises or members differ in opinion, the matter can be referred to the President for appropriate reconstitution.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of the NCDRC’s orders against Raheja Developers.
Case Title:
Navin M. Raheja & Anr. v. Dinesh Goyal & Ors.
CM(M) 381/2025 & CM APPL. 11218/2025 & CM APPL. 11219/2025
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on NCDRC
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
