Supreme Court Allows Third Member to Decide Consumer Appeal on Merits Despite Procedural Irregularity in Reference

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Askari Hussain and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar and Ors.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 929

• Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu

• Date of Judgment: August 24, 2026

• Area of Law: Consumer Protection Act, Reference Procedure, Jurisdiction, Procedural Law

The Judgment in One Line

Supreme Court sets aside High Court order quashing NCDRC reference decision, holding third member's approach was justified due to flawed reference framing.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment clarifies the scope of reference proceedings under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It establishes that when the referring Bench fails to properly frame points of difference and instead refers broad questions requiring factual analysis, the third member may, in exceptional circumstances, decide the appeal on merits rather than merely returning answers. The ruling balances the procedural mandate with practical realities, acknowledging that strict compliance is not always possible when the reference itself is defectively framed.

Background

A consumer complaint was allowed by the State Commission awarding Rs. 95 lakh compensation with 15% interest. On appeal, the two-member Bench of the NCDRC differed: one member allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint, while the other modified the compensation. A reference was made under Section 58(3) of the CP Act to a third member.

The referring Bench did not state the "point or points

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.