The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, has directed that a long-pending revision petition be placed before its President for reassignment to another Bench after a Member recused from the matter following an allegation of bias made during the dictation of the order.

The proceedings arose out of a protracted consumer dispute between Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and Bharat Hi Tech Cements Pvt. Ltd., which has seen multiple rounds of litigation before the District Forum, the West Bengal State Consumer Commission, the NCDRC, and the Calcutta High Court. The revision petition before the NCDRC challenged a 2021 order of the State Commission passed in appeal, on the basis of which the District Forum subsequently allowed the complaint in January 2024 and awarded damages, compensation, and costs against DVC.

During the hearing of the revision petition, senior counsel for DVC argued that the State Commission’s order dated 23 September 2021 was rendered by a Single Member and was therefore non-est in law, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Kamal Travels Kokks International, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3718. It was contended that all consequential proceedings, including the District Forum’s order and execution proceedings, stood vitiated. The complainant opposed the plea, asserting that the order was valid under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and emphasised that related issues were already under consideration before the Calcutta High Court.

While the Commission indicated that, in view of the parallel proceedings pending before the Calcutta High Court, it was inclined to defer passing any substantive order in the revision petition, the hearing took an unexpected turn at the stage of dictation. After the substantive part of the order had been dictated, senior counsel for the petitioner allegedly repeatedly interrupted the dictation and went on to allege bias against Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, one of members of the Bench.

Recording that the allegation was wholly unwarranted and contemptuous, Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta chose to recuse from the matter. In light of the recusal, the Commission refrained from making any further observations on merits and directed the Registry to place the case before the President of the NCDRC for appropriate orders regarding assignment of the matter to another Bench.

Appearances: 

For the Petitioner: Mr Sukumarpatt Joshi, Sr Advocate;  Liz Thachet, Nishi Kashyap and Rainaanad, Advocates

For the Respondent: Jagdeep Sharma, Sr Adv; Rana Biswas, Ankit Agarwal, Kartik Chettiar and Yash Tripathi, Advocates