Writ Against NCDRC Orders Need Not Go Only to Delhi: Rajasthan High Court Restores JDA's Dismissed Consumer Appeal

The respondent's consumer complaint against the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) was allowed by the Rajasthan State Commission at Jaipur on 27.09.2018, awarding Rs.46,40,400 with 9% interest, Rs.2,00,000 compensation and Rs.50,000 costs (paras 3, 6). In the JDA's appeal, the NCDRC directed a deposit of Rs.46,40,400 on 13.02.2020, which was paid and released to the respondent (para 6). The JDA's counsel did not appear despite an e-mail notice for physical hearing, and the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14.06.2022; restoration was refused on 13.04.2023 (paras 2, 6). The Supreme Court, on 18.08.2023, gave liberty to approach the High Court (paras 3, 17). The respondent objected that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction (para 4).

On the merits, the Court applied the rule, stated in Om Prakash Vijay, that a party cannot suffer for its advocate's mistake: a large sum was at stake, the JDA had complied with every NCDRC direction, and the appeal ought to have been decided on merits (para 7). On jurisdiction, the Court explained that the cause of action means the material facts a petitioner must prove, and that clause (2) of Article 226 and Section 20(c) CPC are in pari materia, so even a small fraction of the cause of action arising within its territory confers jurisdiction (paras 9-13), citing Adani Exports on integral facts (para 14). The original order was passed by the State Commission at Jaipur; once the appeal and restoration were dismissed, that order came into operation, the respondent filed a contempt petition and the State Commission issued bailable warrants for an office bearer of the JDA (para 15). Under Ibrat Faizan, NCDRC orders not appealable to the Supreme Court under Section 58(1)(a)(i) or (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 can be challenged before the concerned High Court; here that was this Court, not only the Delhi High Court (paras 16-17).