SC condemns NCDRC’s apply of “purpose to obey”
The Apex Court criticized the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’s “reason to obey” practices.
The bank directed the Commission to deliver reasoned judgments along with operational orders so that the parties to the dispute are clear about the judgment.
“Reasons to Follow” include orders where the Commission has not yet provided the reasons for the order. The court found that the parties to the dispute must be given reasons within two months of the decision in order to safeguard their interests.
The Apex Court made this comment after hearing a petition on a case at hand where the operational order was passed in 2019 and the reasoned judgment was pronounced eight months later.
The bank believed that such orders defeated the injured party to challenge the judgment under appeal and the subsequent party to reap the fruits of the litigation. The rights of both parties are affected by such orders.
If the reasons for an order are delayed, it becomes difficult for the person concerned to seek any other remedy and for the subsequent party, as they cannot enforce the fruits of the judgment.
The bank also referred to a recent case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Order issued against Zaixhu Xie & Ors. which found that such a practice violates the rights of the parties under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
This also exacerbates the problems as well-founded judgments are sometimes made too late or postponed indefinitely.
Based on a report submitted by the NCDRC Chancellor, the court found that as of December 2019, nearly 90 operational orders had been issued pending a reasoned judgment.