The Delhi High Court recently held that the law does not require every bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) to include a judicial member [Navin M Raheja & Anr v Dinesh Goyal & Ors]..Justice Manoj Jain said that even when there is a defect in the constitution of an NCDRC Bench, it does not invalidate the order passed. “It is entirely upto the Hon‟ble President of National Commission to constitute a Bench and there is no requirement in law, making it obligatory for any such Bench to have one Judicial Member. Moreover, as noted above, if there is any complex question of law and if there is no unanimity between the two Members of a given Bench, matter can always be referred to the President for constitution of another Bench,” the High Court held. .It said that Section 20(1A)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says the NCDRC President can constitute a Bench with one or more members but it does not specify the description of the members of the Bench. “Members can be judicial or technical or both. Since the ratio of Judicial Members cannot exceed fifty percent, as a necessary inference, non-judicial members may, in a given scenario, outnumber judicial members,” the Court observed. .The High Court made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by real estate developer Navin Raheja challenging the orders passed by the NCDRC in a dispute over the delayed Revanta housing project in Gurugram. On August 26, 2022, the NCDRC directed refunds with 9 percent annual interest (12 percent if delayed) to some buyers, while ordering delivery of completed units within three months plus compensation for others.Raheja moved the High Court, arguing that the NCDRC’s orders were invalid because they were issued by a bench comprising only technical members..However, the Court rejected the contention and held that the Consumer Protection Act allows the NCDRC President to constitute benches “as deemed fit” without mandating a judicial member’s presence.Hence, the Court upheld the NCDRC order. .Petitioner Navin M Raheja was represented by advocates Yogendra Mishra, Manmeet Kaur, Rohan Anand and Aashna. Respondents were represented by advocates Arjun Mahajan, Sumit R Sharma, Raghuvendra N Budholia, Sagar Agarwal, Piyush Gautam, Nandan Malhotra, Harshit Kapoor, Aryan Verma and Bhavya Arora..[Read Judgment]
