Can Consumer Commission Take Additional Evidence At The Stage Of Appeal And Revision, NCDRC Refers Matter To 5-Judge Bench [Read Order]

Can parties before the Consumer Commission be allowed to adduce additional documents/ evidence at the stage of hearing appeal or revision petition?

The issue has come up before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission where a two-member bench referred it to a three-member bench which in turn has now referred it to a five-member bench.

The Commission is hearing a batch of revision petitions moved by insurance companies through advocates Rajat Khattry and Siddarth Iyer against the order of the Chhattisgarh State Commission relating to insurance claim . The companies filed certain documents which were not part of the record before the forums below.

The question whether additional documents can be allowed to be presented before the Consumer Commission at the stage of revision was first considered by a two-judge bench of President R K Agarwal and Member M Shreesha which held that, "From the perusal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as also the Consumer Protection Rules 1987, we find that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has not been made applicable in the proceedings under the Act. This question is of great importance as a large number of cases are pending before the District Consumer Forum, the State Commission as also before this Commission, where any of the parties may seek to bring additional documents on record which were not part of the record.

"We, therefore, deem it appropriate to refer this issue to the larger Bench of three Members to decide the question as to whether in Complaint Cases, Appeal Cases or the Revision Cases, the District Forum, the State Commission and/or the National Commission can exercise the powers of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the principles applicable and permit the parties to adduce/bring on record the additional documents or not," it said while referring the question to a three-judge bench.

3-judge bench refers to 5-judge bench

The matter was heard by a bench of President Justice R K Agarwal and members V K Jain and Anup K Thakur.

The three-judge bench referred to Khivraj Motors Vs V Chandrababu & Anr decided by a four-member bench wherein it was held, "we do not think State Commission was right in holding that additional evidence cannot be led in the State Commission in appeal. It is not desirable to take a technical view in order to deprive a party of his right. Procedure merely gives guidance as to how justice is to be rendered but the procedure which comes in the way of rendering justice is to be given a go-by. Salutary guidance which the Consumer Protection Act provides is that principles of natural justice should be complied…If interest of justice requires that a party be permitted to file some additional evidence of which it was deprived of earlier and there is sufficient cause in favour of the party for not having brought the evidence earlier. Consumer Forum should not stand on any formality and disallow the prayer. Of course, each case will depend on the facts of that case. We, however, wish to say that there is absolutely no bar in the provision of the Act that any additional evidence cannot be brought on record before the State Commission while hearing appeal".

"We deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice that these matters be heard by a five member bench," it ordered.

The matter will now be taken uo by a five-judge bench late this month. 

Click here to download the Order