On May 26, 2025, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) ruled that revision petitions are not maintainable against orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) in its revisional jurisdiction. The NCDRC emphasized that the only remedy available to a party aggrieved by such an order is by way of an appeal. This decision aligns with the NCDRC’s earlier judgment in Vivo Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mavuram Sujatha & Ors., decided in January 2025.

In the case at hand, the petitioners had filed a revision petition after the SCD … upheld the District Commission’s order … They also questioned the NCDRC’s earlier decision and sought to have the matter referred to a larger bench. The NCDRC bench, led by Justice A.P. Sahi and member Bharatkumar Pandya, dismissed the revision petition, reiterating that a second revision petition before … when the State Commission has already

The NCDRC clarified that the legislature did not provide … Revising the SCDRC’s revisional order would effectively mean a second layer of revision … , which is legally impermissible .

This ruling reinforces the principle that the NCDRC’s revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be invoked to challenge orders passed by the SCDRC in its revisional jurisdiction. Parties aggrieved by such orders must seek remedy through an appeal, not a revision petition.

Sources