The Delhi High Court's decision in M/S Cosmic Orange Infraventures Pvt. Ltd. vs L. Subramainam & Anr highlights a fundamental principle of natural justice that has far-reaching implications for appellate proceedings in consumer disputes and beyond. The case underscores the critical importance of providing adequate notice and opportunity of hearing to all parties before allowing appeals, particularly when such appeals result in the restoration of previously dismissed complaints.

The principle of audi alteram partem—the right to be heard—forms the bedrock of procedural fairness in judicial systems worldwide. This doctrine ensures that no party is condemned without being afforded an opportunity to present their case. The above decision,  underscores the non-negotiable nature of this principle, particularly in appellate proceedings. Paragraph 12 of the decision, deprecates the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) for restoring a dismissed complaint without notifying the opposing party.

Case Overview

The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by Mr. L. Subramainam and his wife before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Delhi in 2016. The complaint followed a complex journey, being initially dismissed for non-prosecution in 2019, then restored by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2022, and subsequently dismissed again on 12.07.2023, for non-prosecution when neither the complainant nor their counsel appeared before the State Commission.

Crucially, on the same date when the complaint was dismissed, the State Commission also closed the right of the opposite party (Cosmic Orange Infraventures) to file their written statement, as they had failed to comply with the earlier direction to submit it within the stipulated timeframe. This effectively closed their defence.

The Core Issue: Appeals Without Notice

The Impugned NCDRC Order

Despite a significant delay of 133 days in filing the appeal, the NCDRC, on the first date, without issuing notice, not only condoned the delay but also allowed the appeal entirely, directing the restoration of the complaint with instructions for the State Commission to adjudicate the matter on merits. This order was passed without issuing any notice to the opposite party, Cosmic Orange Infraventures.

The High Court's Analysis in Paragraph 12

The Delhi High Court, articulated the fundamental flaw in the NCDRC's approach in paragraph 12 of the judgment. The Court observed that while an appeal can be dismissed in limine, when an appeal is filed with substantial delay—in this case, 133 days—any Forum or Authority should ideally seek a response from the opposite side by issuing appropriate notice before allowing the appeal in its entirety.

The Court emphasized that "though, even after opportunity of hearing is given to opposite side, result might still be the same, such requirement of giving notice, being imperative, cannot be given go by". This statement encapsulates the principle that procedural fairness is not contingent upon the potential outcome but is an inherent requirement of natural justice.

Legal Precedents and the Supreme Court's Guidance

The High Court's decision draws strength from established Supreme Court precedents, particularly Hanumant Singh v. Kiran Kumari (2012) 1 SCC 225 and Shivaji v. Parwatibai 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3542. Both address similar concerns about High Courts deciding appeals without providing adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Shivaji v. Parwatibai Precedent

In Shivaji v. Parwatibai, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of High Courts deciding appeals without giving parties an opportunity to be heard. This precedent reinforces the principle that appellate forums cannot bypass fundamental procedural safeguards, even when exercising their discretionary powers to condone delays or restore dismissed proceedings.

The Supreme Court in Shivaji emphasized that the right to be heard is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive component of the right to fair adjudication. This principle applies with equal force to consumer forums, which, despite their quasi-judicial nature, must adhere to the same standards of natural justice as traditional courts.

The Prejudice Analysis

Manifest Prejudice to the Opposite Party

The High Court identified several layers of prejudice suffered by Cosmic Orange Infraventures. First, the company was denied the opportunity to present its case regarding why the appeal should not be allowed, particularly given the substantial delay in filing. Second, the restoration of the complaint meant that the company would have to defend a case where its right to file a written statement had already been closed by the State Commission.

The Court noted that since the complaint was dismissed when the opposite party was duly represented on July 12, 2023, any subsequent order affecting their interests should have been passed only after providing them with an opportunity of hearing. This observation highlights how procedural fairness requires consideration of the entire timeline of proceedings, not just the immediate circumstances.

The Cross-Appeal Consideration

The High Court also recognized that had proper notice been given, the opposite party could have filed a cross-appeal or objection regarding the closure of their right to file a written statement. This aspect demonstrates how denial of notice can have cascading effects, potentially depriving parties of multiple avenues of legal recourse.

Implications for Consumer Cases

Balancing Efficiency with Fairness

Consumer forums are designed to provide quick and accessible justice, but this case illustrates that efficiency cannot come at the cost of fundamental fairness. The NCDRC's approach of allowing the appeal without notice may have been motivated by a desire to expedite proceedings, but it ultimately resulted in a violation of natural justice that required High Court intervention.

The requirement of Issuing Notice 

The judgment establishes that notice requirements in appellate proceedings are "imperative" and cannot be dispensed with, regardless of the potential outcome. This principle applies not only to consumer forums but to all quasi-judicial and judicial bodies exercising appellate jurisdiction.

The Remedy and Future Course

The High Court set aside the NCDRC's order dated January 29, 2024, and directed that the appeal be restored to its original position, with both parties to appear before the NCDRC on May 30, 2025. Importantly, the Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal, leaving the NCDRC free to dispose of the matter in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to both parties.

Conclusion

The Cosmic Orange case serves as a crucial reminder that procedural fairness is not negotiable, even in specialized forums designed for expeditious dispute resolution. The principle that no person should be condemned unheard extends beyond criminal law to all adjudicatory processes, including consumer dispute resolution.

The case, reinforced by the Supreme Court's guidance in Shivaji v. Parwatibai, establishes clear parameters for appellate forums: while they possess discretionary powers to condone delays and restore dismissed proceedings, such powers must be exercised with due regard to the rights of all parties involved. The requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing is not a mere procedural technicality but a fundamental safeguard that ensures the integrity of the adjudicatory process.

For practitioners and consumer forums alike, this decision underscores the importance of adhering to established principles of natural justice, even when dealing with seemingly straightforward procedural matters. The cost of bypassing these safeguards, as demonstrated in this case, is often greater than the time saved, ultimately requiring higher judicial intervention and prolonging the very proceedings that the shortcuts were meant to expedite.