[2025:RJ-JP:12701] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2603/2025 Ankit Jangid S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Jangid, Aged About 27 Years, R/o K-16-17, Ganesh Nagar-5, Moti Bandha, Machda, Jaipur, (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner/ Complainant Versus ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Address 1003-1008, 10Th Floor, Signature Tower, DC-2, Lal Kothi Scheme, District Shopping Centre, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni, Mr. Mahendra Singh Solanki For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 20/03/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner-complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of necessary direction to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, deciding the complaint No.523/2020 titled ‘Ankit Jangid Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited’ expeditiously and within a timeline, preferably within three months. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, delivered in case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Suresh Chand Jain and Anr.[(2024) 9 SCC 148], to urge that the High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the judgments of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) as also over the functionaries of the District and State Commission. [2025:RJ-JP:12701] (2 of 3) [CW-2603/2025] 4. Having perused the judgment and taking into consideration the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no quarrel about having supervisory jurisdiction by High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over the judgment/ order passed by the NCDRC, which has been clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited (supra). 5. This Court finds that, as far as exercising supervisory jurisdiction against the functioning or order of the District Consumer Forum is concerned by virtue of Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “Act, 2019”), jurisdiction has been entrusted to the State Commission. For ready reference, Section 47(1)(b), reads as under:- “(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction- (a)……... (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.” Similarly against functioning of State Commission, supervisory jurisdiction has been entrusted to the NCDRC under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Act, 2019. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner has alternative remedy to ventilate his grievances before the State Commission under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act, 2019 and in that view, since appropriate and statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court [2025:RJ-JP:12701] (3 of 3) [CW-2603/2025] is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the present writ petition at this stage. 7. With aforesaid observation, instant writ petition stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/27