2022 (2) TMI 1219 - SC - Indian Laws

Onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded - transfer of cases already instituted before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - whether the present appeal would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or under the erstwhile 1986 Act? - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 67 of the 2019 Act, no appeal against the order of National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person has deposited fifty per cent of the amount required to be paid. Whereas, under the 1986 Act, by virtue of a proviso inserted vide Central Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the condition was that no appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person who is required to pay the amount deposits fifty per cent of the amount or fifty thousand, whichever is less. This Court held that serious hardship would be caused to the consumers if the cases already instituted before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were required to be transferred to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Thereafter, the proceedings instituted before the commencement of 2019 Act would continue before the fora corresponding to the provisions under the 1986 Act. The change of forum and period of limitation have been held to be procedural law even in the judgments reported in VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. VERSUS SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 2015 (2) TMI 735 - SUPREME COURT and MARIA CRISTINA DE SOUZA SODDER VERSUS MARIA ZURANA PEREIRA PINTO 1978 (8) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT . The onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019.
2. Retrospective application of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
3. Conditions for filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019.
4. Impact of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019:
The primary issue was whether the present appeal should be governed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appeal was initially filed under Section 23 of the 1986 Act, which required a deposit of fifty thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount, whichever is less. In contrast, the 2019 Act mandates a deposit of fifty percent of the amount awarded. The appellant argued that the 1986 Act should apply as the lis (dispute) commenced before the enforcement of the 2019 Act.

2. Retrospective Application of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
The appellant contended that the 2019 Act should not apply retrospectively to appeals filed before its commencement. The General Clauses Act, 1897, particularly Section 6, was cited to support the argument that the repeal of an enactment does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactment. The court examined precedents, including Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which established that a right of appeal is a substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure.

3. Conditions for Filing an Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019:
The appellant argued that the condition of depositing fifty percent of the amount under the 2019 Act is more onerous than the requirement under the 1986 Act. The court referred to various judgments, including Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors., which held that the right of appeal is vested at the time of the initiation of the proceedings and cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment unless explicitly stated. The court concluded that the more onerous condition of the 2019 Act should not apply to appeals filed under the 1986 Act.

4. Impact of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on the Repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was pivotal in determining the impact of the repeal of the 1986 Act. The court noted that unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactment. The court found that the right to file an appeal under the 1986 Act had accrued in favor of the appellant and that no different intention was discernible from the repealing Act.

Conclusion:
The court held that the onerous condition of payment of fifty percent of the amount awarded under the 2019 Act would not be applicable to complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. The appeal was allowed to proceed under the provisions of the 1986 Act, and the application (IA No. 99210 of 2021) was allowed.