9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1155 - SC - Indian LawsMonetary amount involved in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - claim is below the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC or not - NCDRC by its order dated 30 July 2020 dismissed the consumer case on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act of 2019, its pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced from rupees one crore to rupees ten crores - in the present case, the claim of ₹ 2.19 crores is made - right to a forum - accrued right or not - HELD THAT - While Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act protects the pending legal proceedings for the enforcement of an accrued right from the effect of a repeal, this does not mean that the legal proceedings at a particular forum are saved from the effects from the repeal. The question whether the pending legal proceedings are required to be transferred to the newly created forum by virtue of the repeal would still persist - In considering the expression of intent in the repealing enactment in the present case, it is apparent that there is no express language indicating that all pending cases would stand transferred to the fora created by the Act of 2019 by applying its newly prescribed pecuniary limits. In deducing whether there is a contrary intent, the legislative scheme and procedural history may provide a relevant insight into the intention of the legislature. A consumer who has engaged legal counsel at the headquarters of the NCDRC would have to undertake a fresh round of legal representation before the SCDRC incurring expense and engendering uncertainty in obtaining access to justice. Likewise, where complaints have been instituted before the SCDRC, a transfer of proceedings would require consumers to obtain legal representation before the District Commission if cases were to be transferred. Such a course of action would have a detrimental impact on the rights of consumers. Many consumers may not have the wherewithal or the resources to undertake a fresh burden of finding legal counsel to represent them in the new forum to which their cases would stand transferred - It is a developer who opposed the continuation of the proceedings before the NCDRC on the ground that under the new consumer legislation the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction exercisable by the NCDRC have been enhanced and the complaint filed by the Appellant which was validly instituted under the erstwhile law should be transferred to the SCDRC. Such a course of action will result in thousands of cases being transferred across the country, from the NCDRC to the SCDRCs and from the SCDRCs to the District Commission. The proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019 - the impugned judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 30 July 2020 and the review order dated 5 October 2020, directing a previously instituted consumer case under the Act of 1986 to be filed before the appropriate forum in terms of the pecuniary limits set under the Act of 2019, shall stand set aside. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a complaint filed and registered under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 should be entertained under the provisions of the erstwhile legislation after the new Act of 2019 came into force. 2. The interpretation of Section 107 of the Act of 2019 and its interplay with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897. 3. The impact of changes in pecuniary jurisdiction on pending proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The Consumer Protection Act 2019 was published on 9 August 2019. The material provisions came into force on 20 July 2020. The appellants filed a consumer case before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on 18 June 2020 under the 1986 Act. However, the NCDRC dismissed the case on 30 July 2020, citing the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction under the 2019 Act. The appellants' review petition was also dismissed. 2. Submissions: Appellants' Submissions: - Section 107(3) of the 2019 Act incorporates Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, ensuring pending proceedings continue under the old Act. - The new Act affects substantive rights and must be prospective. - No provision in the 2019 Act for retrospective operation or transferring pending cases. Respondent's Submissions: - The 2019 Act aims to strengthen consumer remedies and expedite case disposal. - The change in forum is procedural, not substantive, and applies retrospectively. - The right of appeal is substantive, but a change in forum is procedural. 3. Position of Law on Change of Forum: Precedents: - Venugopala Reddiar (1943): A right to continue a suit is substantive and cannot be taken away without clear legislative intent. - Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954): Differentiated between substantive rights of appeal and procedural changes in the forum. - Garikapati (1957): Right of appeal is substantive and vested from the institution of the suit. - New India Assurance (1975): Change of forum is procedural and generally operates retrospectively. - Maria Cristina (1978): Right of appeal is substantive, but the forum is procedural. - Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994): Procedural laws are retrospective unless specified otherwise. - Dhadi Sahu (1992): Change of forum affects substantive rights, a deviation from earlier precedents. - Ambalal Sarabhai (2001): Pending proceedings are saved if they involve accrued rights. Conclusion: A change in forum is procedural and generally retrospective unless a contrary intention is evident. The decision in Dhadi Sahu deviated by treating the forum as a vested right, but subsequent judgments reaffirmed the procedural nature of forum changes. 4. Legislative Scheme of the Jurisdictional Provisions: The 2019 Act increased the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer fora: - District Commission: Up to ?1 crore. - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC): ?1 crore to ?10 crores. - NCDRC: Above ?10 crores. The 2019 Act also introduced pre-deposit requirements for appeals and specified that appeals to the NCDRC must involve substantial questions of law. 5. Legislative Intendment Underlying Section 107 of the Act of 2019: Section 107(1) repeals the 1986 Act. Section 107(2) saves actions done under the repealed Act if not inconsistent with the new Act. Section 107(3) preserves the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, ensuring that pending proceedings continue unaffected by the repeal. The Act of 2019 does not explicitly mandate the transfer of pending cases according to new pecuniary limits, indicating an intent to protect consumer interests by avoiding procedural disruptions. 6. Summation: The Supreme Court concluded that: - Proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the 1986 Act will continue before the corresponding fora under the 1986 Act. - The impugned judgment of the NCDRC is set aside, and the NCDRC will continue hearing the appellants' consumer case. - The respondent will bear the appellants' costs of ?2 lakhs. The appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.
|
