2019 (5) TMI 439 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable before the National Commission Dispute Redressal Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in an execution proceeding? HELD THAT - The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the consumer dispute - Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. They are independent proceedings initiated by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the substantive dispute. There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. In the present case, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings - The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Thus, Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. Appeal disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in an execution proceeding.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:

Factual Background:
The Respondent-Complainant applied for a flat under the Self-Financing Housing Scheme and deposited ?2,67,750 in installments. The Karnataka Housing Board (the Board) later demanded a higher cost for a different flat, leading the Respondent to seek a refund. The Board refunded ?2,63,813, deducting ?3,937. The Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint for deficiency in service, leading to multiple appeals and orders, culminating in the Supreme Court directing the Board to pay interest at 18% p.a., refund the deducted amount, and pay compensation and litigation costs.

Execution Proceedings:
The Respondent filed an Execution Application for the Supreme Court's order. The District Forum directed the Board to pay an additional ?1,07,057. The Respondent appealed, and the State Commission ordered a recalculation. The Board filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission, which was allowed, but the Delhi High Court set aside this order, holding that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition in execution proceedings.

Arguments by Appellant:
- The Appellant argued that the National Commission's revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is broad and includes all proceedings before the State Commissions.
- Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original Consumer Complaint, thus falling under the purview of Section 21(b).

Arguments by Respondent:
- The Respondent contended that a Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b) against an order in execution proceedings.
- Execution proceedings are distinct from the original consumer dispute, which was conclusively decided by the Supreme Court.

Court's Analysis:
- The right to file a Revision Petition is statutory, not inherent. Section 21(b) provides the National Commission with supervisory jurisdiction over State Commissions in consumer disputes.
- Revisional jurisdiction is narrower than appellate jurisdiction and is intended to correct jurisdictional errors by the State Commission in consumer disputes.
- Execution proceedings are independent and materially different from consumer disputes. They enforce the final order and are not a continuation of the original suit.
- Section 25 of the 1986 Act provides for enforcement of orders but does not equate enforcement orders with consumer dispute orders.
- The National Commission's jurisdiction under Section 21(b) does not extend to orders passed in execution proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the Delhi High Court's judgment, holding that the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition under Section 21(b) against an order in execution proceedings. The execution proceedings are independent and not a continuation of the consumer dispute. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →