Background of the Case
The Parliament enacted the new Consumer Protection Act 2019, which was published in the Gazette of India on 9 August 2019. The material provisions of the Act of 2019 were notified to come into force on 20 July 2020. Several other provisions were brought into force, with effect from 24 July 2020. The appellants instituted a consumer case before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 18 June 2020. The consumer case was instituted under the provisions of the erstwhile legislation, the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The 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. The appellants’ review petition was also dismissed by the NCDRC on 5 October 2020. In the present case, the claim of Rs. 2.19 crores are below the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC is under the issue. The issue came up in Neena Aneja v. Jai Prakash Associates judgment passed on March 16 2021 Supreme Court
A. Resolving the issue of Jurisdiction
The court held that it is accepted, that in defining the jurisdiction of the District Commission, Section 34 of the Act of 2019 entrusts the jurisdiction to “entertain” complaints. A similar provision is contained in Section 47 and Section 58 in regard to the SCDRC and NCDRC.
The expression “entertain” has been considered in a two-judge Bench decision of this Court in Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (“Hindusthan Commercial Bank”; (1971) 3 SCC 124), in the context of the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. The Court has accepted that the expression “entertain” means to adjudicate upon or proceed to consider on merits. In Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties (2020) 6 SCC 557) while considering the provisions of Section 9A of the CPC as inserted by a Maharashtra Amendment, a two-judge Bench followed the exposition in Hindusthan Commercial Bank(supra). Undoubtedly, the expression “entertain” has been construed in the context of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended in Maharashtra, by a three-judge Bench of this Court in Nusli Wadia(supra) to mean “to adjudicate upon or to proceed to consider on merits”.
Sections 34, 47 and 58 similarly indicate that the respective consumer fora can entertain complaints within the pecuniary limits of their jurisdiction. These provisions will undoubtedly apply to complaints that were instituted after the Act of 2019 came into force. However, the mere use of the word “entertain” in defining jurisdiction is not sufficient to counteract the overwhelming legislative intention to ensure consumer welfare and deliberately not provide for a provision for transfer of pending proceedings in the Act of 2019 or under Section 106 of the Act of 2019 which is a power to remove difficulties for a period of two years after the commencement of the Act of 2019.
B. Cut off Date
For the above reasons, the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that 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. While allowing the appeals, we issue the following directions:
All proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the Act of 1986 shall continue to be heard by the fora corresponding to those designated under the Act of 1986 as explained above and not be transferred in terms of the new pecuniary limits established under the Act of 2019; and
Conclusion
Unless specifically provided in a new Act repealing the old Act, all the pending proceedings will continue to be held at old fora as per the provisions of the old Act. A litigant has a crystallized right to a forum once proceedings have been initiated. A litigant’s vested right (including the right to an appeal) prior to the amendment or repeal is undoubtedly saved, in addition to substantive rights envisaged under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. This protection does not extend to pure matters of procedure. Repeals or amendments that affect changes in the forum would ordinarily affect pending proceedings unless a contrary intention appears from the repealing or amending statute.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
About the author
