Summary
In an appeal against a consumer award, ECGC sought application of the 1986 Act’s capped pre-deposit rather than the 2019 Act’s fifty-per-cent requirement. The complaint predated the 2019 Act. The Court allowed the interlocutory application, holding that the more onerous new condition did not govern appeals arising from such complaints. The insurance liability and award were not adjudicated by this order.
Issues
- Whether the 2019 Act’s increased appellate pre-deposit applies to a complaint instituted before that Act commenced.
Provisions considered
- Section 23, second proviso, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The earlier deposit condition protected the appeal arising from the pre-2019 complaint. (¶¶ 4-5, 34)
- Sections 67 and 107, Consumer Protection Act, 2019The new fifty-per-cent deposit condition did not retrospectively burden the vested appeal right; the repeal provisions preserved the general savings rule. (¶¶ 4, 6-7, 34)
- Section 6, General Clauses Act, 1897The savings of accrued rights and related proceedings supported preservation of the earlier appeal conditions. (¶¶ 6-7, 9-10, 34)
Held
- The right of appeal is substantive and accrues when the underlying proceedings begin. Imposing a more onerous condition impairs that right and requires express retrospective language or necessary intendment. Binding Constitution Bench precedents governed the issue. (¶¶ 9-15, 34)
- The earlier requirement was fifty per cent of the award or Rs.50,000, whichever was less. The uncapped fifty-per-cent requirement under the 2019 Act did not apply to complaints filed before its commencement. The appellant had deposited Rs.50,000 under the earlier provision. (¶¶ 4-5, 34)
- Authorities concerning original statutory deposit conditions, discretionary waiver, more liberal procedural provisions, forum changes or deposit as a stay condition did not resolve this distinct issue of retrospective impairment. Beneficial interpretation could not displace the governing substantive-right principles. (¶ 16-33)
- Only the interlocutory application concerning the applicable appeal regime was allowed. The order did not decide the insurance appeal on merits. (¶¶ 1, 3, 34)
Result
Interlocutory application allowed. The 2019 Act’s more onerous fifty-per-cent pre-deposit condition does not apply to complaints filed before its commencement; the underlying appeal remains for determination.