Summary
A revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 did not lie before the National Commission against the State Commission’s appellate order in execution proceedings. The consumer dispute had already been finally adjudicated; enforcement was a separate proceeding, not a renewed adjudication of that dispute. The National Commission therefore lacked jurisdiction to revise the execution order or modify the final decree. The High Court’s decision setting aside its orders was affirmed.
Issues
- Whether Section 21(b) authorised revision of a State Commission order in an execution appeal.
- Whether execution continued the substantive consumer dispute for that jurisdictional purpose.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(b), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Revisional jurisdiction over a pending or decided consumer dispute did not extend to the separate execution order in issue. (¶¶ 6.1–7.9, 9)
- Section 25(3), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Provided an enforcement mechanism for amounts due under orders; an enforcement order did not become an order adjudicating the already-decided consumer dispute. (¶ 7.1–7.3)
Held
- Appeal and revision are statutory remedies, not inherent rights. Revisional authority is limited by the conferring provision and cannot be equated with a full rehearing on facts and law. (¶ 6.1–6.5)
- Execution enforces a decree after substantive rights are determined. It is separate and independent, and the underlying merits cannot be reconsidered there; it was not a continuation of the consumer dispute within Section 21(b). (¶ 7.1–7.8)
- Entertaining the Board’s revision was a jurisdictional error. The National Commission also impermissibly modified the Supreme Court decree and duplicated interest on an amount already included in the principal. (¶ 7.9–8)
Result
Appeal disposed of by affirming the Delhi High Court judgment setting aside the National Commission’s orders. Revision against the State Commission’s execution-appeal order held not maintainable under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act.