Summary
The Supreme Court held that consumer complaints instituted before the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 commenced on 20 July 2020 must continue before the corresponding forums where they were filed, despite the new pecuniary limits. Although forum ordinarily concerns procedure and is not a vested right, the new Act’s scheme, legislative history and consumer protection purpose disclosed an intention against transferring existing cases. The Court restored the appellants’ complaint to the NCDRC and awarded costs of Rs 2 lakh against the developer.
Issues
- Whether the 2019 Act’s enhanced pecuniary limits required transfer or dismissal of consumer complaints instituted under the 1986 Act.
- Whether statutory savings preserved a particular forum, and whether the new legislation disclosed a contrary intention to the ordinary rule governing procedural changes.
Provisions considered
- Section 107, Consumer Protection Act, 2019The repeal and savings provision, read with the statutory scheme and General Clauses Act, preserved pending complaints for adjudication before their existing corresponding forums. (¶ 62-70)
- Section 6(c) and (e), General Clauses Act, 1897Accrued rights and proceedings enforcing them survive repeal, subject to contrary intent; this does not by itself create a vested right to a particular forum. (¶¶ 53-54, 63-65)
- Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 1986The complaint was properly instituted within the National Commission’s jurisdiction under the legislation then governing it. (¶¶ 6, 71-73)
Held
- A right of appeal differs from the forum in which proceedings are pursued. A change of forum ordinarily operates retrospectively, including for pending proceedings, unless a contrary legislative intention appears. Section 6 protects accrued rights and their enforcement, but does not automatically freeze the forum. (¶¶ 53-54, 63-64)
- The 2019 Act contained no express transfer mandate. Its consumer protection purpose, the hardship and delay of moving large numbers of pending cases, the history of earlier pecuniary amendments and the transitional scheme indicated that pending complaints should remain at their existing corresponding level of forum. (¶ 65-69)
- Use of the expression entertain did not displace that legislative intention. Complaints instituted before 20 July 2020 were to continue before their original forums rather than move according to the new pecuniary limits. (¶ 70-71)
- The National Commission’s dismissal and review orders were set aside and the complaint restored for hearing. The developer was directed to pay Rs 2 lakh costs within four weeks; the merits of the consumer claim were not decided. (¶ 72-73)
Result
Appeal allowed; NCDRC orders set aside and complaint restored, with Rs 2 lakh costs payable by the respondent within four weeks.