Can the case be transferred after the enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction

Case title:

Narendra Chopra vs. Jaiprakash Associates

Date of Order:

13th March, 2023

Bench:

Sm Kanti Kar Dinesh Singh

Parties:

Petitioner:Narendra Chopra

Defendant: Jaiprakash Associates

Facts:

• Narinder Chopra filed a consumer complaint on November 7, 2017, and it was acknowledged on November 20, 2017. Completed pleading, evidence gathering, and argumentation are now steps in the process.
• On 20.7.2020, Act 2019 went into effect, eliminating the previous Consumer Protection Act 1986.
• Builder submits an interlocutory application (IA 5410 of 2020) to transfer the current complaint (3258 of 2017) to the proper commission. Application was denied on September 14, 2020, with the grounds that the Act of 2019 took effect prospectively rather than retroactively and that case transfer was not permitted.
• Builder files a writ challenging NCDRC's dismissal decision.
• The High Court of Delhi reversed the NCDR's order from September 14, 2020 and instructed the commission to make its own determination of the matter without regard to the administrative order from July 20, 2020.
• On December 22, 2020, NCDRS was instructed to present the case to the Hon. President in order to receive the appropriate guidance because the commission had not provided a basis for dismissing the interlocutory application. President J R K Agrawal resigns from the bench on 15.1.2021 and orders that the case be brought before the bench on 2.7.2020. 
• Two further applications that were pending before this court against the builder for rejecting his application for transfer of case are now combined with this one.

Issues raised:

• Whether to transfer open cases to the competent commission following the strengthening of pecuniary jurisdiction?

Arguments:

• The tribunals are qualified to hear cases in which the validity of statutory provisions is disputed, but they are unable to fulfil this role in place of the High Courts and Supreme Court, which have been expressly designated by our constitutional setup as being responsible for it.
• It further said that "the tribunal shall not examine any challenge questioning the validity of their parent statute, in accordance with the established principle that a tribunal created by an act cannot find that act to be unconstitutional." Additionally, it was explained in the case of HD FC BANK v. ANURAG GUPTA SLP.
• No court may inquire into the legality of a court's composition or constitution, and no one may inquire into the presidents' decisions regarding such matters. The Commission ruled that the court may not and should not inquire into whether or not a court is ineligible to exist under the law or has been improperly constituted "The parent statute's act may be examined by the tribunal. No Bench may specifically review the legality of rules relating to the makeup of this Commission or the appointment of its Benches by the Honorable President of the Commission "The Bench looked.
• When a bench is constituted by the president of the state commission or national commission as provided under sub section (2) of section 47 and sub section 2 of section 48 as the case may be, does not have a member with judicial background and any question of law arises and there is no precedent to decide on the point, then the bench constituted may refer the matter to the president to constitute another bench in which president should be the member. 
• The Bench noted that whether or not it deems it suitable and necessary to send an issue to the President under Rules 12 is at the discretion of the Bench.
• Another issue that the Supreme Court must decide is whether the new Act of 2019 contains a provision for the transfer of outstanding cases. In response to this enquiry, the court determined that any directive for the transfer of ongoing cases would require upsetting thousands of cases that are currently pending before NCDRCs and SCDRCs around the nation. According to records, 1,25,156 cases were pending before the SCDRC as of October 31, 2019, and 21,216 cases were pending before the NCDRC. This would waste the time already invested in the legal system and put consumers through great pain and prejudice. To do this, it would be necessary to use precise language that shows either an express intention or an intent by necessary inference. Such a statement is not made in the Act of 2019.
• According to the transitional clauses found in Sections 31, 45, and 56, the adjudicatory staff who served as Members of the District Commission, SCDRC, and NCDRC under the previous law shall continue to occupy their positions under the new law. Those appointed to the customer fora under the Act of 1986 would have otherwise resigned their positions upon the law's repeal, necessitating the need for such measures. Since section 107 clearly states that the current arrangement is to be maintained as long as it is not in conflict with the new act, a similar intent can be assumed for the transfer of cases as well.
• Prior NCDRC rulings that prospectively interpreted legislation that strengthened pecuniary jurisdiction. The NCDRC relied on its earlier ruling in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Dr. Manoj Ramachandran, where it determined that the amendments boosting the pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective in nature, to interpret Act 62 of 2002, which amended the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction, as prospective in Southfield Paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
• It is made clear that ongoing proceedings will not be impacted in any way by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act of 1897.
• According to this computation, the total amount to be taken into account is Rs. Rs. 9731017, and the entitled party is the District Commission. Because they will lose their valuable legal right to appeal or request a revision as provided by the act, consumers will suffer severe harm.

Analysis:

• The facts of the case and the detailed judgement analysis is given above. In this present case, the new Act of 2019 has no provision for the transfer of open cases.
• According to the transitional clauses found in Sections 31, 45, and 56, the adjudicatory staff who served as Members of the District Commission, SCDRC, and NCDRC under the previous law shall continue to occupy their positions under the new law.
• Prior NCDRC rulings that had prospective effect interpreted the 2002 changes that strengthened pecuniary jurisdiction. Referring to the cases of Premier Vehicles Ltd. v. Dr. Manoj Ramachandran and Southfield Paints and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., the NCDRC determined that the modifications strengthening the pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective in nature.

Conclusion:

In the present case it is concluded by the court that the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction is "abeling as well disabeling" because the new statute also changes the criteria used to determine pecuniary jurisdiction. In an earlier statute, criteria were to be computed based on cost paid plus compensation, however in the current act, only the cost paid is to be taken into account.