- The Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), in the case of ECGC Limited v Mokul Shriram EPC JV, has held that the onerous condition to deposit an amount equal to 50% of the award shall not be applicable if the complaint was filed before the commencement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘New Act’ or ‘the 2019 Act’).
- In complaint in the present case was before the New Act came into force. However, the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) allowed the complaint only after the commencement of the new Act.
- The Court also decided on the retrospective application of the 2019 Act (discussed later).
- The question for the adjudication before the SC was whether the appeal would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Old Act) or under the New Act since both the Acts prescribe different pecuniary conditions to file an appeal before the SC.
- The Appellant submitted that the condition prescribed under Section 51 of the New Act with regard to deposit of award for an appeal to be filed before the SC is more onerous than the condition provided under the Old Act and demanding a sum equal to 50% or more from the Appellant would be in violation of the principle that the law which is applicable at the time of initiation of lis would be applicable.
- Further, the appellant also submitted that Sec 107 of the New Act and Sec 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (General Clauses Act) unequivocally operate against retrospective application and this legal position has not been changed under the New Act. Section 106 of the New Act protects actions taken under the Old Act insofar as they are not inconsistent with the New Act. Unless a different intention appears, repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability under any enactment so repealed.
- To support its arguments, decisions in case of Nagendra Nath Bose v Mon Mohan Singha Roy & Ors, Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd v State of MP & Ors and Garikapathy Veeraya v N Subbaiah Choudhary & Sons were relied upon by the Appellant.
- Allowing the appeal, the SC held that in view of binding precedents, the onerous condition of payment of 50% of the amount awarded will not be applicable to the complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act.
- With regards to the retrospective applicability, SC affirmed the ratio laid down in earlier cases which states that if one condition that was already available in the statute for the exercise of a right of appeal, is merely replaced by another condition, the same cannot be said to be retrospective, unless it is definitely shown that the amended condition is more onerous than the unamended condition.
"Loved reading this piece by Megha?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
