SUMMERY

NEENA ANEJA & ANR.  VERSUS JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATES LTD (SC)

 

Civil Appeal Nos. 3766-3767 of 2020

 

Decided on -16^TH March 2021

Legal Points ;

 Transitional provisions after repeal of old Act 1986 and enforcement of Act 2019 on July 2020

!) Status of Members AND Presidents working in the commission at the time of repeal of the act

!!)Pecuniary  Jurisdiction of the commission in between  after enactment of the act and before enforcement notification

 

!!!)Law on appeal for submitting 50% decrital amount which are contratry to the fundamental right of a consumer /litigant

 

!!!)Question of transfer of cases to the commissions after pecuniary jurisdiction changed 

 

Background

 

On being enacted by Parliament, the Consumer Protection Act 20191 was published in the Gazette of India on 9 August 2019.The provisions of the Act of 2019 were notified. by S.O. 2351(E) dated 15 July 2020,  to come into force on 20 July 2020. By S.O. 2421(E) dated 23 July 2020 several other provisions were brought into force, with effect from 24 July 2020. Since the act was passed on 9^th of August 2019 some of the commissions started accepting cases on the basis of new pecuniary jurisdiction set under the act and in some other cases after notification date of enforcement of the act 2019 . This is how this case has come up before the Honourable Supreme Court clubbing together many cases

Hon’ble Supreme Court has analysed about the Position of law on change of forum through various previously decided cases by this Supreme court, benches comprising two judges bench ,three judges bench and constitutional benches and also cases decided by the various High Courts on this particular issue for coming to the logical conclusion about the Legislative Scheme of the jurisdictional provisions

 

Facts of the case;

It’s a case of a home buyer who made  payment of an advance of Rs.3.50 lacs on 25 November 2011and was provisionally allotted a residential unit in a real-estate project described as KRESCENT Homes admeasuring a super built area of 114.27 square metres which was being developed by the builder at Jaypee Greens, Noida. The total consideration was fixed at Rs.56.45 lacs and possession was intended to be conveyed within a period of 42 months from the execution of the agreement of the provisional allotment letter. Home Buyer Syates they have paid an amount of Rs. 53.84 lacs out of the total consideration of Rs.56.45 lacs. between December 2011 till date.

After builder failed to meet the obligations ,Home buyer who is   the appellant in the present case ought a refund of the consideration together with interest at 18 per centOn 13 June 2017 and 27 April 2020. 

On 18 June 2020, the appellants instituted a consumer complaint before the NCDRC for refund with interest.

The NCDRC by its order dated 30 July 2020 dismissed the consumer case on the ground that after the enforcement of the Act of 2019, its pecuniary jurisdiction has been enhanced from rupees one crore to rupees ten crores.

In the present case, the claim of Rs. 2.19 crores is below the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction of the NCDRC. . The appellants’ review petition was also dismissed by the NCDRC on 5 October 2020..

 

 The complainants in the consumer case are in appeal before the Supreme court

 

Supreme court held in all the legal points after discussion-

 

Legal point  !) Status of Members AND Presidents working in the commission at the time of repeal of the act

It is held Any person appointed as President or, as the case may be, a member of the District Commission/State commission /National commission  immediately before the commencement of this act shall hold office as such as President or, as the case may be, as member till the completion of his term for which he has been appointed

Legal point !!) !!)Pecuniary  Jurisdiction of the commission in between  enactment of the act and before enforcement notification

 

The proceedings instituted before the commencement of the Act of 2019 on 20 July 2020 would continue before the fora corresponding to those under the Act of 1986 (the National Commission, State Commissions and District Commissions) and not be transferred in terms of the pecuniary jurisdiction set for the fora established under the Act of 2019.

 

Legal Point !!!) Law on appeal for submitting 50% decrital amount which are contratry to the fundamental right of a consumer /litigant

The  substantial changes have been made in the provisions for appeal contained in the Act of 2019. For instance, Section 19 of the Act of 1986 required an aggrieved person to either deposit 50 per cent of the amount awarded by the SCDRC or Rs 25,000, whichever is less. However, in the Act of 2019, the second proviso to Section 51(1) stipulates that an appeal shall not be entertained by the NCDRC unless the appellant has deposited 50 per cent of the amount required under the order of the SCDRC.

 

This provision substantially affects the vested right of a litigant and is not merely procedural in nature.Hence the new provision made in the act 2019 is an express legislature nor marely procedural,it has to be followed.

 

Legal point !V) Whether the cases from all commissions are required to be  transferred to the other commissions in view of change in pecuniary jurisdiction

 

 

The similar situation had arison in the past in the year1993 and 2002 and on the basis  of judgment by NCDRC holding that  the amendments enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective in nature ,no tranfer of cases is required 

The act does not give any clear indication  express intend for transferring the cases

 

With the result Supreme court in the present facts of the case directs-

(!)The National Commission shall continue hearing the consumer case instituted by the appellants;

 

 

Previous

Next