Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s. 21(b) – Jurisdiction of the National Commission – Appeal arising out of execution proceedings – Order passed by the State Commission –Maintainability of Revision Petition before the National Commission u/s. 21(b) – Held: Revision Petition before the National Commission was not maintainable against the order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings – Execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’ – Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’ – Revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission u/s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission – Thus, the National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The National Commission cannot go beyond the limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule 16 of CPC bars revision in execution appeals. An execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’. The definition of a ‘complaint’ and a ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 respectively, cannot be given a wide interpretation to encompass execution proceedings. An Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a “consumer dispute” pending before the State Commission. The “consumer dispute” filed by the Respondent-Complainant was finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only has the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance with Order XXI CPC. [Para 4.3-4.6] [227-D-F]
1.2 The National Commission has original jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods or services exceeds rupees one crore; jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Orders of any State Commission; and supervisory jurisdiction over any State Commission in any “consumer dispute” pending or decided by a State Commission, which is challenged on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) by the National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been filed before the State Commission. The jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only in case of a “consumer dispute” filed before the State Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) is concerned about the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Commission in a “consumer dispute”. [Para 6.1, 6.2] [228-F-H; 229-A-B]
Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 161 referred to.
1.3 A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an ‘appeal’. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision making process of the fora below. [Para 6.3, 6.5] [229-C; 230-F] P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors.(2004) 11 SCC 672 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 188 ; Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval (1975) 2 SCC 246 : [1975] Suppl. SCR 67 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 - referred to.
1.4 The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission u/s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission. The consumer dispute, in the instant case, had already been finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from the execution of the final order passed by this Court. [Para 7, 7.1] [230-G-H; 231-A]
1.5 Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission. An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties. [Para 7.2] [231-B; E]
1.6 The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’. [Para 7.3] [231-F]
1.7 Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. [Para 7.7] [232-E-F]
Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma AIR 1988 AP 226 ; Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors. AIR 1987 Pat 33 - approved. Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya & Ors. [1963] 2 SCR 499 ; Satguru Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2007 (3) MhLJ 843 ; Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant Gajanan Pathak & Ors. 2011 (6) MhLJ 799 ; M/s. Parshava Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose AIR 1979 Pat
308 - referred to.
1.8 There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings. Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. [Para 7.8] [232-F-G; 233-A]
1.9 The National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant-Board against an appeal filed before the State Commission, in Execution proceedings. Furthermore, the National Commission modified the decree passed by this Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had directed the Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/- (which included an amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board). The National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of Rs. 3,937/- twice, by first including it in the principal amount of Rs. 2,67,750/-; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on the same amount of Rs. 3,937/-, which would amount to a double payment. [Para 7.9, 8] [233-B-D]
1.10 The judgment of the High Court is upheld, which rightly set aside the order passed by the National Commission on the ground that a Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. [Para 9] [233-D-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.