IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal – Onerous condition of payment of 50% of amount awarded will not be applicable to complaints filed prior to commencement of 2019 Act.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission¹ [National Commission] whereby the appellant herein was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 265.01 Crores along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 19.9.2016 within a period of three months. In case of failure to deposit the said amount, the awarded amount would carry compensation in the form of simple interest @ 12% p.a. The appellant has filed an application (I.A. No. 99210 of 2021) ex abundanti cautela to entertain the appeal as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986² [for short the ‘1986 Act’]. It is the said application which is being decided by the present order.

2. The complainant was awarded a contract for construction of rain water drainage, heavy sewerage and municipal road system by the Government of Basra, Iraq. The complainant obtained two specific contracts (Letter of Credit Comprehensive Risks Policies) by paying a sum of Rs. 10,38,03,912/- as premium to the appellant. The grievance of the complainant was that the payment for invoices issued for the work done under the contract was suspended. Later, the contract also was withdrawn by the Government of Basra owing to some internal conflict. The appellant herein rejected the insurance claim of the complainant and thus relief was sought before the National Commission by filing a complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the 1986 Act. The said complaint was allowed on 27.1.2021.

3. The question now being examined here is as to whether the present appeal would be governed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019³ [for short the ‘2019 Act’] or under the erstwhile 1986 Act.

4. In terms of Section 67 of the 2019 Act, no appeal against the order of National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person has deposited fifty per cent of the amount required to be paid. Whereas, under the 1986 Act, by virtue of a proviso inserted vide Central Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003, the condition was that no appeal shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the person who is required to pay the amount deposits fifty per cent of the amount or fifty thousand, whichever is less. The two provisions read thus:

5. Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal has been preferred under Section 23 of the 1986 Act and not under the 2019 Act which came into force from 20.7.2020. It was stated that the condition of deposit of 50% of the amount is more onerous than what was provided under the 1986 Act. Therefore, keeping in view the principle that the law which is applicable at the time of initiation of the lis would be applicable, the provisions of 1986 Act would govern the present appeal and not the provisions of 2019 Act. The appellant has deposited Rs. 50,000/- vide demand draft in terms of second proviso to Section 23 of the 1986 Act while exercising its right of appeal under the 1986 Act. Hence, the present appeal be heard on merits.

6. The learned Attorney General inter-alia argued that Section 107 of 2019 Act and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897⁴ [for short the ‘General Clauses Act’] unequivocally operate against any question of retrospectivity