IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Repeal of law – The repeal of a law shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment i.e. the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue for cases which had been filed prior to the implementation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 20.07.2020.
(2) Negligent manner – ‘Sufficient cause’ means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part and the applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case.
(3) Sufficient cause – Sufficient cause is the cause for which Defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word “sufficient” is “adequate” or “enough”, inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended.

JUDGMENT

Pinki, Member (Judicial).—The present appeal has been filed on 15.07.2022 challenging the impugned order dated 25.04.2022 passed in Complaint Case No.271/2015 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- VIII (Central), 5th Floor, ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 wherein the complaint was allowed.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.651/2024 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sahu, Deputy Manager (Legal Claims) with the appellants has been filed along with this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.271/2015.

5. A bare perusal of the application reflects that it has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. However, the entire proceedings of the present case took place according to the Old Act. Hence, before delving into the merits of the present application, it is imperative to ascertain whether the present application bearing IA No. 651/2024 filed along with the appeal on 15.07.2022 is maintainable under the New Act/Old Act.

6. The repeal of a law shall not affect the previous operation of any enactment i.e. the proceedings under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 shall continue for cases which had been filed prior to the implementation of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on 20.07.2020. The same can be gauged through the repeal and saving section (Section 107) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which has been reproduced below:

“107. (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeal.”

7. We may also take the assistance of Section 6 (b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to further this view. Section 6 (b) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 has been reproduced below:

“6. Effect of repeal.—Where this Act, or any 1 [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder”

8. Moreover, unless the legislature explicitly provides that the amendment is retrospective in nature, it will be considered prospective. The aforesaid view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., (2015) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Court discussed the proviso to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that it was prospective and not retrospective. While deciding the case, the Constitution Bench laid down certain general principles which have been reproduced as under:

“28. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation has to be interpreted, one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have a retrospective operation. The idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. Law passed today cannot apply to the events of the past. If we do something today, we do it keeping in view the law of today and in force and not to