SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 965

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
M/s Orris Infrastructure Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 9202 of 2021
Decided On : 04-05-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocates with Mr. Surjeet Bhadu, Mr. Vaibhav Gaggar, Advocates, for the Appellant.

The effect of the repeal of the 1986 Act on pending complaints and the applicability of Section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 to preserve rights and legal proceedings.

Headnote:

NCDRC - Consumer Protection Act - 53, 107 - The court discussed the establishment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under the new Act, the repeal of the 1986 Act, and the effect of the repeal on pending complaints. The court held that orders passed by the NCDRC after 15.07.2020 but before 11.01.2021 shall not be Coram Non Judice as they stand saved in view of Sub-Section 3 of Section 107 of the new Act read with Section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897.

Fact of the Case:

The private respondents filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner, a real estate company, under the 1986 Act. The NCDRC allowed the complaint, directing the petitioner to refund the principal amount with interest and costs. The petitioner failed to comply with the order, leading to multiple execution applications.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that orders passed by the NCDRC after 15.07.2020 but before 11.01.2021 shall not be Coram Non Judice as they stand saved in view of Sub-Section 3 of Section 107 of the new Act read with Section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897.

Issues: The main issue was whether the orders passed by the NCDRC after 15.07.2020 but before 11.01.2021 in the pending complaints under the 1986 Act would be Coram Non Judice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 107 of the new Act and Section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897 to determine the effect of the repeal of the 1986 Act on pending complaints.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, holding that the orders passed by the NCDRC after 15.07.2020 but before 11.01.2021 shall not be Coram Non Judice as they stand saved in view of Sub-Section 3 of Section 107 of the new Act read with Section 6 of The General Clauses Act, 1897.

ORDER

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - In the considered view of this Bench, the question which arises for consideration is:

"Whether the orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the NCDRC") after 15.07.2020 but before 11.01.2021 (the date on which the NCDRC was established under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) in the complaints pending but filed before the date of repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to be as "the 1986 Act"), will be Coram Non Judice.

2. Through this petition, the petitioner, which is a company engaged in the real estate business, has prayed for the following substantive relief:

"A. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing/setting aside Impugned Order dated 28.09.2020 (Annexure P-l) passed by the Ld. NCDRC in CC No. 2088/2016 and Impugned Order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by Ld. NCDRC in Review Application No. 166/2020 in CC No. 2088/2016 for having been passed without any jurisdiction and therefore, null and void".

3. As per the facts stated in the writ petition, the private respondents filed a consumer complaint under Section 12(l)(c) read with 21(a)(i) of the 1986 Act against the petitioner. It was alleged that the private respondents had booked their respective apartments in the project "Aster Court Premier". All the private respondents entered into an Identical Apartment Buyer Agreement with the Developer/petitioner. It was asserted that the physical possession of the apartments so booked have not been handed over by the Developer/petitioner within the committed period. The NCDRC allowed the complaint vide an order dated 28.09.2020, thereby directing the petitioner to refund the entire principal amount received from the private respondents along with compensation in the form of simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum calculated from the respective dates of deposit till the actual date of payment together with a cost of ^ 25,000/- to each of the complainants. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the afore-said order and consequently, multiple orders have been passed in the various execution applications filed by the concerned complainants.

4. It is noted here that the Central Government has notified the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act"),after having been enacted by the Parliament. The new Act was published in the gazette of India on 09.10.2019. On 15.07.2020, the relevant provisions of the new Act were notified to come into force from 20.07.2020. Thereafter, on 23.07.2020, several other provisions were given effect from 24.07.2020.

5. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Puneet Bali, learned senior counsels contend that Section 53 of the new Act provides for the establishment of the NCDRC. While referring to the notification dated 11.01.2021, they contend that the Central Government established the NCDRC on 11.01.2021. They, while drawing the attention of the Court to Section 107 of the new Act, contend that the 1986 Act stands repealed w.e.f. 20.07.2020 and therefore, the NCDRC constituted under the old Act had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order (Annexure P-l) on 28.09.2020. They, hence, contend that the order is Coram Non Judice.

6. This Bench has considered the submissions and proceeds to carefully examine the same. To begin with and before entering into deliberations, it is significant to notice the relevant statutory provisions involved. Hence, Section 53 and 107 of the new Act are extracted as under:-

"53. (1) The Central Government shall, by notification, establish a National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to be known as the National Commission.

(2) The National Commission shall ordinarily function at the National Capital Region and perform its functions at such other places as the Central Government may in consultation with the National Commission notify in the Official Gazette:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top