MR. J.P. AGRAWAL, MEMBER (GENERAL ) Present:

Mr.

Rahul (Enrl.

No.

D/548/2021 and Mobile No.

8178029954), counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Vibhor Garg (Email ID: ishita@6avlegal.in and Mobile No. 9811352998) along with Ms. Ishita Mehta, counsel for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed on 23.09.2023 challenging the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 vide which Case No.47/2015 was allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- I (North), Tis Hazari Courts Complex, Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054.

2. This order will dispose off an application bearing IA No.2257/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, filed along with the appeal. Affidavit of Mr. Sony George, Vice President (Legal) with the appellant has been filed along with this application.

3. Record has been carefully and thoroughly perused.

4. The application has been moved without mentioning any provision of law. However, it is being considered under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as it is arising out of Complaint Case No.47/2015.

5. The bare perusal of the application filed without mentioning any provision of law. 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.2257/2023 filed along with the appeal on 23.09.2023 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 (1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.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such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this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. reported in (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 th