ORDER

MR. PREM SINGH VS. M/S PAREENA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ANR.

09.09.2025 Present: Ms. Raveena Paniker, Counsel for the Complainant/ Applicant.

None for the OP.

MA-70/2025 in CC/946/2017 Vide this order we shall dispose off the Application filed by the Applicant/Complainant seeking restoration of the Complaint case No. 946/2017 which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 02.05.2024.

The Applicant submitted that the present Complaint was initially filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurugram which was dismissed as withdrawn before the said Commission on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the present Complaint bearing no. 946/2017 was filed before this Commission and the present matter was at the stage of final arguments when the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.05.2024. The Applicant further submitted that the non-appearance was attributable to the negligence of the previously engaged counsel who failed to appear before this Commission. The Applicant has further relied upon the following judgments in support of his case:

a) Rafiq & Anr. Vs. Munshilal & Anr. [(1981) 2 SCC 788];

b) Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh & Anr. Vs. Raghu Raj [(2008) 13 SCC 395]

c) FAO No. 118 of 2024 titled “Sunita Vs. Lalit Sansawal”.

Pressing the aforesaid reasons, the Applicant/Complainant prayed for the restoration of the present Complaint by recalling the order dated 02.05.2024.

The bare perusal of the application filed by the Applicant/Complainant reflects that it is filed for seeking the review of order dated 02.05.2024 passed by this Commission. We find that the entire proceedings in the present Complaint case took place according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, before delving into the merits of the present application, it is imperative to ascertain whether the present application filed on 03.05.2023 for restoration of the present complaint case by review of the order dated 02.05.2024 is maintainable under the old act?

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.”

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 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