Vested Right of Appeal Under 1986 Consumer Act Preserved Despite 2019 Act: NCDRC - 2025-03-06

```html

NCDRC Upholds Vested Right of Appeal Under 1986 Consumer Protection Act

New Delhi – In a significant order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), presided over by Justice R.K. Agrawal and Dr. S.M. Kantikar , has clarified that the right to appeal against orders passed by State Consumer Commissions, originating from complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, remains governed by the provisions of the old Act, even if the appeal is filed after the enforcement of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Background of the Case

The ruling came in a batch of First Appeals (First Appeal Nos. 678-686 of 2020) filed by M/S. Apollo Infra Projects Ltd. challenging orders of the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeals were initially not registered by the NCDRC Registry due to non-compliance with the deposit requirement of 50% of the awarded amount as mandated by the new Section 51(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The appellants argued that since the original complaints were filed before the 2019 Act came into force, their right to appeal had accrued under the 1986 Act. Under Section 19 of the 1986 Act, the deposit requirement was lower – 50% of the awarded amount or ₹35,000, whichever is less, and they had deposited ₹35,000.

Arguments and Legal Provisions

The Counsel for the Appellants contended that a vested right to appeal under the 1986 Act existed at the time of filing the complaints. They relied on Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 107(3) of the 2019 Act, which preserves the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act concerning the effect of repeal.

Section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act states that the repeal of an enactment does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability accrued under the repealed enactment. Section 6(e) further clarifies that any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of such a right can be instituted, continued, or enforced as if the repealing Act had not been passed.

The NCDRC bench analyzed Section 19 of the 1986 Act and Section 51 of the 2019 Act, highlighting the change in the deposit requirement for appeals. While the 1986 Act capped the deposit at ₹35,000, the 2019 Act mandates a deposit of 50% of the awarded amount without any upper limit.

Reliance on Precedents

The Commission heavily relied on several landmark judgments to solidify its stance.

• Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs. Dr. Manoj Ramachandran & Ors.: This NCDRC Larger Bench decision established that amendments to pecuniary jurisdiction are prospective, not retrospective, safeguarding rights in pending proceedings.
• Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh: The Supreme Court held that the right to appeal is a substantive right that vests when proceedings are initiated in the lower court and cannot be taken away except by express enactment or necessary intendment.
• Videocon International Limited Vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India: The Supreme Court reiterated that appellate remedies are vested substantive rights from the initiation of the lis and require express or implied retrospective amendment to be taken away.
• K. Raveendranathan Nair and Another vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others: Further reinforced the principle against retrospective impairment of the right to appeal.
• S.K. Mittal and others vs. Union of India: The Delhi High Court reiterated the principles from Hoosein Kasam Dada , emphasizing that amended statutes cannot impose more onerous conditions on pre-existing rights to appeal unless explicitly retrospective.

NCDRC's Decision and Implications

The NCDRC concluded that the right to appeal under the 1986 Act, which accrued to the appellants when they filed their complaints, is a vested and substantive right. The provisions of the 2019 Act, including the enhanced deposit requirement in Section 51(1), are not retrospective and therefore do not apply to appeals arising from complaints filed before the 2019 Act's enforcement.

"Thus, in view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the Second Proviso of Sub-Section (1) of Section 51 of the 2019 Act shall not be applicable where the person aggrieved is challenging the Order passed by the State Commission in an Appeal arising out of a Complaint Case filed prior to 20th / 24th July 2020 when the 2019 Act came into operation/was enforced," the order stated.

The NCDRC directed the Registry to register the appeals after verifying that the appellants had deposited ₹35,000 in each case, as per Section 19 of the 1986 Act. This order provides significant relief to businesses and individuals facing appeals from orders passed in consumer complaints initiated under the older legislation, ensuring their vested right to appeal under the previous, less onerous deposit conditions is protected. ```