Maintainability of Revision Petition in Execution Proceedings: Supreme Court clarifies under Consumer Protection Act (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 6, 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 437

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J. and Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a revision petition be filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in execution proceedings? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in this case. The Court examined whether the revisional jurisdiction of the NCDRC extends to orders passed during the execution of a consumer dispute, or if it is limited only to the adjudication of the original dispute itself. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between the Karnataka Housing Board (the Appellant) and K. A. Nagamani (the Respondent) regarding the allotment of a flat. The respondent had applied for a flat under a self-financing scheme in 1992.

Initially, Flat No. 116 was allotted to the respondent on March 25, 1992, for a cost of Rs. 3,15,000. The respondent paid Rs. 2,67,750 in four installments. Later, on June 24, 1995, the Board allotted a different flat to the respondent for Rs. 5,90,000. However, the respondent was unwilling to pay the increased cost and sought a refund. The Board refunded Rs. 2,63,813, deducting Rs. 3,937.

The respondent demanded a refund of the deducted amount and interest at 27% per annum on the entire deposited amount. When the Board refused, the respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, alleging deficiency of service. The District Forum ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the Board to pay interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 2,67,750 from the date of deposit until realization, and to refund Rs. 3,937.

Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the respondent appealed to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the National Commission also dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondent. However, the Supreme Court, in an earlier judgment dated September 19, 2012, directed the Board to pay interest at 18% per annum on Rs. 2,67,750, refund Rs. 3,937, and pay Rs. 50,000 as compensation, and Rs. 20,000 towards litigation costs.

Following the Supreme Court’s order, the respondent filed an execution application before the District Forum, claiming Rs. 3,58,749. The District Forum directed the Board to pay an additional Rs. 1,07,057, which the Board complied with.

The respondent then filed an appeal before the State Commission challenging the District Forum’s order in the execution proceedings. The State Commission allowed the appeal, setting aside the District Forum’s order, and directed a fresh computation. Aggrieved by this, the Board filed a revision petition before the National Commission, which was initially allowed, but later set aside by the Delhi High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum initially ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the Board to pay interest at 12% per annum and refund the deducted amount. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the respondent’s appeal against the District Forum’s order. The National Commission also dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondent.

However, the Supreme Court, in an earlier judgment, set aside the National Commission’s order and directed the Board to pay interest at 18% per annum, refund the deducted amount, and pay compensation and litigation costs. Subsequently, the respondent filed an execution application before the District Forum. The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum in execution proceedings, which led to the Board filing a revision petition before the National Commission. The Delhi High Court then set aside the order of the National Commission, holding that the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed in execution proceedings by the State Commission.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This section defines the jurisdiction of the National Commission.

Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states:

“21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission.—Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction—
(a) to entertain—
(i) complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed exceeds rupees one crore; and
(ii) appeals against the orders of any State Commission; and
(b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deals with the enforcement of orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission, or National Commission.

Section 25(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states:

“25. Enforcement of orders of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission.
(3) Where any amount is due from any person under an order made by a District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, the person entitled to the amount may make an application to the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, and such District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission may issue a certificate for the said amount to the Collector of the district (by whatever name called) and the Collector shall proceed to recover the amount in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.”

The Supreme Court also considered the general principles of appellate and revisional jurisdiction.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Karnataka Housing Board):

• A Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

• The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is wide and encompasses all proceedings before the State Commissions.

• The intent of Section 21(b) is to provide revisional jurisdiction to the National Commission over all orders passed by the State Commission in any consumer dispute.

• The term “consumer dispute” under Section 21(b) should be interpreted broadly to include any dispute arising under the Act.

• Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original consumer complaint proceedings.

• The Appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya & Ors. [(1963) 2 SCR 499] to argue that execution proceedings are a continuation of the original proceedings.

Respondent’s Arguments (K. A. Nagamani):

• A Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against an order of the State Commission passed in execution proceedings.

• The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Therefore, the National Commission cannot go beyond the limitations placed by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

• Order 45, Rule 16 of the CPC bars revision in execution appeals.

• An execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation of the “consumer dispute.” The definitions of “complaint” and “consumer dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) and (e) respectively, cannot be interpreted to include execution proceedings.

• An order in execution proceedings is not an order in a “consumer dispute” pending before the State Commission. The original consumer dispute was already adjudicated by the Supreme Court in its judgment dated September 19, 2012.

• In execution proceedings, the executing forum only has the jurisdiction to execute the order as per Order XXI of the CPC.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against an order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Supreme Court cited P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. [(2004) 11 SCC 672]* to emphasize that the right to file a revision petition is a statutory right.

✓ The Supreme Court cited Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. [(2016) 14 SCC 161]* to reiterate that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) is limited to consumer disputes.

✓ The Supreme Court cited Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao Maruthirao Janagaval [(1975) 2 SCC 246]* to distinguish between appellate and revisional jurisdiction.

✓ The Supreme Court cited Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78]* to explain that revisional jurisdiction is part of appellate jurisdiction but cannot be equated with a full-fledged appeal.

✓ The Supreme Court distinguished Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda Ramakrishnayya & Ors. [(1963) 2 SCR 499]*, which was relied upon by the Appellant, by stating that execution proceedings are not a continuation of the original proceedings.

✓ The Supreme Court distinguished the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Satguru Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2007 (3) MhLJ 843]* and Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant Gajanan Pathak & Ors. [2011 (6) MhLJ 799]*, and the Patna High Court in M/s. Parshava Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose [AIR 1979 Pat 308]*, which held that execution proceedings are a continuation of the suit.

✓ The Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli Rajamma [AIR 1988 AP 226]* and the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors. [AIR 1987 Pat 33]*, holding that execution proceedings are not a continuation of the suit.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the distinction between the nature of original proceedings and execution proceedings. The Court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited to “consumer disputes” and does not extend to orders passed in execution proceedings.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the principles of revisional jurisdiction. The factual aspects of the case were considered to a lesser extent, as the primary focus was on the legal issue of jurisdiction.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument that execution proceedings are a continuation of the original suit. However, the Court rejected this interpretation, relying on the Full Bench decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court. The Court concluded that the National Commission had committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the revision petition.

The decision was reached by affirming the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had correctly set aside the order of the National Commission. The Court emphasized that the National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction is limited to “consumer disputes” and does not extend to orders passed in execution proceedings.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) is limited to “consumer disputes.”
• Execution proceedings are separate and independent from the original dispute.
• Section 21(b) does not provide for a revision petition against an order passed in execution proceedings.
• The National Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the revision petition.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. Execution proceedings are separate and independent proceedings for execution of the decree. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings.”

“An Order passed for enforcement, would not be an order in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the parties.”

“There is no remedy provided under Section 21 to file a Revision Petition against an Order passed in appeal by the State Commission in execution proceedings.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The decision clarifies the scope of the National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction and confirms that it does not extend to orders passed in execution proceedings. This has implications for future cases by limiting the scope of revision petitions before the National Commission.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reaffirmed the existing legal principles regarding the interpretation of Section 21(b) and the nature of execution proceedings. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and the limitations on revisional jurisdiction.

Key Takeaways

• The National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, does not extend to orders passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.
• Execution proceedings are considered separate and independent from the original consumer dispute.
• Parties cannot file a revision petition before the National Commission against orders passed in execution proceedings by the State Commission.
• This decision limits the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission.

Directions

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had set aside the order of the National Commission. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is not maintainable before the National Commission against an order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of execution proceedings. This clarifies the scope of the National Commission’s revisional jurisdiction and reaffirms that execution proceedings are separate and independent from the original consumer dispute. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather, the Court has clarified the existing position.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the National Commission does not have the jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition against an order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings. The Court clarified that execution proceedings are distinct from the original consumer dispute and that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited to the adjudication of the original dispute. This judgment provides clarity on the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.