By Aaryan Dhar
What is Appeal under section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act?
Any individual who is aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in the exercise of its authority conferred by sub-clause I of clause (a) of section 21 can file an appeal with the Supreme Court within a period of 30 days of the order’s date:
Provided, however, that the Apex Court may hear an appeal after the 30-day deadline has expired if it is convinced that there was a reason for not filing it sooner.
Provided further that no petition by an individual who is compelled to pay any sum in accordance with a National Commission order can be heard by the Apex Court until that individual has deposited in the specified manner 50 percent of that sum or rupees 50 thousand, whichever is less, in the specified format.
Best Explained through the case of M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited and Another Vs. Ambience Island Apartment Owners and Others-[1]
Facts-
The dispute in this case concerns a disagreement between Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, a real estate firm, and Ambience Island Apartment Owners, an apartment owners’ group.
The apartment owners, who were dissatisfied with the Appellants’ installation of poor-quality lifts in their society, lodged a consumer complaint with the National Consumer Dispute Resolution Commission in New Delhi, alleging a shortfall in service rendered by the Appellants.
The NCDRC ruled in favour of the apartment owners, ordering the Appellants to pay the Respondent 70% of the gross maintenance charges from November 2002, plus interest at 9% a year, within 90 days or face a penalty of 12% per year.
Following that, NCDRC began execution proceedings to carry out the Commission’s decision. During the implementation hearings, the NCDRC issued an order on November 3, 2015, concluding that, under the initial order, the decretal number would cover 66 people and that the appellants would be responsible for 70% of the overall maintenance costs.
The Appellants, who were aggrieved by the aforementioned decision, lodged a civil appeal with the Apex Court, challenging the NCDRC’s impugned order.
The issue at hand was that the Apex Court, in determining an appeal filed by a venture capitalist against an order made by the National Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in an execution proceeding, held that a civil appeal before the Apex Court is not maintainable against an NCDRC order made in the course of execution proceedings because the right to appeal is not provided under the Consumer Protection Act.
Is it possible to file an appeal?
Held–
An order issued by the NCDRC in the exercise of its authority under Section 21(a)(i) is subject to an appeal under Section 23. On a combined reading of both articles, it seems that an appeal under Section 23 may be filed against an NCDRC order if the value of the products or services, as well as any reward sought, reaches the required threshold.
Though rejecting the appeal, the Supreme Court’s Hon’ble Two-Judge Bench made the following findings in the case:
The Supreme Court stated that an appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act could be filed against an order issued by the NCDRC on a grievance where the value of the products or services, or any reward sought, exceeds the required level of Rs. 1 crore.
The Hon’ble Bench also cited the case of Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani[2], in which the Hon’ble Court distinguished between implementation and initial trials, holding that the former was distinct and autonomous.
Finally, the Hon’ble Court held that a civil appeal against an NCDRC order passed during execution proceedings shall not be maintainable because such a privilege is not granted under The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, after reviewing the applicable legislative provisions, namely Section 23 read with Section 21 of the Act.
Patel Roadways Limited vs Birla Yamaha Limited [3]
Facts-
The respondent M/s Birla Yamaha Limited placed a transportation order with the applicant M/s Patel Roadways Limited for 237 consignments comprising 267 generator sets in Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The consignor dutifully paid the freight charges to the courier, and the latter gave the requisite lorry receipt in favour of the former. The respondent’s supplies were lost in a fire that broke out in the appellant’s go down shortly after the consignments were booked.
The respondent sought payment for the fair market value of the items, as well as a refund of freight charges and reimbursement for damages. Following that, there was some contact between the two parties. Since they could not come to an agreement, the petitioner lodged a petition with the National Consumers Disputes Redress Commission (the Commission) in 1994, which was registered as Original Petition No.43/1994.
The Commission denied the application for general and exceptional damages in the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The Commission relied on section 9 of the Carriers Act in its order to find that the appellant failed to exercise their duties as a common carrier because the goods entrusted had not been supplied in compliance with the contract of carriage for consideration shown by the receipts.
The Commission also determined that section 9 absolves the claimant of the burden of proving that the damage or non-delivery was caused by some incompetence or illegal act, and that the loss of goods sent is prima facie evidence of negligence. The appellant filed this appeal under section 23 of the Consumers Protection Act, feeling aggrieved by the said order.
Held–
Any individual distressed by an order made by the National Commission in carrying out its functions conferred by sub-clause (I) of clause (a) of section 21 can appeal to the Supreme Court under section 23.
According to the terms of the Consumer Protection Act cited above, consumer dispute resolution bodies, such as District Forums, State Commissions, and the National Commission, are entrusted with the authority to adjudicate all forms of consumer disputes.
There are no exceptions in customer cases where the claims in the lawsuit of a service deficiency causing harm to or destruction of the products are challenged. The directives of the redressal agencies do have finality, and provisions are made for their execution and enforcement, with those orders being treated as court decrees.
As a result, it is impossible to consider the argument that the Consumer Protection Act’s dispute resolution authorities do not have authority to hear lawsuits involving substantial disputes over claims for loss or injury to products assigned to a carrier for shipment. Shri Desai’s argument in this respect is thus dismissed.
Procedure for First Appeal
Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in carrying out its functions bestowed by sub-clause I of clause (a) of section 17 may request an appeal against such order before this Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order on all working days (Monday to Friday) between the date of receipt of the order and the date of receipt of the order.
A Notarized attested affidavit of 1+1 sets (with File cover) + Number of Opposing Parties must be filed with the First Appeal. The First Appeal, as well as all copies, should be paginated and indexed in the order mentioned below: –
- Index
- Calendar of Events
- Parties’ Memorandum (with fresh complete addresses & telephone no.)
- File an appeal with a notarized affidavit.
- Request for a stay, or some other application, with a notarized attested affidavit
- If the delay is past the time limit, a notarized attested affidavit is required. (Within thirty days of order receipt)
- A certified copy of the State Commission’s order
- Copies of the complaint, pleadings, proof, reply, and rejoinder filed with the State Commission, as well as all other documentation rely on by both parties.
- (On the last page, all annexures must be attested as True Copy with name and signature.)
- Statutory Deposits in the form of Demand Drafts (in favour of “The Registrar, NCDRC, New Delhi”) as per Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Conclusion
Thus, an appeal in the case of section 23 of the consumer Protection Act (1986) (section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019) is held to be maintainable only when the circumstances or the facts of the matter are in consonance with the terms and conditions as stated in the section 23 of the Act.
If the said conditions are not satisfied the appeal will not be held maintainable before the Hon’ble Supreme court and the matter will not be taken any further by the Apex court as seen in the case of M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited and Another Vs. Ambience Island Apartment Owners and Others.[4]
References
- Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986/ ncdrc.nic.in
- Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019/ ncdrc.nic.in
- section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019/ ncdrc.nic.in
- M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited and Another Vs. Ambience Island Apartment Owners and Others Civil Appeal Nos. 1213-1215 of 2017 ↑
- Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani (2019) 6 SCC 424 ↑
- Patel Roadways Limited vs Birla Yamaha Limited CASE No: Appeal (civil) 9071 of 1996 ↑
- M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited and Another Vs. Ambience Island Apartment Owners and Others Civil Appeal Nos. 1213-1215 of 2017 ↑