The Supreme Court has observed that an appeal before it against an order which has been passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the course of execution proceedings is not maintainable.
M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited was directed by the NCDRC to pay to the complainants 70% of the maintenance charges from November 2002 with interest at 9 % per annum within 90 days or else pay at an enhanced rate of 12 % per annum. This order was passed in the Execution Petition.
Referring to Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the court observed that an appeal under Section 23 is maintainable against an order which has been passed by the NCDRC on a complaint where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed, exceeds the threshold which is prescribed.
The bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph noted the judgment in Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani (2019) 6 SCC 424, which had made a distinction between execution proceedings and original proceedings and held that the former are separate and independent. While dismissing the appeal as not maintainable, the bench observed:
"In our view, having regard to Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, an appeal will not lie to this court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings. The appeals are hence dismissed as not being maintainable."
In K.A. Nagamani, it was held that orders passed for enforcement of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be construed to be orders passed in the 'consumer dispute'.
As per the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58, may prefer an appeal against such order to the Supreme Court within a period of thirty days from the date of the order. Sub clause (i) deals with complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration exceeds rupees ten crore and sub clause (ii) deals with complaints against unfair contracts, where the value of goods or services paid as consideration exceeds ten crore rupees.
Case name: M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited vs. Ambience Island Apartment OwnersCase no.: Civil Appeal Nos 1213-1215 of 2017Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and KM JosephCounsel: Sr. Adv Mukul Rohatgi, AOR Kamini Jaiswal