Section 21(b) does not provide for filing of a Revision Petition before the National Commission against an Order passed by the State Commission in execution proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that a revision under Section 21(b) can only be filed challenging a ‘consumer dispute’ and an execution proceedings being independent proceedings, cannot be said to fall under the meaning of “consumer dispute”.

The above ratios was delivered by the Supreme court in the matter of Karnataka Housing Board Vs. K. A. Nagamani in Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019 decided on 06.05.2019.

Challenge

The issue which arose for consideration is whether a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable before the   NCDRC against   an   Order   passed   by   the   State Commission in an execution proceeding.

It was contended by the Appellant that a Revision Petition is maintainable   before   the   National Commission   under   Section   21(b)   of   the   1986   Act.   The revisional   jurisdiction   exercised   by   the   National Commission   is   wide,   and   intended   to   encompass   all proceedings before the State Commissions. The phrase “consumer dispute” under Section 21(b) of the 1986 Act must be understood to mean any dispute which arises under the 1986 Act. It was also contended that execution proceedings are a continuation of the original proceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint.

On the other hand it was contended by the Respondent that an execution petition cannot be termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’. The definition of a ‘complaint’ and a ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) respectively, cannot   be   given  a  wide  interpretation to encompass execution proceedings.

 Held

The Apex Court observed that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by the National   Commission   is   limited   to   a   consumer   dispute which has been filed before the State Commission. The jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only in case of a “consumer dispute” filed before the State Commission. The court further appreciated the scope of Section 21(b) and observed that the National Commission in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction u/s 21(b) is concerned about the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State Commission in a “consumer dispute”.  The extent   of   revisional   jurisdiction   is   defined   by   the statute conferring such jurisdiction. The conferment of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose of   keeping   tribunals   subordinate   to   the   revising Tribunal   within   the   bounds   of   their   authority   to make them act according to law, according to the procedure established by law and according to well defined principles of justice.

The Court also observed that Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission. 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. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from   the   nature   of   proceedings   for   adjudication   of   a consumer   complaint.   Execution   proceedings   are independent proceedings. The merits of the claim or dispute, cannot be considered during execution proceedings. Therefore, the Court was of the view that orders passed for enforcement of  the   final  order  in  the  Consumer  dispute,  cannot  be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’. Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit. 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.