REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4631 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6276 of 2019)
Karnataka Housing Board …Appellant
versus
K. A. Nagamani …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedings
initiated by the Respondent – Complainant from an Order
passed by the State Commission in a consumer dispute. The
issue which has arisen for consideration is whether a Revision
Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (herein after referred to as “the 1986 Act”) is
maintainable before the National Commission Dispute
Redressal Commission (herein after referred to as “National
1
Commission”) against an Order passed by the State
Commission in an execution proceeding.
2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue
has been raised, is as follows:
2.1. The Respondent – Complainant applied for allotment of a
HIGB Flat under the SelfFinancing Housing Scheme at
Kengeri, Bangalore. The Appellant – Karnataka Housing
Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) vide letter
dated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the First
Floor to the Respondent – Complainant. The Board issued
a Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informing
the Respondent – Complainant that the cost of the flat was
Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments as
specified.
It is an admitted position that the Respondent –
Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in
four instalments.
2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby the
Respondent – Complainant was allotted another flat, in
lieu of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment
had been made. The Respondent – Complainant was
informed that the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since
the Respondent – Complainant was not willing to pay the
2
final cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of
the amount deposited by her.
2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after
deducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent –
Complainant.
2.4. The Respondent – Complainant made a representation to
the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and
also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited
from the date of payment of each instalment, till the date
of refund.
The Board however refused to accept the demand of
the Respondent – Complainant.
2.5. The Respondent – Complainant filed a Consumer
Complaint alleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1)
(c)(iii) of the 1986 Act before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, and prayed for
compensation.
The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006
allowed the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @
12% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from
the date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the
date of realization. The Board was also directed to refund
the amount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent – Complainant.
3
It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days
from the date of the Order.
2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the
Respondent – Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of
2007 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007
dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent – Complainant.
2.7. The Respondent – Complainant filed Revision Petition No.
1839 of 2007 before the National Commission.
The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011
dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order
passed by the District Forum.
2.8. The Respondent – Complainant filed SLP (Civil) No. 35226
– 35227 of 2011 before this Court, which was allowed, and
the Order passed by the National Commission was set
aside. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated
19.09.2012 directed the Appellant – Board to pay Interest
@ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750
from the date of deposit till the date of realization; refund
the amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by the
4
Board; pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for
deficiency in service, and Rs. 20,000 towards Costs of
litigation to the Respondent – Complainant. The operative
part of the Order is setout herein below for ready
reference :
“For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals
and pass the following order:
(i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellantcomplainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum
on Rs.2,67,750/ from date of its respective deposit
till the date of realization with further direction to
refund the amount of Rs. 3,937/ to her, as directed
by the Consumer Forum.
(ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellantcomplainant further sum of Rs.50,000/ as
compensation for deficiency in service on their part.
(iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the
appellantcomplainant a sum of Rs.20,000/
towards cost of the litigation incurred by her.”
The ‘consumer dispute’ stood finally adjudicated by this
Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 which
conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the
parties.
2.9. The Respondent – Complainant filed Execution Application
No. 2 of 2014 before the District Forum. The Respondent –
Complainant claimed payment of an amount of Rs.
3,58,749 towards execution of the Order dated 19.09.2012
passed by this Court. Both parties submitted their Memo
of calculation before the District Forum. The District
5
Forum vide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of
calculation filed by the Respondent – Complainant was
partly correct, and directed the Appellant – Board to make
an additional payment of Rs. 1,07,057.
The Board satisfied the Decree by payment of the sum
of Rs. 1,07,057 vide Demand Draft dated 09.09.2014.
2.10. On 22.09.2014, the Respondent – Complainant filed
Execution Appeal No. 1238 of 2014 under Section 15 of
the 1986 Act, challenging the Order dated 16.08.2014
before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide Order dated 01.03.2016
allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent – Complainant,
and set aside the Order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the
District Forum in E.P. No. 2 of 2014. It was directed that
the amount of Rs. 2,67,750 already paid by the Board,
would be appropriated first towards the Interest
component and then towards the principal amount. The
State Commission remitted the matter to the District
Forum for fresh computation in compliance with the
Order.
2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the
Appellant – Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b)
6
of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P.
No. 1362 of 2016.
The Respondent – Complainant filed I.A. No. 299 of
2017 to challenge the maintainability of the Revision
Petition filed by the Appellant – Board.
The Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowed
vide Order dated 10.02.2017. The stand taken by the
Respondent – Complainant was rejected as being devoid of
merit.
2.12. The Respondent – Complainant thereafter preferred M.A.
No. 281 of 2017 for referring I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to a
larger bench; and filed M.A. No. 282 of 2017 for declaring
the Order dated 10.02.2017 to be a nullity.
The National Commission vide Order dated 02.02.2018
rejected the applications filed by the Respondent –
Complainant.
2.13. Being aggrieved by the Orders dated 10.02.2017 and
02.02.2018 passed by the National Commission, the
Respondent – Complainant filed W.P. (Civil) No. 1746 of
2018 before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court vide the Impugned Judgment
dated 13.11.2018, set aside the Orders passed by the
National Commission, and held that the National
Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision
7
Petition against the Order passed in Execution Proceedings
by the State Commission. It was held that the nature of
enforcement proceedings is materially different from the
proceedings for adjudication of the consumer dispute. The
Order passed in an Execution Petition was not amenable
to a challenge before the National Commission in exercise
of its Revisional Jurisdiction.
2.14. Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the
Delhi High Court, the Appellant filed the present Appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that:
3.1. 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.
3.2. The intent of Section 21(b) is clearly to provide revisional
jurisdiction to the National Commission, over the State
Commission. The reference under Section 21(b) is
specifically to orders passed in any consumer dispute
which is pending before, or has been decided by any State
Commission.
8
3.3. 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.
3.4. Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original
proceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint.
Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of
this Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda
Ramakrishnayya & Ors.1
4. On the other hand, the Respondent who appeared in person,
inter alia contended that :
4.1. A Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b)
of the 1986 Act, against an order of the State Commission
passed in execution proceedings.
4.2. The impugned judgment does not merit interference.
4.3. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides
that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and
not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force. Therefore, the National Commission
cannot go beyond the limitation placed by the CPC. Order
45, Rule 16 of CPC bars revision in execution appeals.
4.4. 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,
1 (1963) 2 SCR 499.
9
cannot be given a wide interpretation to encompass
execution proceedings.
4.5. An Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a
“consumer dispute” pending before the State Commission.
The “consumer dispute” filed by the Respondent –
Complainant was finally adjudicated by this Court vide
Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012.
4.6. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only has
the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance with
Order XXI CPC.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings and
written submissions filed.
6. The issue which arises for our consideration in the present
Appeal is whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before
the National Commission u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act against an
Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising
out of execution proceedings.
6.1. The right to file a Revision Petition, like an appeal, is a
right conferred by statute.2
In the absence of a statutory
conferment, there is no inherent right to file a revision.
Section 21 sets out the jurisdiction of the National
Commission which is reproduced hereunder:
“21. Jurisdiction of the National
Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of
2 P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672.
10
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
The National Commission has :
(i) original jurisdiction to entertain complaints
where the value of goods or services exceeds
rupees one crore;
(ii) jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Orders
of any State Commission; and
(iii) supervisory jurisdiction over any State
Commission in any “consumer dispute” pending
or decided by a State Commission, which is
challenged on the ground of lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by the
National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute
11
which has been filed before the State Commission3
. 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 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”.
6.3. A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an ‘appeal’.
In Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao
Maruthirao Janagaval,
4
this Court discussed the
distinction between “appellate jurisdiction” and “revisional
jurisdiction” as follows:
“2. ‘Appeal’ and ‘revision’ are expressions of
common usage in Indian statute and the distinction
between ‘appellate jurisdiction’ and ‘revisional
jurisdiction’ is well known though not well defined.
Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a
rehearing, as it were, on law as well as fact and is
invoked by an aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction
may, however, be limited in some way as, for
instance has been done in the case of second appeal
under the Code of Civil Procedure, and under some
Rent Acts in some States. Ordinarily, again,
revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of
superintendence and may sometimes be exercised
even without its being invoked by a party. The
extent of revisional jurisdiction is defined by the
statute conferring such jurisdiction. The conferment
of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose
3 Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2016) 14 SCC 161.
4 (1975) 2 SCC 246.
12
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.4. Reference must also be made to the judgment of this Court
in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh,
5
wherein it was held that :
“…Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of
appellate jurisdiction but it is not viceversa. Both,
appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has
an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is
continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the
case may be. The power of the appellate court is coextensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily,
appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts
and law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the
statute itself that provides for appellate jurisdiction.
On the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though, is
a part of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it
cannot be equated with that of a fullfledged appeal.
In other words, revision is not continuation of suit or
of original proceeding. When the aid of revisional
court is invoked on the revisional side, it can
interfere within the permissible parameters provided
in the statute.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.5. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only
when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the
decision making process of the fora below.
7. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National
Commission u/S. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or
disposed of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission.
5 (2014) 9 SCC 78
13
7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present case, had already
been finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and
Order dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation
emanated from the execution of the final order passed by
this Court.
7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of
Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or
National Commission.
Section 25(3) 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.
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.
7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different
from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a
14
consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are
independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement
of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be
construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’.
7.4. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel for the
Appellant raised a contention that execution proceedings
are a continuation of the ‘appeal’, and must therefore be
considered to be a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’.
Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of
the Bombay High Court in Satguru Construction Co. Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
6 and
Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant Gajanan Pathak & Ors.,
7
as well as the Patna High Court in M/s. Parshava
Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose,
8 wherein it was held that
execution proceedings are a continuation of the Suit.
7.5. On the other hand, the Respondent – Complainant has
placed reliance on a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli
Rajamma,
9 wherein it was held that :
“Execution Proceedings, in our view, cannot be
regarded as continuation of the suit in the sense in
which the proceedings in appeal are treated.”
(emphasis supplied)
6 2007 (3) MhLJ 843.
7 2011 (6) MhLJ 799.
8 AIR 1979 Pat 308.
9 AIR 1988 AP 226.
15
7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat
Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors.,
10 has
similarly held that execution proceedings cannot be
regarded as a continuation of the Suit.
7.7. We affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court. 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. They are independent proceedings initiated
by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the
substantive dispute.
7.8. 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.
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.
7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a
jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition
10 AIR 1987 Pat 33.
16
u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal
filed before the State Commission, in Execution
proceedings.
8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision
Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore,
the National Commission modified the decree passed by this
Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had
directed the Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal
amount of Rs. 2,67,750/ (which included an amount of Rs.
3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board). The
National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of
Rs. 3,937/ twice, by first including it in the principal amount
of Rs. 2,67,750/; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on
the same amount of Rs. 3,937/, which would amount to a
double payment.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the judgment of
the Delhi High Court, which has rightly set aside the Order
passed by the National Commission on the ground that a
Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order
passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of
execution proceedings.
17
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
…….........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…...……………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
May 6, 2019
18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4631 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 6276 of 2019)
Karnataka Housing Board …Appellant
versus
K. A. Nagamani …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The present Civil Appeal arises out of execution proceedings
initiated by the Respondent – Complainant from an Order
passed by the State Commission in a consumer dispute. The
issue which has arisen for consideration is whether a Revision
Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 (herein after referred to as “the 1986 Act”) is
maintainable before the National Commission Dispute
Redressal Commission (herein after referred to as “National
1
Commission”) against an Order passed by the State
Commission in an execution proceeding.
2. The factual matrix in which the present jurisdictional issue
has been raised, is as follows:
2.1. The Respondent – Complainant applied for allotment of a
HIGB Flat under the SelfFinancing Housing Scheme at
Kengeri, Bangalore. The Appellant – Karnataka Housing
Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) vide letter
dated 25.03.1992 allotted Flat No. 116, Type B on the First
Floor to the Respondent – Complainant. The Board issued
a Provisional Allotment letter dated 23.04.1992 informing
the Respondent – Complainant that the cost of the flat was
Rs. 3,15,000 which was to be paid in the instalments as
specified.
It is an admitted position that the Respondent –
Complainant deposited a total amount of Rs. 2,67,750 in
four instalments.
2.2. The Board issued letter dated 24.06.1995 whereby the
Respondent – Complainant was allotted another flat, in
lieu of the earlier flat for which the provisional allotment
had been made. The Respondent – Complainant was
informed that the cost of the flat was Rs. 5,90,000. Since
the Respondent – Complainant was not willing to pay the
2
final cost demanded by the Board, she sought a refund of
the amount deposited by her.
2.3. The Board refunded the amount of Rs. 2,63,813 after
deducting Rs. 3,937 deposited by the Respondent –
Complainant.
2.4. The Respondent – Complainant made a representation to
the Board demanding refund of the amount deducted, and
also Interest @ 27% p.a. on the entire amount deposited
from the date of payment of each instalment, till the date
of refund.
The Board however refused to accept the demand of
the Respondent – Complainant.
2.5. The Respondent – Complainant filed a Consumer
Complaint alleging deficiency of service under Section 2(1)
(c)(iii) of the 1986 Act before the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, and prayed for
compensation.
The District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006
allowed the Complaint, and directed payment of Interest @
12% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750 from
the date of deposit of the respective instalments, till the
date of realization. The Board was also directed to refund
the amount of Rs. 3,937 to the Respondent – Complainant.
3
It was directed that the amounts be paid within 45 days
from the date of the Order.
2.6. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
District Forum vide Order dated 21.12.2006, the
Respondent – Complainant preferred Appeal No. 166 of
2007 before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
The State Commission vide Order dated 06.02.2007
dismissed the Appeal of the Respondent – Complainant.
2.7. The Respondent – Complainant filed Revision Petition No.
1839 of 2007 before the National Commission.
The National Commission vide Order dated 04.08.2011
dismissed the Revision Petition and affirmed the Order
passed by the District Forum.
2.8. The Respondent – Complainant filed SLP (Civil) No. 35226
– 35227 of 2011 before this Court, which was allowed, and
the Order passed by the National Commission was set
aside. This Court vide Judgment and Order dated
19.09.2012 directed the Appellant – Board to pay Interest
@ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited being Rs. 2,67,750
from the date of deposit till the date of realization; refund
the amount of Rs. 3,937 which had been deducted by the
4
Board; pay Rs. 50,000 towards compensation for
deficiency in service, and Rs. 20,000 towards Costs of
litigation to the Respondent – Complainant. The operative
part of the Order is setout herein below for ready
reference :
“For the reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeals
and pass the following order:
(i) The respondent is directed to pay the appellantcomplainant interest at the rate of 18% per annum
on Rs.2,67,750/ from date of its respective deposit
till the date of realization with further direction to
refund the amount of Rs. 3,937/ to her, as directed
by the Consumer Forum.
(ii) The respondent is directed to pay the appellantcomplainant further sum of Rs.50,000/ as
compensation for deficiency in service on their part.
(iii) The respondent is also directed to pay the
appellantcomplainant a sum of Rs.20,000/
towards cost of the litigation incurred by her.”
The ‘consumer dispute’ stood finally adjudicated by this
Court vide Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012 which
conclusively determined the rights and obligations of the
parties.
2.9. The Respondent – Complainant filed Execution Application
No. 2 of 2014 before the District Forum. The Respondent –
Complainant claimed payment of an amount of Rs.
3,58,749 towards execution of the Order dated 19.09.2012
passed by this Court. Both parties submitted their Memo
of calculation before the District Forum. The District
5
Forum vide Order dated 16.08.2014 held that the Memo of
calculation filed by the Respondent – Complainant was
partly correct, and directed the Appellant – Board to make
an additional payment of Rs. 1,07,057.
The Board satisfied the Decree by payment of the sum
of Rs. 1,07,057 vide Demand Draft dated 09.09.2014.
2.10. On 22.09.2014, the Respondent – Complainant filed
Execution Appeal No. 1238 of 2014 under Section 15 of
the 1986 Act, challenging the Order dated 16.08.2014
before the State Commission.
The State Commission vide Order dated 01.03.2016
allowed the Appeal filed by the Respondent – Complainant,
and set aside the Order dated 16.08.2014 passed by the
District Forum in E.P. No. 2 of 2014. It was directed that
the amount of Rs. 2,67,750 already paid by the Board,
would be appropriated first towards the Interest
component and then towards the principal amount. The
State Commission remitted the matter to the District
Forum for fresh computation in compliance with the
Order.
2.11. Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the
Appellant – Board preferred a Revision Petition u/S. 21(b)
6
of the 1986 Act before the National Commission being R.P.
No. 1362 of 2016.
The Respondent – Complainant filed I.A. No. 299 of
2017 to challenge the maintainability of the Revision
Petition filed by the Appellant – Board.
The Revision Petition filed by the Board was allowed
vide Order dated 10.02.2017. The stand taken by the
Respondent – Complainant was rejected as being devoid of
merit.
2.12. The Respondent – Complainant thereafter preferred M.A.
No. 281 of 2017 for referring I.A. No. 299 of 2017 to a
larger bench; and filed M.A. No. 282 of 2017 for declaring
the Order dated 10.02.2017 to be a nullity.
The National Commission vide Order dated 02.02.2018
rejected the applications filed by the Respondent –
Complainant.
2.13. Being aggrieved by the Orders dated 10.02.2017 and
02.02.2018 passed by the National Commission, the
Respondent – Complainant filed W.P. (Civil) No. 1746 of
2018 before the Delhi High Court.
The Delhi High Court vide the Impugned Judgment
dated 13.11.2018, set aside the Orders passed by the
National Commission, and held that the National
Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision
7
Petition against the Order passed in Execution Proceedings
by the State Commission. It was held that the nature of
enforcement proceedings is materially different from the
proceedings for adjudication of the consumer dispute. The
Order passed in an Execution Petition was not amenable
to a challenge before the National Commission in exercise
of its Revisional Jurisdiction.
2.14. Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.11.2018 passed by the
Delhi High Court, the Appellant filed the present Appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that:
3.1. 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.
3.2. The intent of Section 21(b) is clearly to provide revisional
jurisdiction to the National Commission, over the State
Commission. The reference under Section 21(b) is
specifically to orders passed in any consumer dispute
which is pending before, or has been decided by any State
Commission.
8
3.3. 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.
3.4. Execution proceedings are a continuation of the original
proceedings i.e. the Consumer Complaint.
Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment of
this Court in Dokku Bhushayya v. Katragadda
Ramakrishnayya & Ors.1
4. On the other hand, the Respondent who appeared in person,
inter alia contended that :
4.1. A Revision Petition is not maintainable under Section 21(b)
of the 1986 Act, against an order of the State Commission
passed in execution proceedings.
4.2. The impugned judgment does not merit interference.
4.3. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides
that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and
not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the
time being in force. Therefore, the National Commission
cannot go beyond the limitation placed by the CPC. Order
45, Rule 16 of CPC bars revision in execution appeals.
4.4. 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,
1 (1963) 2 SCR 499.
9
cannot be given a wide interpretation to encompass
execution proceedings.
4.5. An Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a
“consumer dispute” pending before the State Commission.
The “consumer dispute” filed by the Respondent –
Complainant was finally adjudicated by this Court vide
Judgment and Order dated 19.09.2012.
4.6. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only has
the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance with
Order XXI CPC.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the pleadings and
written submissions filed.
6. The issue which arises for our consideration in the present
Appeal is whether a Revision Petition is maintainable before
the National Commission u/S. 21(b) of the 1986 Act against an
Order passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising
out of execution proceedings.
6.1. The right to file a Revision Petition, like an appeal, is a
right conferred by statute.2
In the absence of a statutory
conferment, there is no inherent right to file a revision.
Section 21 sets out the jurisdiction of the National
Commission which is reproduced hereunder:
“21. Jurisdiction of the National
Commission. — Subject to the other provisions of
2 P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2004) 11 SCC 672.
10
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
The National Commission has :
(i) original jurisdiction to entertain complaints
where the value of goods or services exceeds
rupees one crore;
(ii) jurisdiction to entertain appeals against Orders
of any State Commission; and
(iii) supervisory jurisdiction over any State
Commission in any “consumer dispute” pending
or decided by a State Commission, which is
challenged on the ground of lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
6.2. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/S. 21(b) by the
National Commission is limited to a consumer dispute
11
which has been filed before the State Commission3
. 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 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”.
6.3. A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an ‘appeal’.
In Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao
Maruthirao Janagaval,
4
this Court discussed the
distinction between “appellate jurisdiction” and “revisional
jurisdiction” as follows:
“2. ‘Appeal’ and ‘revision’ are expressions of
common usage in Indian statute and the distinction
between ‘appellate jurisdiction’ and ‘revisional
jurisdiction’ is well known though not well defined.
Ordinarily, appellate jurisdiction involves a
rehearing, as it were, on law as well as fact and is
invoked by an aggrieved person. Such jurisdiction
may, however, be limited in some way as, for
instance has been done in the case of second appeal
under the Code of Civil Procedure, and under some
Rent Acts in some States. Ordinarily, again,
revisional jurisdiction is analogous to a power of
superintendence and may sometimes be exercised
even without its being invoked by a party. The
extent of revisional jurisdiction is defined by the
statute conferring such jurisdiction. The conferment
of revisional jurisdiction is generally for the purpose
3 Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
(2016) 14 SCC 161.
4 (1975) 2 SCC 246.
12
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.4. Reference must also be made to the judgment of this Court
in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh,
5
wherein it was held that :
“…Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part of
appellate jurisdiction but it is not viceversa. Both,
appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has
an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is
continuation of suit or original proceeding, as the
case may be. The power of the appellate court is coextensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily,
appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts
and law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the
statute itself that provides for appellate jurisdiction.
On the other hand, revisional jurisdiction, though, is
a part of appellate jurisdiction but ordinarily it
cannot be equated with that of a fullfledged appeal.
In other words, revision is not continuation of suit or
of original proceeding. When the aid of revisional
court is invoked on the revisional side, it can
interfere within the permissible parameters provided
in the statute.”
(emphasis supplied)
6.5. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only
when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the
decision making process of the fora below.
7. The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National
Commission u/S. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or
disposed of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission.
5 (2014) 9 SCC 78
13
7.1. The consumer dispute, in the present case, had already
been finally adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and
Order dated 19.09.2012. The second round of litigation
emanated from the execution of the final order passed by
this Court.
7.2. Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement of
Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or
National Commission.
Section 25(3) 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.
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.
7.3. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different
from the nature of proceedings for adjudication of a
14
consumer complaint. Execution proceedings are
independent proceedings. Orders passed for enforcement
of the final order in the Consumer dispute, cannot be
construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’.
7.4. During the course of the hearing, learned Counsel for the
Appellant raised a contention that execution proceedings
are a continuation of the ‘appeal’, and must therefore be
considered to be a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’.
Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of
the Bombay High Court in Satguru Construction Co. Pvt.
Ltd. & Ors. v. Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
6 and
Raghunath R. Shingate v. Jayant Gajanan Pathak & Ors.,
7
as well as the Patna High Court in M/s. Parshava
Properties Ltd. v. A.K. Bose,
8 wherein it was held that
execution proceedings are a continuation of the Suit.
7.5. On the other hand, the Respondent – Complainant has
placed reliance on a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Guntupalli Rama Subbayya v. Guntupalli
Rajamma,
9 wherein it was held that :
“Execution Proceedings, in our view, cannot be
regarded as continuation of the suit in the sense in
which the proceedings in appeal are treated.”
(emphasis supplied)
6 2007 (3) MhLJ 843.
7 2011 (6) MhLJ 799.
8 AIR 1979 Pat 308.
9 AIR 1988 AP 226.
15
7.6. A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Masomat
Narmada Devi & Anr. v. Nandan Singh & Ors.,
10 has
similarly held that execution proceedings cannot be
regarded as a continuation of the Suit.
7.7. We affirm the view taken by the Full Bench of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court and Patna High Court. 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. They are independent proceedings initiated
by the decree holder to enforce the decree passed in the
substantive dispute.
7.8. 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.
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.
7.9. In the present case, the National Commission committed a
jurisdictional error by entertaining the Revision Petition
10 AIR 1987 Pat 33.
16
u/S. 21(b) filed by the Appellant – Board against an appeal
filed before the State Commission, in Execution
proceedings.
8. The National Commission erroneously allowed the Revision
Petition u/S. 21(b) which was not maintainable. Furthermore,
the National Commission modified the decree passed by this
Court vide Order dated 19.11.2012 wherein this Court had
directed the Board to pay Interest @ 18% p.a. on the principal
amount of Rs. 2,67,750/ (which included an amount of Rs.
3,937 which had been initially deducted by the Board). The
National Commission has awarded Interest on the amount of
Rs. 3,937/ twice, by first including it in the principal amount
of Rs. 2,67,750/; and thereafter awarding Interest @ 18% on
the same amount of Rs. 3,937/, which would amount to a
double payment.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we affirm the judgment of
the Delhi High Court, which has rightly set aside the Order
passed by the National Commission on the ground that a
Revision Petition was not maintainable against the Order
passed by the State Commission in an appeal arising out of
execution proceedings.
17
The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
…….........................J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)
…...……………………J.
(INDU MALHOTRA)
New Delhi,
May 6, 2019
18
