In yet another landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has held that any appeal before the apex court against an order which has been passed in the course of execution proceedings by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) is not maintainable.
A bench comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and K.M. Joseph referred to the Karnataka Housing Board vs K.A. Nagamani (2019) where the court had made a distinction between execution proceedings and original proceedings and held that the former are separate and independent. Subsequently, the court dismissed the appeal filed before it stating, "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."
The appeal was filed against the NCDRC order dated 03.11.2015. The order had directed M/s Ambience Infrastructure Private Limited, who is the appellant in the present case, to pay 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.
The Apex court observed that an appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 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 claimed, if any, exceeds the threshold which is prescribed.
According to the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019, any person, aggrieved by an order made by the National Commission in the exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58, may approach the Supreme Court against such order within a period of thirty days from the date of the impugned order.