Pre-2019 Act Complaints Exempt from 50% Payment Rule

ECGC Limited Versus Mokul Shriram EPC JV

ECGC Limited Versus Mokul Shriram EPC JV - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019.
2. Retrospective application of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
3. Conditions for filing an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019.
4. Impact of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on the repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or 2019:
The primary issue was whether the present appeal should be governed by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The appeal was initially filed under Section 23 of the 1986 Act, which required a deposit of fifty thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount, whichever is less. In contrast, the 2019 Act mandates a deposit of fifty percent of the amount awarded. The appellant argued that the 1986 Act should apply as the lis (dispute) commenced before the enforcement of the 2019 Act.

2. Retrospective Application of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019:
The appellant contended that the 2019 Act should not apply retrospectively to appeals filed before its commencement. The General Clauses Act, 1897, particularly Section 6, was cited to support the argument that the repeal of an enactment does not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactment. The court examined precedents, including Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., which established that a right of appeal is a substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure.

3. Conditions for Filing an Appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and 2019:
The appellant argued that the condition of depositing fifty percent of the amount under the 2019 Act is more onerous than the requirement under the 1986 Act. The court referred to various judgments, including Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Ors., which held that the right of appeal is vested at the time of the initiation of the proceedings and cannot be taken away by a subsequent enactment unless explicitly stated. The court concluded that the more onerous condition of the 2019 Act should not apply to appeals filed under the 1986 Act.

4. Impact of the General Clauses Act, 1897 on the Repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was pivotal in determining the impact of the repeal of the 1986 Act. The court noted that unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not affect any right, privilege, obligation, or liability acquired under the repealed enactment. The court found that the right to file an appeal under the 1986 Act had accrued in favor of the appellant and that no different intention was discernible from the repealing Act.

Conclusion:
The court held that the onerous condition of payment of fifty percent of the amount awarded under the 2019 Act would not be applicable to complaints filed prior to the commencement of the 2019 Act. The appeal was allowed to proceed under the provisions of the 1986 Act, and the application (IA No. 99210 of 2021) was allowed.