Consumer protection proceedings under the 1986 Act to continue despite enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court held that proceedings initiated under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 before 20 July 2020 would continue before the corresponding fora under the 1986 Act. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision to dismiss a case due to enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction under the 2019 Act was set aside. The Court directed the NCDRC to continue hearing the appellants' consumer case, with the respondent ordered to bear the appellants' costs of Rs. 2 lakhs. The appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a complaint filed and registered under the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 should be entertained under the provisions of the erstwhile legislation after the new Act of 2019 came into force.
2. The interpretation of Section 107 of the Act of 2019 and its interplay with Section 6 of the General Clauses Act 1897.
3. The impact of changes in pecuniary jurisdiction on pending proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The Consumer Protection Act 2019 was published on 9 August 2019. The material provisions came into force on 20 July 2020. The appellants filed a consumer case before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) on 18 June 2020 under the 1986 Act. However, the NCDRC dismissed the case on 30 July 2020, citing the enhanced pecuniary jurisdiction under the 2019 Act. The appellants' review petition was also dismissed.

2. Submissions:
Appellants' Submissions:
- Section 107(3) of the 2019 Act incorporates Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, ensuring pending proceedings continue under the old Act.
- The new Act affects substantive rights and must be prospective.
- No provision in the 2019 Act for retrospective operation or transferring pending cases.

Respondent's Submissions:
- The 2019 Act aims to strengthen consumer remedies and expedite case disposal.
- The change in forum is procedural, not substantive, and applies retrospectively.
- The right of appeal is substantive, but a change in forum is procedural.

3. Position of Law on Change of Forum:
Precedents:
- Venugopala Reddiar (1943): A right to continue a suit is substantive and cannot be taken away without clear legislative intent.
- Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan (1954): Differentiated between substantive rights of appeal and procedural changes in the forum.
- Garikapati (1957): Right of appeal is substantive and vested from the institution of the suit.
- New India Assurance (1975): Change of forum is procedural and generally operates retrospectively.
- Maria Cristina (1978): Right of appeal is substantive, but the forum is procedural.
- Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (1994): Procedural laws are retrospective unless specified otherwise.
- Dhadi Sahu (1992): Change of forum affects substantive rights, a deviation from earlier precedents.
- Ambalal Sarabhai (2001): Pending proceedings are saved if they involve accrued rights.

Conclusion:
A change in forum is procedural and generally retrospective unless a contrary intention is evident. The decision in Dhadi Sahu deviated by treating the forum as a vested right, but subsequent judgments reaffirmed the procedural nature of forum changes.

4. Legislative Scheme of the Jurisdictional Provisions:
The 2019 Act increased the pecuniary jurisdiction of consumer fora:
- District Commission: Up to Rs. 1 crore.
- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC): Rs. 1 crore to Rs. 10 crores.
- NCDRC: Above Rs. 10 crores.
The 2019 Act also introduced pre-deposit requirements for appeals and specified that appeals to the NCDRC must involve substantial questions of law.

5. Legislative Intendment Underlying Section 107 of the Act of 2019:
Section 107(1) repeals the 1986 Act. Section 107(2) saves actions done under the repealed Act if not inconsistent with the new Act. Section 107(3) preserves the general application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, ensuring that pending proceedings continue unaffected by the repeal. The Act of 2019 does not explicitly mandate the transfer of pending cases according to new pecuniary limits, indicating an intent to protect consumer interests by avoiding procedural disruptions.

6. Summation:
The Supreme Court concluded that:
- Proceedings instituted before 20 July 2020 under the 1986 Act will continue before the corresponding fora under the 1986 Act.
- The impugned judgment of the NCDRC is set aside, and the NCDRC will continue hearing the appellants' consumer case.
- The respondent will bear the appellants' costs of Rs. 2 lakhs.

The appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

---