Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. She further contended that a consumer dispute would only mean a dispute with regard to deficiency in service and an order passed for enforcement of an order relating a consumer complaint would not fall within the definition of the term ‗consumer dispute' and, therefore, NCDRC would have no jurisdiction to entertain a Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Act. She referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Economic Transport Organization v. M/s Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr.: Civil Appeal No.5611/1999 in support of her contention.

23. The order dated 01.03.2016 passed by the State Commission was not in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Act and therefore, undisputedly, an appeal against the said order would not lie before the NCDRC. Thus, indisputably, the impugned orders have been passed by NCDRC in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Act and not in exercise of its appellate powers under Section 21(a)(ii) of the Act. As is apparent from the plain language of Section 21(b) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the NCDRC is limited to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any ‗consumer dispute' which may either be pending or has been decided by the State Commission. Thus, the issue to be addressed is whether NCDRC has passed the impugned orders in any ‗consumer dispute'. The expression ‗consumer dispute' is defined in Section 2(e) as under:-

33. The nature of execution proceedings is materially different from the nature of the proceedings for adjudication of the complaint. The said proceedings are independent proceedings. As noticed above, the consumer dispute culminates in the findings of the District Forum. As indicated by the opening sentence of Section 14(1) of the Act, the said order is passed ―after the proceedings conducted under Section 13‖. Thus, insofar as the consumer dispute is concerned, it stands determined by an order passed under Section 14 of the Act. Orders passed for execution of any order passed under Section 14 would plainly not be an orders ―in a consumer dispute‖.

38. This Court is also of the view that as nature of enforcement proceedings is materially different from the proceedings for adjudication of the dispute. Any orders passed for enforcement of orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or NCRDC cannot be construed as orders passed in a ‗consumer dispute' that stands finally adjudicated.

39. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dokku Bhushayya (supra) is of little assistance to KHB. In that case, the Supreme Court was construing the provisions of Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC. Clause 1 of Order 32 Rule 7 of CPC provides that no next friend or guardian for a minor shall enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor "with reference to the suit", without leave of the Court. The words ―reference to the suit‖ are expansive and would also include proceedings in relation to the said suit. It is in this context that the Supreme Court had observed that execution proceedings are extension of the suit. There is no doubt that proceedings for enforcement of orders is also part of the proceedings initiated by a complainant. However, that does not mean that orders passed in the context of enforcement of the orders adjudicating the consumer dispute, are also orders in that consumer dispute.