NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Smt. Babita Aggarwal & Ors. Complainants
Vs.
Dr. S.K. Goel Opposite Party
BEFORE:
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,
PRESIDENT
MRS.
RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.
MR.
B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA, MEMBER.
Amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amendment by the Amending Act, 2002 coming into force on 15th march, 2003 question if National Commission has jurisdiction to try complaints where value of the complaint filed earlier to 15.3.20003 is less than Rs.1.00 crore held Amending Act is prospective in nature cases filed before 15th March, 2003 would be amenable to jurisdiction of the National Commission.
For the complainants : Mr. Anil Karnwal, Advocate
Amicus Curiae Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Senior Advocate
Mrs. Pankaj Balaa Varma, and
Ms. Ashta Tyagi, Advocates .
26.3.2003
O R D E R
During the course
of hearing of this complaint wherein
there is a claim for an amount of about Rs.25.00 lakhs a question was raised whether National
Commission would continue to entertain
such a complaint where the value is
less than Rs.1.00 crore. This question
arise in view of the amendment to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended
by the Amendment Act of 2002. Since the question raised is of
importance and as divergent views have
been expressed by the Presidents of the
State Commissions in a meeting held on 16.3.2003, it was thought
appropriate to give authoritative
opinion by the National Commission.
We
requested Dr. Rajiv Dhavan to assist us in the matter. Ms.. Astha Tyagi, Advocate and consultant of
this Commission was asked to provide necessary assistance to Dr. Dhavan, from
the records of this Commission.
Similar request was also made to Mrs. Pankaj Bala Varma, Advocate. Ms. Astha Tyagi and Ms. Pankaj Bala Varma
shall be paid Rs.2,500/- each as out of pocket expenses by the President,
NCDRC Bar Association.
Today we have heard detailed
arguments. Views have been expressed by
both sides. After examining the various authorities and earlier decision of this Commission in
the case of Premier Automobiles Ltd.
vs. Dr. Manoj Ramachandran and Others, decided on 21st December,
1993, we are of the opinion that the Amendment Act has to be construed prospectively. Due to urgency of the matter we are passing short order. Detailed reasons will follow. It is thus made clear that the Consumer
Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 is
prospective in nature. Complaints which
have already been filed before the
State Commissions and the National Commission shall continue
to be heard and disposed of by respective
State Commissions and the National
Commission in accordance with Law.
A
copy of this order shall be transmitted by the Registry to all the State
Commissions immediately by Fax.
Further
hearing in this complaint stands adjourned to
4.4.2002.
J
( D.P. WADHWA)
PRESIDENT
.
(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)
MEMBER
(B.K. TAIMNI)
J.
(K.S. GUPTA)