In a significant ruling that provides relief to countless consumers, the Supreme Court of India has corrected a legislative anomaly in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. A bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal held that a drafting error in a 2002 amendment had inadvertently left a gap regarding the enforcement of final orders passed by consumer forums. By applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Court has ruled that all orders—not just interim ones—passed between March 15, 2003, and July 20, 2020, are enforceable in the same manner as a decree of a civil court.
The judgment came in a batch of appeals filed by Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. against M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates and others, challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC).
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed in 2005 by the Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. The society alleged defects in construction and deficiency of service against the builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, primarily seeking a direction for the execution of the Deed of Conveyance.
On March 16, 2007, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint, directing the builder to execute the conveyance deed and pay a compensation of ₹5,00,000. Following this, the society filed an execution petition. In these proceedings, on November 20, 2007, the District Forum approved a draft conveyance deed and directed the builder to execute it.
This order from the execution proceedings was challenged by the builder and other respondents through revision petitions before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra. On April 21, 2014, the State Commission allowed the revisions and set aside the District Forum’s order. Aggrieved, the society filed execution revision petitions before the NCDRC.
On July 16, 2019, the NCDRC dismissed the society’s petitions, holding them to be “not maintainable.” The National Commission reasoned that although the respondents had wrongly filed revision petitions before the State Commission, they had a right to file an appeal under Section 27-A of the 1986 Act. Therefore, the State Commission’s order should be deemed to have been passed in its appellate jurisdiction, against which no revision would lie to the NCDRC. This order was impugned before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant society argued that the NCDRC had erred. It was contended that after the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002, which came into force on March 15, 2003, Section 25 of the Act only provided for the enforcement of “interim orders,” creating a legislative gap for the enforcement of final orders that were not monetary in nature. The appellant submitted that this was an “injudicious blunder” that rendered consumer forums “toothless.”
The respondents countered that the revision petition before the NCDRC was not maintainable against an appellate order of the State Commission in execution proceedings, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani.
Court’s Analysis: Curing a Casus Omissus
The Supreme Court identified the core issue as a potential drafting error in Section 25 of the 1986 Act, as it stood after the 2002 amendment. The bench noted that prior to this amendment, Section 25 allowed for “every order” of a consumer forum to be enforced as if it were a decree of a civil court. However, the substituted Section 25(1) specifically mentioned only the non-compliance of an “interim order.” This anomaly persisted until the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which, under Section 71, restored the original position, making “every order” enforceable like a civil decree.
The Court observed that this created an anomalous situation for the period between March 15, 2003, and July 20, 2020. The Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, acting as amicus curiae, unanimously submitted that this was a casus omissus (a case omitted or not provided for) and that the Court could fill the legislative gap by applying purposive construction to uphold the Act’s objective as a social benefit-oriented legislation.
The Court agreed, stating that the normal principle of literal interpretation can be departed from when it leads to absurdity or defeats the statute’s purpose. The judgment noted, “When faced with an apparently defective provision in a statute, courts prefer to assume that the draftsman had committed a mistake rather than concluding that the legislature has deliberately introduced an absurd or irrational statutory provision.”
The bench held that to align the provision with the spirit of the Act, the words “an interim order” in Section 25(1) must be read as “any order.” The Court further read into the provision the mechanism for enforcement, making the procedure under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable.
The Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the following key declarations and directions:
- Re-interpretation of Section 25(1): For the period from March 15, 2003, to July 20, 2020, Section 25(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, shall be read as:
“Where any order made under this Act is not complied with, the District Forum or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, enforce the same in the manner as if it were a decree or order made by the Court in a suit and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable and may order the property of the person, not complying with such order to be attached.” - Appellate Remedy: The Court clarified that an appeal against an order passed by a District Forum in execution proceedings lies to the State Commission under Section 15 of the 1986 Act. However, no further appeal or revision is maintainable against the State Commission’s order in such matters.
- Direction to NCDRC: Noting the large number of execution petitions pending since 1992, the Court requested the Chairman of the NCDRC to take appropriate steps for their expeditious disposal. The Court remarked, “An order passed by any court, or any forum is merely a kind of paper decree unless effective relief is granted to the party entitled thereto.”
The ruling effectively ensures that consumers who obtained final, non-monetary orders from consumer forums during the 17-year period are not left without a remedy for their enforcement.
