KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD versus K. A. NAGAMANI

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 218 · Decided: 06-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD
v.
K. A. NAGAMANI
(Civil Appeal No. 4631 of 2019)
MAY 6, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986: s. 21(b) – Jurisdiction of the
National Commission – Appeal arising out of execution proceedings
– Order passed by the State Commission –Maintainability of Revision
Petition before the National Commission u/s. 21(b) – Held: Revision
Petition before the National Commission was not maintainable
against the order passed by the State Commission in an appeal
arising out of execution proceedings – Execution petition cannot
be termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’ – Orders
passed for enforcement of the final order in the consumer dispute,
cannot be construed to be orders passed in the ‘consumer dispute’
– Revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission u/
s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed of ‘consumer
dispute’ before the State Commission –  Thus, the National
Commission committed a jurisdictional error by entertaining the
Revision Petition.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The National Commission cannot go beyond
the limitation placed by the CPC. Order 45, Rule 16 of CPC bars
revision in execution appeals. An execution petition cannot be
termed as a continuation of the ‘consumer dispute’. The definition
of a ‘complaint’ and a ‘consumer dispute’ u/S. 2(1)(c) and (e) of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 respectively, cannot be given
a wide interpretation to encompass execution proceedings. An
Order in execution proceedings is not an Order in a “consumer
dispute” pending before the State Commission. The “consumer
dispute” filed by the Respondent-Complainant was finally
adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated
19.09.2012. In an execution proceeding, the executing forum only
has the jurisdiction ‘to execute’ the order in accordance with
Order XXI CPC. [Para 4.3-4.6] [227-D-F]
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 218
218
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
219
1.2 The National Commission has original jurisdiction to
entertain complaints where the value of goods or services
exceeds rupees one crore; jurisdiction to entertain appeals
against Orders of any State Commission; and supervisory
jurisdiction over any State Commission in any “consumer
dispute” pending or decided by a State Commission, which is
challenged on the ground of lack or excess of jurisdiction. The
exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) by the National
Commission is limited to a consumer dispute which has been
filed before the State Commission. The jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) of
the 1986 Act can be exercised by the National Commission only
in case of a “consumer dispute” filed before the State
Commission. The National Commission in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction u/s. 21(b) is concerned about the
correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the State
Commission in a “consumer dispute”. [Para 6.1, 6.2] [228-F-H;
229-A-B]
Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 14 SCC 161 -
referred to.
1.3 A Revision Petition has a narrower scope than an
‘appeal’. Ordinarily, the power of revision can be exercised only
when illegality, irrationality, or impropriety is found in the decision
making process of the fora below. [Para 6.3, 6.5] [229-C; 230-F]
P.S. Sathappan (Dead) by Lrs. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. and
Ors.(2004) 11 SCC 672 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 188 ;
Dattonpant Gopalvarao Devakate v. Vithalrao
Maruthirao Janagaval (1975) 2 SCC 246 : [1975]
Suppl. SCR 67 ; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 - referred to.
1.4 The revisional jurisdiction conferred on the National
Commission u/s. 21(b) is with respect to a pending or disposed
of ‘consumer dispute’ before the State Commission. The
consumer dispute, in the instant case, had already been finally
adjudicated by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated
19.09.2012. The second round of litigation emanated from the
execution of the final order passed by this Court. [Para 7, 7.1]
[230-G-H; 231-A]
KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. K. A. NAGAMANI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
1.5 Section 25 of the 1986 Act, provides for the enforcement
of Orders passed by the District Forum, State Commission or
National Commission. An Order passed for enforcement, would
not be an order in the ‘consumer dispute’ since it stands finally
decided by the appellate forum, which has conclusively
deter

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.