Pearl Narang is a final year law student of B.B.A.LL.B (Hons.) at Chandigarh University, Mohali and is currently interning as a Trainee in Business World Legal Community. She is also pursuing a diploma in Contract Drafting, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution. She is passionate about both law and writing.
The top court observed that an appeal is not maintainable if it pertains to the matter that is against an order which has been passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the course of execution proceeding
NCDRC had directed M/s Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. to pay 70 percent of maintenance charges from November 2002 with an interest at 9% per annum to the complainants. The company was directed to make this payment in 90 days. If the company is not able to make the payment within 90 days then it will pay an interest rate of 12% per annum. This order was passed in the execution petition.
The Court referred to the recent judgment in Karnataka Housing Board v. K.A. Nagamani (2019) 6 SCC 424 while delivering its verdict. In this case, the Court had distinguished between execution proceedings and original proceedings. It was held that the execution proceedings are separate and independent.
The bench of D Y Chandrachud and K M Joseph stated with respect to Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, an appeal will not lie before it, against an order that was passed in the course of execution proceedings.
Owing to the above observation, the court dismissed the appeals and stated that they are not maintainable.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house