The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal clarified that the review jurisdiction under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not extend to orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By dismissing the revision application, the Commission held that the 2019 Act’s review provision lacks retrospective application to proceedings governed by the earlier statute, thereby defining the temporal scope of the amended consumer protection regime.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The revisionist, Santosh Kr. Gupta and Sunny Gupta, sought review of the final order dated 08.05.2026 passed in Appeal No. 215/2022 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, alleging an error apparent on the face of the record under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Key Facts
- The underlying complaint CC/495/2014 was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alipore under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The complaint was later transferred or led to Appeal No. A/215/2022 before the State Commission.
- The State Commission passed the final order on 08.05.2026 dismissing the appeal.
- The revision application RA/16/2025 was filed within thirty days of the said order, invoking Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The respondents include Skylark Aviation Training School, its directors Aprajita Jindal and Mamatha, and various authorities of the Civil Aviation Department and the Government of India.
Procedural History
- 08.05.2026: State Commission passed final order in Appeal No. 215/2022.
- 11/09/2026: The Commission heard the revision application and delivered the present order dismissing RA/16/2025.
- The revision was filed under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, contending error apparent on the face of the record.
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought to set aside the final order dated 08.05.2026 and to have the matter reheard or decided afresh on the merits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 applies to review an order passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The revisionist argued that Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 confers a plenary power on the State Commission to review its own orders for error apparent on the face of the record, irrespective of the statute under which the original proceedings were conducted. They contended that the 2019 Act intended to provide a uniform review mechanism and that the language of Section 50 is not restricted to orders passed under the 2019 Act alone.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents countered that the statutory scheme of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not have retrospective application to proceedings initiated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They emphasized that the underlying complaint CC/495/2014 and the appeal A/215/2022 were filed and adjudicated under the 1986 Act, and thus the review jurisdiction under Section 50 of the 2019 Act cannot be invoked. They further submitted that allowing such review would create jurisdictional overlap and conflict between the two statutes.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the statutory scheme of the two enactments. It noted that Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as follows:
"Section 50 of C.P. Act, 2019 reads as follows : “50. Review by State Commission in certain cases. - The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.”"
The Court observed that the underlying proceedings - CC/495/2014 before the District Commission and A/215/2022 before the State Commission - were expressly filed and adjudicated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no express provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 extending its review jurisdiction to orders passed under the 1986 Act. Applying the principle that statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless expressly made retrospective, the Court held that Section 50 of the 2019 Act does not apply to review orders passed under the 1986 Act. Consequently, the revision application RA/16/2025 was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Verdict
The revisionists failed. The Court held that Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not apply to review orders passed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The revision application RA/16/2025 was dismissed. No costs were awarded and no monetary relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Temporal Scope of Statutory Amendments
Amendments to consumer protection legislation do not automatically extend to pending or concluded proceedings under the prior law unless the amending statute expressly provides for retrospective application. Practitioners must examine the specific language of the new enactment to determine its temporal reach.
Review Jurisdiction Requires Statutory Basis
The power to review an order is creature of statute. A party seeking review must invoke the provision that belongs to the same enactment under which the original order was passed. Invoking a review provision from a different statute renders the application incompetent.
Practitioners Must Check the Governing Statute Before Invoking Review
- Verify the year of the Consumer Protection Act under which the complaint or appeal was filed and decided.
- Confirm that the review provision (e.g., Section 50) belongs to the same enactment.
- Do not assume that newer procedural provisions apply retroactively to older cases without clear legislative intent.
