The Usurious Loans Act, 1918

 

The Usurious Loans Act, 1918

THE USURIOUS LOANS ACT, 1918

ACT NO. 10 OF 1918 1 [ 22nd March, 1918.]

An Act to give additional powers to Courts to deal in certain cases with usurious loans of money or in kind.

WHEREAS it is expedient to give additional powers to Courts to deal in certain cases with usurious loans of money or in kind; It is hereby enacted as follows:-
1.

(1) Short title and extent. This Act may be called the Usurious Loans Act, 1918 .

(2) It extends to the whole of India except ² (the territories which, immediately before the lst November, 1956 , were comprised in Part B States) ³ .

(3) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that it shall not apply to any area, class of persons, or class of transactions which it may specify in its notification.

2. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(1) " Interest" means rate of interest and includes the return to be made over and above what was actually lent, whether the same is charged or sought to be recovered specifically by way of interest or otherwise.

(2) " Loan" means a loan whether of money or in kind and includes any transaction which is, in the opinion of the Court, in substance a loan.

(3) " Suit to which this Act applies" means any suit-

(a) for the recovery of a loan made after the commencement of this Act; or

(b) for the enforcement of any security taken or any agreement, whether by, way of settlement of account or otherwise, made, after the commencement of this Act, in

1. It has been amended in the U. P. by U. P. Acts 23 of 1934 and 29 o 1930, fin the C. P. by C. P. Act 11 of 1934, in Madras by Mad. Act, 8 of 1937 in East Punjab by E. P. Act 4 of 1948, extended to the Union territory of Pondicherry by Act 26 of 1968 s. 3 and Sch. Amended in Himachal pradesh by H. P. Act 3 of 1970. Amended in Andhara pradesh by A. P. Act 24 of 1961. Repeeled in its application to Bellary District by mysore Act 14 of 1955. Extended to the whole of Madhya pradesh by M. D. Act 23 of 1958 (when notifild). Amended in uttar pradesh by U. P. Act 29 of 1976.

2. Subs. by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 3) Order. 1956. for" Part B States".

3. The Words" including British Baluchistan" omitted by the A. O. 1948.

respect of any loan made either before or after the commencement of this Act; ¹ or

(c) for the redemption of any security given after the com- mencement of this Act in respect of any loan made either before or after the commencement of this Act.]

3.

(1) Re- opening of transaction. Notwithstanding anything in the Usury Laws Repeal Act, 1855 (28 of 1855 ), where, in any suit to which this Act applies, whether heard ex parte or otherwise, the Court has reason to believe,

(a) that the interest is excessive; and

(b) that the transaction was, as between the parties thereto substantially unfair, the Court may exercise all or any of the following powers, namely may,-

(i) re- open the transaction, take an account between the parties and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any excessive interest

(ii) notwithstanding any agreement, purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation, re- open any account already taken between them and relieve the debtor of all liability in respect of any- excessive interest, and if anything has been paid or allowed in account in respect of such liability, order the creditor to repay any sum which it considers to be repayable in respect thereof;

(iii) set aside either wholly or in part or revise or alter any security given or agreement made in respect of any loan, and if the creditor has parted with the security, order him to indemnify the debtor in such manner and to such extent as it may deem just: Provided that, in the exercise of these powers, the Court shall not-

(i) re- open any agreement purporting to close previous dealings and to create a new obligation which has been entered into by the parties or any persons from whom they claim at a date more than ² twelve] years from the date of the transaction;

(ii) do anything which affects any decree of a Court.

1. Ins. by Act 28 of 1926, s. 2. 2 Subs. by a. 3, ibid., for" six".

Explanation.- In the case of a suit brought on a series of transactions the expression" the transaction" means, for the purposes of proviso (i), the first of such transactions.

(2) (a) In this section" excessive" means in excess of that which the Court deems to be reasonable having regard to the risk incurred

as it appeared, or must be taken to have appeared, to the creditor at the date of the loan.

(b) In considering whether interest is excessive under this sec- tion, the Court shall take into account any amounts charged or paid, whether in money or in kind, for expenses, inquiries, fines, bonuses, premia, renewals or any other charges, and if compound interest is charged, the periods at which it is calculated, and the total advantage which may reasonably be taken to have been expected from the transaction.

(c) In considering the question of risk, the Court shall take into account the presence or absence of security and the value thereof, the financial condition of the debtor and the result of any previous transactions of the debtor, by way of loan, so far as the same were known, or must be taken to have been known, to the creditor.

(d) In considering whether a transaction was substantially un- fair, the Court shall take into account all circumstances materially affecting the relations of the parties at the time of the loan or tending to show that the transaction was unfair, including the necessities or supposed necessities of the debtor at the time- of the loan so far as the same were known, or must be taken to have been known, to the creditor. Explanation.- Interest may of itself be sufficient evidence that the transaction was Substantially unfair.

(3) This section shall apply to any suit, whatever its form may be, if such suit is substantially one for the recovery of a loan or for the enforcement of any agreement or security in respect of a loan ¹ or for the redemption of any such security].

(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of any transferee for value who satisfies the Court that the transfer to him was bona fide, and that he had at the time of such transfer no notice of any fact which would have entitled the debtor as against the lender to relief under this section. For the purposes of this sub- section, the word" notice" shall have the same meaning as is ascribed to it in section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882 ).

(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from the existing powers or jurisdiction of any Court.

4. Insolvency proceedings. On any application relating to the admission or amount of a proof of a loan in any insolvency proceedings, the Court may exercise the like powers as may be exercised under section 3 by a Court in a suit to which this Act applies.

1. Ins. by Act 28 of 1926, s. 3.

 

Retrospective effect of the Consumer Protection Act 2019

 

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“New Act”) received the President’s assent on August 9, 2019 and has replaced the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (“Old Act”). Most of the important sections have been notified[1] with effect from July 20, 2020 marking the beginning of the New Act and making it largely operative and applicable throughout India. Amongst other changes notified, the New Act enhances the pecuniary jurisdiction of the respective Consumer Fora and extends to the Consumer the option to initiate proceedings at his or her place of residence or work.[2] The Old Act has been repealed in entirety.[3]

These changes to the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction of the respective Consumer Fora can be broadly categorized as a ‘change of forum’. Whether these changes are retrospective or not will depend a great deal on whether the changes are ‘substantive’ or ‘procedural’ in nature. A ‘change of forum’ could be substantive as well as procedural. It may well be procedural when the remedy was yet to be availed of but where the remedy had already been availed of (under an existing statutory provision), the right may be treated to have crystallized into a vested substantive right.[4]

In this backdrop, we propose to examine the effect of the ‘change of forum’ on:

• Fresh cases filed on or after July 20, 2020 i.e. the date of notification of the New Act.
• Cases filed before July 20, 2020 and pending before the respective Consumer Fora across the country.

Effect on fresh cases filed on or after July 20, 2020

Insofar as fresh cases are concerned, the change of forum is purely procedural and should accordingly be deemed retrospective.[5]

Maxwell in his Interpretation of Statutes indicated that no one has a vested right in any course of procedure. A person’s right of either prosecution or defence is conditioned by the manner prescribed for the time being by the law and if by the Act of Parliament, the mode of proceeding is altered, then no one has any other right than to proceed under the alternate mode.[6] The presumption against retrospection does not apply to legislation concerned merely with matters of procedure or of evidence; on the contrary, provisions of that nature are to be construed as retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such was not the intention of Parliament.[7]

In India, the principles relating to retrospectivity of a statute have been illustratively summarized by the Supreme Court of India as follows: [8]

“(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly confined to its clearly defined limits.

(ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.

(iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law.

(iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished.

(v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.”

In practice also the courts have almost always applied procedural changes, such as change in pecuniary or territorial jurisdictions, with effect from the date of notification of such changes/amendments/repeal provisions and the cases filed on or after such date have been held to be governed by the amended/new provisions. Some such instances can be found in relation to the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015[9] and the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015[10] amongst others.

Similarly, fresh consumer cases on or after July 20, 2020 will have to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the New Act, before the respective Consumer Fora exercising jurisdiction in terms of the New Act, notwithstanding whether the cause of action for filing such cases has arisen prior to, or after, the repeal of the Old Act.

Effect on cases filed before July 20, 2020 and pending before the respective Consumer Fora across the country

We have already seen above, that where the remedy has already been availed of under an existing statutory provision, the right may be treated to have crystallized into a vested substantive right. Thus, to ascertain the impact of the New Act on this crystallized substantive right, we need to examine the ‘Repeal and Savings’ provision of the New Act.

Section 107 of the New Act is as under:

“107. Repeal and Savings

(1) The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.

(3) The mention of particular matters in sub-section (2) shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with regard to the effect of repeal.”

Likewise, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1987 (“GC Act”) is as under:

“6. Effect of repeal.—Where this Act, or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not—

(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect; or

(b) affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed or anything duly done or suffered thereunder; or

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred in respect of any offence committed against any enactment so repealed; or

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid;

and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed.”

The opening words of Section 6 of the GC Act specify the field over which it is operative. It is operative over all the enactments under the General Clauses Act, Central Act or Regulations made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act. It also clarifies in case of repeal of any provision under the aforesaid Act or Regulation, unless a different intention appears from such repeal, it would have no affect over the matters covered in its clauses viz. (a) to (e). The central theme which spells out is that any investigation or legal proceeding pending may be continued and enforced as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not come into force. [11]

Thus, as a general rule, in view of Section 6, the repeal of a statute, which is not retrospective in operation, does not prima facie affect the pending proceedings which may be continued as if the repealed enactment were still in force. In other words, such repeal does not affect the pending cases which would continue to be concluded as if the enactment has not been repealed. When a lis commences, all rights and obligations of the parties get crystallised on that date. The mandate of Section 6 of the GC Act is simply to leave the pending proceedings unaffected which commenced under the unrepealed provisions unless contrary intention is expressed.[12]

A combined reading of sub-section (2) of section 107 of the New Act and sub-clauses (c) and (e) of section 6 of the GC Act leads to the following conclusions:

• Any “legal proceeding” in respect of any “right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed” shall not be affected by the repeal of the Old Act.
• Such “legal proceeding” shall continue “as if the repealing Act…..had not been passed”.
• Anything done or any action taken, or purported to be done or taken, under the Old Act “shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act (New Act), be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act (New Act).”

It is clear from the above, that the pending proceedings filed under the Old Act shall not abate on the passing of the New Act. The question, now, is whether such proceedings are required to be transferred to the Consumer Fora competent under the New Act?

In SEBI v. Classic Credit Ltd. [13], the Supreme Court has conclusively held and reiterated that, in a situation where the remedy had been availed of prior to the amendment (bringing about a change of forum), unless the amending provision by express words, or by necessary implication, mandates the ‘transfer’ of proceedings to the ‘forum’ introduced by the amendment, the ‘forum’ postulated by the unamended provision would continue to have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon pending matters (matters filed before amendment).

The aforesaid observations were made while considering applicability of the amendments made to the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (“SEBI Act”), in 2002 and 2014, whereby the forum for the trial of offences was changed. The 2002 amendment to Section 26(2) of the SEBI Act changed the forum from Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (First Class) to “no court inferior to the Court of Sessions”. The 2014 amendment omitted Section 26(2) and inserted Sections 26A to 26E with effect from 18.07.2013 whereby the offences were now to be tried by a Special Court.

After considering the express language of these amendments, the Supreme Court had concluded that the legislature had specifically intended to denude the Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (First Class) of their jurisdiction to try even those offences which were committed prior to the amendment, and therefore, all case would stand jurisdictionally transferred in terms of the amendment irrespective of whether the offence was committed before or after the amendment and irrespective of the fact whether trial had or had not been initiated.[14]

The express language of the New Act does not indicate any intention to transfer the pending proceedings to the Fora competent there under. To the contrary, sub-section (2) of section 107 of the New Act saves anything done or action taken or purported to have been done or taken under the Old Act, and by a deeming fiction deems them to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of the New Act. We are unable to infer a mandate for transfer of existing cases in the said provisions.

Our examination of the ‘Repeal and Savings’ clauses present in other statutes also reveals that the pending cases have been transferred by courts in situations where the statutes have specifically provided for such transfers. Some illustrations can be found under the Companies Act, 2013[15], Commercial Courts Act[16] and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016[17].

Lastly, it is important to refer to a recent decision[18] delivered by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court on the effect of a ‘change of forum’ on the proceedings initiated under the repealed provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Consumer Protection Act, 1987 (“Local Act”) and pending before the concerned Fora after such repeal. The High Court was seized with an appeal under Section 17 of the Local Act. While the appeal was pending, the Indian Parliament passed the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 inter alia bifurcating the State into two Union Territories, repealing the Local Act in force in the State and making the Central law, viz. the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 applicable to the Union Territories. Subsequently, the Central law has also been repealed by the New Act, viz. the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

In the above backdrop, the J&K High Court observed[19] that “an Act of the Legislature which brought about a change in the scheme of law/ forum would not affect pending actions/ proceedings, unless the intention to the contrary was clearly shown in the Act of the Legislature itself.” The High Court also considered the provisions of Section 6 of the GC Act along with the provisions of the New Act, and concluded[20] that “all the pending proceedings/ appeals arising out of the orders or awards passed by the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission are to continue to be heard and decided by this Court as if the unamended provision/ Act is still in force.”

Conclusion

In light of the above discussion, we can safely conclude that the change of forum effected under the New Act will apply to fresh cases filed on or after July 20, 2020, i.e. the date of notification of the New Act, whereas the cases already filed and pending under the Old Act will continue unabated and unaffected, without the need for any transfer to the Fora competent under the New Act.

A concern could be raised by consumers who, under the Old Act, have filed cases in jurisdictions other than their place of residence or work, and would like to avail the benefit of the New Act which allows filing of cases at their place of residence of work. It seems the legislature has provided a remedy in the New Act, whereby the State Commission[21] may transfer cases from one District Forum to another and the National Commission[22] may transfer cases from one State Commission to another, either upon an application of the Complainant or on its own motion. Thus, this concern has been addressed in the New Act. We hope the position regarding the effects of the ‘change of forum’ under the New Act, and especially the effect on the cases already filed under the Old Act and pending before various Consumer Fora through the country, will soon be solidified through a judicial pronouncement so that valuable time and money is saved from being spent on unnecessary litigation on this account.

 

The Consumer Protection Act 2019 - analysis

 

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (New Act)

Notification No. S.O. 2351(E) dated 15th July 2020 

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘New Act’) received the assent of the President of India and was published in the official gazette on 9th August 2019. This New Act will replace the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Old Act’). The New Act will come into force on such date as the Central Government may so notify.

The New Act is an Act to provide for protection of the interests of consumers and for the said purpose, to establish authorities for timely and effective administration and settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The New Act aims at strengthening consumer rights and protecting consumer interests, and further lays down simpler procedures to give consumers a speedy redressal. The Act also brings under its jurisdiction, the e- commerce and the tele-shopping industry.

Save as otherwise expressly provided by the Central Government, by notification, the New Act shall apply to all goods and services.

Now, recently, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of section 1 of the New Act, MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (Department of Consumer Affairs) has issued a Notification No. S.O. 2351(E) dated 15th July 2020 (‘the Said Notification’) whereby the Central Government has appointed the 20th day of July, 2020 as the date on which the following provisions of the said Act shall come into force, namely:-

Chapter	Sections
I	Section 2 [Except clauses (4), (13), (14), (16), (40)]
II	Sections 3 to 9 (both inclusive);
IV	Sections 28 to 73 (both inclusive); [Except sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58.]
V	Sections 74 to 81 (both inclusive);
VI	Sections 74 to 81 (both inclusive);
VII	Sections 90 and 91; [Except sections 88,89,92 & 93]
VIII	-Sections 95, 98, 100, -Section101 [Except clauses (f) to (m) and clauses (zg), (zh) and (zi) of sub –section 2 ]. -Sections 102, 103, 105, 106, 107 [ Except sections 94, 96,97,99, 104]

Chapter IV [Sections 28 to 73 (both inclusive); Except sub-clause (iv) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 58.] has been notified by the said Notification.

Chapter IV deals with ‘Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission’.

Now, we would like to try and deal herein only Chapter IV of the New Act. The rest of the provisions of the New Act may come in our next session.

Section 9 of the Old Act established three different authorities at three different levels to regulate and resolve matters related to consumers namely:

·         National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to be known as ‘National Commission’.

·         State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to be known as ‘State Commission’.

·         District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission to be known as ‘District Forum’.

Now under New Act, the District Forum is renamed as ‘District Commission’. 

PECUNIARY LIMIT UNDER NEW ACT AND OLD ACT: – 

‘DISTRICT COMMISSION’: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees [Section 34 of the New Act].

Whereas, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs [Section 11 of the old Act].  

‘STATE COMMISSION’: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees one crore, but does not exceed rupees ten crore [Section 47(1) of the New Act].

Whereas, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed, exceeds rupees twenty lakhs, but does not exceed rupees one crore [Section 17(1) of the Old Act]. 

‘NATIONAL COMMISSION’: Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration, exceeds rupees ten crore [Section 58(1) of the New Act].

Whereas, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and compensation, if any, claimed, exceeds rupees one crore [Section 21 of the Old Act].

THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILING OF APPEAL TO STATE COMMISSION IS INCREASED FROM 30 DAYS TO 45 DAYS.

Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed [Section 41 of the New Act] 

Whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15 of the Old Act, any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. 

CHANGE IN DEPOSIT AMOUNT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE STATE COMMISSION. 

The Opposite Party needs to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by District Commission before filing appeal before State Commission, earlier the ceiling was of maximum of Rs. 25,000/-, which has been removed. 

Second Proviso to Section 41 (1) of the New Act provides that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.

Whereas, Second Proviso to Section 15 of the Old Act provides that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less. 

CHANGE IN DEPOSIT AMOUNT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE NATIONAL COMMISSION. 

The Opposite Party needs to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by State Commission before filing appeal before National Commission, earlier the ceiling was of maximum of Rs. 35,000/, which has been removed.

Second Proviso to Section 51 (1) of the New Act provides that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.

Whereas, Second Proviso to Section 19 of the Old Act provides that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of the amount or rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less. 

CHANGE IN DEPOSIT AMOUNT TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT. 

The Opposite Party needs to deposit 50% of the amount ordered by National Commission before filing appeal before Hon’ble Supreme Court, earlier the ceiling was of maximum of Rs. 50,000/-, which has been removed. 

Second Proviso to Section 67 of the New Act provides that no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.

Whereas, Second Proviso to Section 23 of the Old Act provides that no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless that person has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent. of that amount or rupees fifty thousand, whichever is less.

APPEAL TO NATIONAL COMMISSION ONLY WHEN THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS INVOLVED IN THE MATTER.  

Section of 51(2) of the New Act provides that Save as otherwise expressly provided under this Act or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the National Commission from any order passed in appeal by any State Commission, if the National Commission is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.

Whereas, it is pertinent to note that this provision was not contained in the Old Act.

POWER TO DECLARE ANY TERMS OF CONTRACT AS NULL AND VOID. 

Section 49(2) and 59(2) of the New Act gives power to the State Commission and National Commission respectively to declare any terms of contract, which is unfair to any consumer, to be null and void. 

Whereas it is pertinent to note that this provision was not contained in the Old Act. 

POWER OF REVISION. 

Power of revision can still be exercised by National Commission under Section 58(1)(b) of the New Act and by State commission under section 47(1)(b) of the New Act.

Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the State Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Commission within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. [Section 47(1)(b) of the New Act].

Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity [Section 58(1)(b) of the New Act]. 

Whereas it is pertinent to note that this provision was not contained in the Old Act. 

POWER OF REVIEW. 

Power of review has been conferred to District Commission, State Commission and National Commission under section 40, 50 and 60 of the New Act respectively

The District 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 [Section 40 of the New Act].

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 [Section 50 of the New Act].

The National 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 [Section 60 of the New Act]. 

Whereas, in the Old Act power of review was given only to National Commission. Pursuant to Section 22 of the Old Act the National Commission shall have the power to review any order made by it, when there is an error apparent on the face of record.

ENFORCEMENT OF ORDERS OF DISTRICT COMMISSION, STATE COMMISSION AND NATIONAL COMMISSION. 

Section 71 of the New Act confers power of execution as provided Under Order XXI, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with such limitation as provided in the section.

Every order made by a District Commission, State Commission or the National Commission shall be enforced by it in the same manner as if it were a decree made by a Court in a suit before it and the provisions of Order XXI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, as far as may be, applicable, subject to the modification that every reference therein to the decree shall be construed as reference to the order made under this Act. [Section 71 of the New Act].