AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 167 wordsHEARD Mr. R.S. Badhran, learned Counsel for the petitioner. In response to the direction dated 29.11.2011, he states that he wishes to pursue the petition.
HIS main contention is that the State Commission erred in not giving the petitioner an opportunity to deposit the statutory amount with the appeal that the petitioner had filed before the State Commission and dismissing the appeal on that ground. We have considered this contention carefully but regret to reject it out of hand. The statutory deposit is a pre-requisite for consideration of an appeal under the provisions of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. That this primary responsibility needs to be discharged by any appellant before it can expect its appeal to be admitted to consideration has been also reaffirmed by the Apex Court in its decision dated 10.1.2011 in Appeal (Civil) No. 1528 of 2011. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in dismissing the revision petition and order as such. Revision Petition dismissed.