SALUJA AUTOMOBILES vs AMITA BHATNAGAR (DR.)

IN this revision, challenge is to the order dated 8.6.2005 of HP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla which runs as under : "Notice to the respondents for 29.7.2005. Record be also summoned. The initial deposit of Rs. 21,000 received with the appeal by way of demand draft be invested in fixed deposit initially for a period of 91 days with the State Bank of Patiala, Kasumpti, Shimla-9. Subject to the deposit of remaining decretal amount within eight weeks from today, the operation of the impugned order is stayed."

ON complaint being filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner/opposite aprty No. 2 and Daewoo Motors Pvt. Ltd. respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 1 the District Forum on contest directed the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to jointly and severally refund the amount of Rs. 30,000 deposited by respondent No. 1 along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint. Total awarded amount is approximately Rs. 42,000. Short contention advanced by Mr. A.P.S. Shergill for petitioner is that the State Commission should have stayed the operation of District Forum''s order on deposit of the said amount being 50% of awarded amount and not insisted for depositing the remaining amount. Contention is, however, without any merit. Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) which is material, is reproduced below : "Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed. Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of 30 days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period : Provided that no appeal by a person which 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 50% of that amount for Rs. 25,000 whichever is less."

It may be noticed that condition of deposit of amount as provided in Second Proviso is only for entertaining appeal and not for stay of operation of the order passed by a District Forum. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission in staying the operation of the order of District Forum subject to depositing the remaining awarded amount by the petitioner. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with the observation that remaining amount on being deposited will not be released in favour of respondent No. 1 pending appeal. Revision Petition dismissed.