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
8 paragraphs · 269 words1 Delay condoned in filing the Special Leave Petition.
2 Leave granted.
3 There was a delay of 28 days on the part of the appellants in filing a written statement before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission "SCDRC". The right to file a written statement was closed. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined to condone the delay of 180 days in filing a first appeal against the order of the SCDRC, but at the same time, also observed that on merits no grounds were made out.
4 On 5 August 2019, notice was issued by this Court, subject to the deposit of Rs 50,000 by way of costs before the SCDRC. The order for the deposit of costs has been complied with.
5 Ms Gwen Karthika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submits that the appellants should be subject to an order of heavy costs as a condition precedent to the grant of permission to contest the proceedings.
6 Since we have already directed the deposit of costs and quantified at Rs 50,000, we allow the respondent to withdraw the amount which has been deposited before the SCDRC.
7 In view of the above directions, the written statement of the appellants before the SCDRC shall be taken on record. The above order shall be subject to the appellants paying an additional amount of Rs 20,000 by way of costs incurred by the respondent in pursuing these proceedings. The payment shall be made by the appellants to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.
8 The appeal is allowed in the above terms.