1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party – builder co. and the respondent – complainant in person. Perused the material on record. 2. This appeal has been filed against an interim Order dated 11.04.2018 of the State Commission, which reads as below: Dated: 11/4/2018 ORDER Reply and evidence/affidavit has not yet been filed by the Opposite Parties. An objection has been raised that if amount claimed and price of the product is noticed, the total amount would go beyond Rs. 1 crore. We have seen the calculations made. It appears that there was some typographical error committed by the complainant, when claiming the interest. Faced with the situation, the complainant states that he reduces his claim to get interest from 14% to 12% on the amount paid. We allow him to do so. If the said fact is noticed, then certainly the amount would fall below Rs. 1 crore. In view of above, miscellaneous application bearing No. 247 of 2018, separately filed by the Opposite Parties, stands disposed of having become infructuous. Office is directed to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the complaint. Proxy Counsel for the Opposite Parties seeks more time to file reply and evidence/affidavit, to which, no objection has been raised by the complainant. He may do so on or before the next date of hearing with advance copy to the Counsel opposite. On request, adjourned to 02.05.2018. The complainant may also file evidence/affidavit, if any, on or before the next date of hearing, with advance copy to the Counsel opposite. Sd/- [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH [RETD.]] PRESIDENT Sd/- [ DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/- [ PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER (emphasis supplied) 3. The complaint has been filed for refund of an amount of Rs.50,21,500/- deposited by the complainant with the builder co., alongwith interest, compensation, and cost of litigation. It is admitted that the said amount of Rs.50,21,500/- was deposited by the complainant with the builder co. between 2010 to 2011. The agreed date for delivery of subject plot was on or before December 2012. The complaint was filed by the complainant before the State Commission in 2018. The impugned interim Order was passed on 11.04.2018. We are now in May 2019. 4. A plain reading of the impugned Order of the State Commission shows that the complainant made a statement before a three-membered bench that he wants to reduce the rate of interest in his claim from 14% to 12% on the amount paid by him to the builder co. After recording his afore statement, the bench allowed him to do so. The bench then observed that the claim would fall below Rs. 1 crore i.e. the claim would fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. And the bench thereafter dismissed as infructuous a miscellaneous application of the builder co., which, evidently, was a preliminary objection in respect of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. In the same proceedings before the bench, the learned proxy counsel for the builder co. sought more time to file its reply and evidence / affidavit, to which the complainant raised no objection. The bench allowed the builder co. to file its reply and evidence / affidavit before the next date of hearing. On request, the case was adjourned. The complainant was also directed to file his evidence / affidavit on or before the next date of hearing. 5. In simple language, the complainant stated before the bench that he wants to reduce the rate of interest in his claim. This brought his claim within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the State Commission. The State Commission allowed him to do so, and proceeded further with the adjudication of the complaint by allowing the learned proxy counsel for the builder co. more time to file its reply and evidence/affidavit and simultaneously directing the complainant to also file his evidence/affidavit. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complaint was supported with affidavit, and, as such, it should necessarily have been amended with affidavit, or, at the least, through a formal application; it should not have been amended by a ‘mere’ statement before the bench. In the present case, we find this argument to be totally erroneous. The facts averred in the complaint and the allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice contained therein were supported with affidavit. No material change in the facts or the allegations was made while making the statement before the bench. The only change, which in no way materially affected the facts or the allegations, was to reduce the rate of interest in his claim on the amount paid by him to the builder co. from 14% to 12%. 7. We also note that learned proxy counsel for the builder co. was present on the day the State Commission recorded the complainant’s statement and allowed him to reduce the rate of interest in his claim from 14% to 12%. Learned counsel for the builder co. or any authorized functionary of the builder co. was not present. Neither was any objection raised on behalf of the builder co. by the learned proxy counsel present (on instructions or even otherwise). We further note that the learned proxy counsel, however, did make his submissions and sought time to file the builder co.’s reply and affidavit / evidence, to which the complainant raised no objection, and to which the State Commission agreed. We furthermore note that adjournment was granted on request (it is logical to say that when the complainant was present in person and the learned proxy counsel was present for the builder co. and sought more time to file its reply and evidence / affidavit, the adjournment was at the request of the learned proxy counsel for the builder co.). We note the provisions of Regulation 11 of the Regulation 2005, and also note that no cost for adjournment was imposed. 8. Considering all this, in totality, we have no hesitation to say that we find no error in the impugned Order of the State Commission. 9. The Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. Its statement of Objects and Reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. These are summary proceedings, before a quasi-judicial tribunal. The right to appeal is no doubt provided under section 19 of the Act 1986. However, after seeking time to file its reply and evidence / affidavit, and after taking adjournment and with (only) a learned proxy counsel being present, and with the learned counsel or any authorized representative not being present, and after not raising any objection during the proceedings on 11.04.2018 when the impugned Order was passed, and then subsequently appealing the said Order on frivolous grounds, has unnecessarily and unwarrantedly delayed and impeded the adjudication of the complaint in the forum of original jurisdiction (State Commission). This is not viewed favourably. If such unnecessary and unwarranted dilatory and impedimentary tactics are not dealt with sternly in appeal filed on frivolous grounds against an interim Order, it would be difficult for the forum of original jurisdiction to adjudicate the consumer dispute speedily, and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 1986 will remain but a statement in the Act, academic, not practised. 10. We dismiss the appeal with stern advice of caution to the builder co. through imposition of just and appropriate cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant within four weeks from today and Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within four weeks from today and with a direction to conduct its case professionally before the State Commission. 11. The State Commission is requested to proceed further with the adjudication of the consumer dispute on merit as per the law. 12. Let a copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission by the Registry within 10 days. ‘Dasti’, in addition, to both sides. | 
