Chandigarh

StateCommission

MA/305/2023

LALIT BINDAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARINDER VERMA - Opp.Party(s)

Anmol Verma Adv.

25 May 2023

ORDER

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

============

 

Misc. Application No. IN	:	MA/305/2023
Appeal No.	:	A/56/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	21/04/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	25/05/2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lalit Bindal son of Sh. G.C. Bindal, Resident of H.No.               R-14/84, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201002.

 

…. Applicant/Appellant

 

Vs.

 

1]     Narinder Verma W/o Santosh Kumar Verma S/o Sh.Mahendra Pal Verma, Resident of #3002, SBI Officers Society, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh – 160047.

 

2]     M/s YPS Developers (P) Limited, through its Directors.

 

        Registered Office:     B-101, Somvihar, R.K.Puram, New Delhi – 110022.

 

        Site Office: YPS Developers (P) Ltd., Dwarika, Madhuban Bapudham, Govind Puram, Ghaziabad – 201 013.     

 

3]     Yag Pal Singh son of Sh.Jagveer Singh, Resident of P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201002.

 

4]     Prince Chaudhary son of Sh.Yag Pal Singh, Resident of P-1, Sanjay Nagar, Ghaziabad – 201000.

 

…… Non-Applicants/Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI   PRESIDENT

MRS.PADMA PANDEY                    MEMBER

                RAJESH K. ARYA                           MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Virendra Verma, Advocate for the Applicant/Appellant.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

1.         By means of present order, we shall be disposing off present misc. application, moved on behalf of Applicant/Appellant, to deposit Demand Draft No. 377108 dated 19.04.2023 for Rs.3,54,352/-, being 50% of one-fourth (¼th) of the decreetal amount.  A prayer has been made to stay the operation of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal.  

 

2.         The Respondent No.1/Complainant contested the application by filing objections, inter alia, pleading that the total decreetal amount works out to be Rs.28,41,844/-, statutory 50% amount of which works out to be Rs.14,20,992/- and the same is required to be deposited for entertaining the appeal. Thus, the amount of Rs.3,54,352/- deposited by the Applicant/Appellant is short in order to even entertain the appeal. A prayer for dismissal of the present application has been made.

 

3.         We have heard the learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and also gone through the record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

4.         After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant misc. application is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

5.         Ld. Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant argued that the Appellant has no liability regarding any dealing of the Respondent No.1/Complainant with Respondent Nos.2 to 4 (Opposite Parties No.1 to 3) – M/s YPS Developers (P) Limited. However, in order to protect his legal right, the Appellant is depositing Rs.3,54,352/- being 50% of one-fourth (1/4^th) of the decreetal amount, under protest. However, we are not impressed with the same, in view of the fact that second proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provided that no appeal shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty percent of the amount awarded by the District Commission. The said proviso reads as thus: -

 

“Provided further 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.”

 

6.         The afore-extracted second proviso to Section 41 of the Act mandates pre-deposit for consideration of an appeal before the State Commission. It requires fifty per cent of the amount in terms of an order of the District Commission for entertainment of an appeal by the State Commission. Meaning thereby, unless the Applicant/ Appellant has deposited the pre-deposit amount, the appeal cannot be entertained by this Commission. Needless to mention here, a pre-deposit condition to deposit fifty per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the District Commission being condition precedent for entertaining appeal, is there only to avoid frivolous appeals.

 

7.         As an offshoot of above, we are of the concerted opinion that this Commission cannot do away with the depositing of statutory amount of fifty per cent of the decreetal amount awarded by the District Commission. Even otherwise also, there is no provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, empowering this Commission to waive, relax or reduce the amount to be deposited under the second proviso, referred to above. Moreover, this shows the disregard which the Applicant/Appellant has shown to the provisions of law while filing the appeal.

 

8.         In view of the findings recorded above, in absence of any merit, the instant misc. application is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

 

9.         Let it be tagged with the main appeal file.

 

10.         However, in the interest of justice, we grant last and final opportunity to the Applicant/Appellant to deposit the statutory amount of fifty per cent of the awarded amount, within a period of seven days from today, failing which the appeal shall be dismissed for non-deposit of the statutory amount on the next date of hearing.

 

11.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

12.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

25^th May, 2023                                                        

Sd/-

                                        (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

                                                        (RAJESH K.ARYA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”