The main legal point established in the judgment is that the National Commission has the power and discretion to grant an interim order subject to certain conditions being fulfilled, including the requirement of making a deposit, even though there is no requirement of a deposit to be made by the petitioner before his revision petition is to be entertained by the National Commission.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by ,the. order dated 15. 05. 2008 passed by the National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'national Commission' ). By virtue of the impugned order, the petitioner has been directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the District Forum within a period of four weeks from the date of the order so that the interim relief granted to the petitioner by the National Commission on 25. 10. 2007 would continue to operate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the National Commission, by its order dated 25. 10. 2007. had admitted the revision petition of the petitioner which was directed against the order dated 12. 07. 2007 passed by the State Commission of Maharashtra, and the National Commission had directed stay of execution of the said order on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the Registrar of the said Commission, the National Commission ought not to have required the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh in order to continue the stay order.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also raised the plea that insofar as the revision petition is concerned, there is no requirement for making any deposit under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He submitted that while, under Section 19 of the said Act, no appeal can be entertained by the National commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of the amount ordered by the State Commission of rupees thirty-five thousand, whichever is less, insofar as a revision petition under Section 21 (b) of the said act is concerned, there is no such stipulation whereby the National Commission is precluded from hearing the revision petition unless the petitioner makes a deposit similar to that provided under the second proviso of section 19 of the said Act. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the national Commission ought not to have even directed the deposit of the first sum of Rs. 1 lakh by virtue of the order dated 25. 10. 2007 and, in any event, the National Commission should certainly not have required the petitioner to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1 lakh by virtue of the impugned order dated 15. 05. 2008.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 submitted that the National Commission had required the petitioner to make the said deposit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to her, the respondent No. 2 is a consumer society and its members are the direct consumers of food grains which are to be supplied by the petitioner. The petitioner, in turn, purchased the food grains from Governmental agencies. She submitted that the respondent No. 2 had made payments to the petitioner for purchase of grain which was to be utilized by the members of the respondent No. 2 society but the petitioner had not supplied the same to the said society and had also not made any payment to the Governmental agencies in respect of the said food grains. These facts are, of course, denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner who also submitted that the revision petition has been filed by the petitioner precisely for the reason that according to the petitioner, it was not a consumer dispute falling within the purview of the Act inasmuch as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 did not fall within the definition of "consumer" as given in Section 2 (d)of the said Act. According to him, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 was also not a "consumer dispute" as contemplated under Section 2 (e) of the said Act. He submitted that these are matters which are pending before the National commission and would be decided in the course of the revision petition.

( 4 ) WE have examined the provisions of the said Act and are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that unlike the provisions of appeal