The court ruled that a 50% deposit of the decretal amount suffices for stay applications, emphasizing the need for reasoning when imposing stringent conditions by the NCDRC.

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CM (M) 455/2021, CM APPL.21494/2021 (by the petitioner u/S 151 CPC for interim relief)

1. Vide orders dated 14th June, 2021, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (`NCDRC'), disposed of an application bearing No. IA/3503/2021 moved by the present petitioner, seeking the stay of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (`SCDRC'), Chandigarh.

2. This application had been filed by the petitioner in an appeal it had preferred against the decision of the SCDRC, Chandigarh dated 24th February, 2021, whereby, the petitioner was directed to refund an amount of Rs.32,84,560/- and Rs.46,456/- (Maintenance Charges) to the respondent along with interest @ 12% per annum along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation/cost of litigation.

3. Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stay had been sought on account of the financial distress that the petitioner was undergoing due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The NCDRC not only overlooked this aspect but also failed to note that since 2012, the petitioner had been offering the possession of the plot to the respondent. As such, the direction for refund and that too, at such a high rate of interest was required to be modified. Yet by the impugned orders, the NCDRC directed that the full decretal amount be deposited.

4. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Bharat Enterprises, (CA Nos.3678-3679 of 2020), learned counsel has submitted that in a similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a deposit of 50% of the decretal amount would satisfy the requirement of the second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Reliance has also been placed on the orders dated 25th May, 2021 of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Omaxe Buildhome Pvt Ltd. v. Mr. Ibrat Faizan, (CM(M) 374/2021) wherein in similar circumstances, stay was granted subject to the deposit of 50% of the decretal amount. Learned counsel submitted that before the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, under the old act i.e., the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 50% or Rs.35,000 was required to be deposited whichever was lower, in compliance of which the petitioner had deposited Rs.35,000/-. However, thereafter, the NCDRC had exercised its discretion while staying the impugned judgment of the SCDRC by directing deposit of the full decretal amount. The learned counsel submitted that following the judgment of the Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner may be permitted to deposit 50% of the decretal amount.

5. Mr. Nikhil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent has emailed his short notes along with the judgments relied upon by him to oppose the application. He has also submitted that the petitioner has been misleading this Court by claiming that the appeal had been filed under Section 51 of the Act of 2019, whereas it was actually filed before the NCDRC under Section 19 of the Act of 1986. It was submitted that on this short ground of misleading the Court, this petition ought to be dismissed.

6. The further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the impugned order was not one directing the deposit preceding the filing of the appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 1986, but was an order passed by the NCDRC after hearing both sides, as the respondent was a Caveator before the NCDRC. The passing of such an order was well within the powers of the NCDRC. Moreover, the NCDRC had in