BOMBAY STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRAVATI
K.S. Kapse, Presiding Member and S.D. Wandhare, Member
Bank of India Through Its Branch Manager – Appellant
versus
Keshav Narayan Deshmukh Through its Legal Heirs and Ors. – Respondents
Review Application No. 1 of 2026 in First Appeal No. 155 of 2025
Decided on 23.1.2026
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Review Jurisdiction – Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Stay of Execution. Application for review of an interim order passed by the State Commission – Appellant, Bank, challenged a conditional stay order that directed the deposit of “balance decretal amount” despite the Bank having already deposited its entire share of liability (50% of the total award) as per the District Commission’s judgment – State Commission found a clerical/legal error in directed a double deposit and allowed the review to correct the stay conditions – District Commission passed a judgment against the Bank of India and another opponent, holding them equally liable for the decretal amount – Bank filed an appeal along with a stay application – State Commission granted a “conditional interim stay,” directing the Bank to deposit the “balance decretal amount” – Bank had already deposited Rs.1,38,195/- (representing its 50% share of the total liability plus accrued interest) to satisfy the statutory mandate for filing the appeal – Bank filed a review application arguing that since they had already deposited their entire portion of the liability, the directive to deposit a “balance” amount was redundant and based on a factual oversight – Commission held that directing the appellant to deposit a “balance decretal amount” after they had already deposited the full amount of their liability constitutes a clear error apparent on the face of the record – Commission observed that the review application was filed within the 30-day limitation period prescribed under Section 50 of the Act (calculating from the date of receipt of the certified copy) – Commission allowed the review application in the interest of justice.
Result: Review Application allowed.
ORDER
K.S. Kapse, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved by the order dated 21/11/2025 passed by this State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai, Circuit Bench Amravati (Hereinafter be referred to as the “State Commission” in short.) in First Appeal No. SC/CB3/27/FA/155/2025 i.e. Bank of India -Akola Branch -vs- Dr. Keshav Narayan Deshmukh, Since Dead through his Legal Heirs & one other, the appellant bank hereby submits and applies on basis of facts and grounds as under:
2. The applicant bank has filed First Appeal No. SC/CB3/27/FA/155/2025 along with Stay Application No. SC/CB3/27/IA/138/2025 and application for Condonation of Delay No. SC/CB3/27/IA/139/2025 for challenging the legality and validity of judgment and order Dated 25/02/2025 passed by the Learned District Consumers Complaint Redressal Commission Akola (Hereinafter be referred to as the “Learned District Commission” in short.) in Consumer Complaint No. CC/21/241 i.e. Keshav Narayan Deshmukh Since Dead through his Legal Heirs -vs- Bank of India -Akola Branch & One other.
3. It is clear by the section 50 of C.P. Act 2019 Review by State Commission in certain cases- The State Commission shall have the power to review any of the order passed by it if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order.
4. It is observed that interim stay order dated 21/11/2025 passed by this Commission and the applicant has received the certified copy of impugned order on 18/12/2025 and the instant Review application filed on 16/01/2026 i.e. well within the period of limitation of 30 days for filing Review application.
5. As such appellant bank has deposited amount Rs.138195/- (In Words: Rs. One Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand One Hundred Ninety-Five Only) towards the total liability on part of opponent No.1 Bank as per above said judgment and orders dated 25/02/2025 which is half of total liability to be paid by opponent No. 1 and 2 equally. Copy of Receipt No.000420 Dated 27/10/2025 is being submitted as Annexure-III. Therefore, applicant bank having complied the statutory mandate prayed for grant of stay to the effect, operation and execution of impugned judgment and orders in terms of execution proceedings pending on file of Learned District Commission Akola by way of separate application vide IA No. 138/2025.
6. As such applicant/appellant bank has deposited the entire amount along with accrued interest till the date of filing of instant appeal as per the impugned judgment and orders dated 25/02/2025. The applicant further submitted that applicant/appellant Bank has complied and satisfied the liability as per the statutory mandate for filing appeal and getting stay to the impugned judgment and order under challenge. Therefore, the orders dated 21/11/2025 thereby granting interim conditional stay with the directions to appellant bank to deposit the balance decretal amount is not warranted so far, the liability and responsibility of appellant bank is concerned in terms of impugned judgment and order.
7. The Bank has filed the instant appeal mainly on the ground that conditional interim stay was granted in respect of the effect, operation and execution of the order and judgement dtd. 25/02/2025, so far as liability and responsibility of applicant /appellant Bank is concerned only.
8. We have carefully gone through the order dtd. 21/11/2025 passed by this Commission and observed that applicant/appellant has already deposited the entire amount along with accrued interest till the date of filing of instant appeal as per the impugned Judgment and order dated 25/02/2025.
9. We have observed that there is error apparent on the face of record that once the applicant/appellant has deposited the entire decretal amount as per the impugned Judgment and order dated 25/02/2025, again applicant/appellant is directed to deposit balance decretal amount. The error apparent on the face of record
Review Power under Section 50 – The State Commission possesses the statutory authority to review its own orders if there is an “error apparent on the face of the record.” This power can be exercised ....
“When a conditional stay is passed, it is for the applicant to fulfil the conditions or not.”
The inherent power of the State Commission allows it to stay execution of orders, despite the absence of explicit provisions in the Consumer Protection Acts, provided statutory conditions are met.
(1) It is a pre-condition to deposit 50 per cent of amount as ordered by State Commission before appeal is entertained by National Commission – However, that does not take away jurisdiction of Nation....
Condonation of delay by imposition of costs justified.
Inherent Power – The Commissions have the inherent power to stay the operation of the impugned order, subject to the condition that the appeal is duly filed after depositing the statutory amount.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.