Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, Ali Mohd. Magrey, JJ.
Mir Mubashir Shuja and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Ab. Samad Wani and Ors. - Respondents
COD Nos. 1197, 1198 & 1199 of 2015; CIMA Nos. 184, 185, 186, 143, 133 of 2014
Decided On : 03-11-2015
For the Appellant : M.A. Rathore
For the Respondents: I. Sofi, Sami Yaqoob
Strict compliance with the statutory requirements for entertaining an appeal is necessary, and depositing the statutory amount on direction would not dilute the requirement of law.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Appeal - Section 17 of J & K Consumer Protection Act - Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act - [17, 30] - The court discussed the mandatory requirement of filing a certificate of payment along with the memorandum of appeal as per Proviso 3rd to Section 17 of the J & K Consumers Protection Act and its similarity to the provision in Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with this requirement and held that the appeal becomes incompetent and not maintainable if the pre-condition is not satisfied. The court also highlighted that depositing the statutory amount on direction would not dilute the requirement of law, and condoning the delay in such a position would be a sheer wastage of time. The judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Abdul Qayoom Karimi v. Consumers of Bandipora & Gurez was referred to in support of the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission awarded compensation to several individuals, holding the appellant liable to pay. The appellant filed three appeals seeking condonation of delay and exemption from depositing 25% of the award money, which were opposed by the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeals, stating that they were incompetent and not maintainable due to the appellant's failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement of filing a certificate of payment along with the memorandum of appeal as per Proviso 3rd to Section 17 of the J & K Consumers Protection Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of filing a certificate of payment along with the memorandum of appeal and the subsequent applications seeking condonation of delay and exemption from depositing 25% of the award money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with the statutory requirements for entertaining an appeal, highlighting that depositing the statutory amount on direction would not dilute the requirement of law, and condoning the delay in such a position would be a sheer wastage of time.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, stating that they were incompetent and not maintainable due to the appellant's failure to satisfy the mandatory requirement of filing a certificate of payment along with the memorandum of appeal as per Proviso 3rd to Section 17 of the J & K Consumers Protection Act.
Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.
1. Vide order impugned dated 22.07.2014, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Srinagar, has awarded Rs. 3.75 lacs each in favour of Shahid Rafiq, Farhan, Sumair Rashid, Mohammad Yaqoob Wani and Tafheem-ul-Alam, Rs. 3.70/- lacs in favour of Mehak Zahoor and Rs. 3.65/- lacs in favour of Babar Mushtaq and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- each for agony, harassment, wastage of time and litigation costs suffered by them. Appellant has been held liable to pay the same. Aggrieved by the said award dated 22.07.2014, the appellant initially filed a petition for review before the State Commission which at the request of counsel for the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate legal remedy, if so advised. The appellant instead of filing a statutory appeal as prescribed under Section 17 of the J & K Consumer Protection Act, filed a writ petition bearing OWP No. 829/2015 which, in terms of order dated 12.05.2015, on the submission of counsel for the appellant has been permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to file statutory appeal.
2. The period of limitation prescribed for preferring appeal against an award is 30(thirty) days which period has since expired, as a result whereof, appellant has chosen to file three appeals, as such, has filed above referred three applications seeking condonation of delay and has also filed three more applications in three appeals seeking exemption from depositing 25% of the award money.
3. Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer for condonation on two counts, first that there is no plausible explanation for condoning the delay, and second the memorandum of three appeals accompanying three applications seeking condonation of delay are not accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chairman of the State Commission to the effect that the appellant has deposited 25% of the award amount and instead appellant has sought exemption which is not permissible. Supporting his submission, has relied on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Abdul Qayoom Karimi v. Consumers of Bandipora & Gurez (COD No. 182/2008). Following para from the said judgment is relevant to be quoted:
"The right of appeal, being statutory in nature, the right conferred by the Statute can only be exercised in terms of the provisions contained therein. The Appellate Court has not been authorised to dispense with the condition imposed by the Statute while conferring the right to prefer an appeal."
4. Section 17 of the J & K Consumers Protection Act provides for an appeal against the order of State Commission to be filed within 30(thirty) days from the date of order. Proviso 3rd reads as under:
"Provided also that no appeal shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Chairman State Commission to the effect that the appellant has deposited 25% of the amount payable under the order."
This Proviso is pari materia to third Proviso to Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which, for facility of reference is quoted here-under:
"Provided further that no appeal by an employer under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him the amount payable under the order appealed against."
5. The Division Bench of this Court while referring the judgment in the case titled Amar Nath Baldev Forest Lessees (Firm) v. Des Raj & 2 Ors. (CIMA No. 50/1982) decided on 30.10.1987 (SLJ 1991 297) : JKJ Soft JKJ/10462, has held that necessity of filing of certificate of payment along with memo of appeal is a mandatory requirement. In the reported judgment the award passed by the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation Act (Assistant Labour Commissioner) was challenged by medium of an appeal which was accompanied by a cheque of Rs. 23,310/- payable to the Deputy Registrar, Hig
