The court emphasized the importance of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, and the need for efficacious and speedy remedies for consumers alleging deficiency in service by service providers.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the J&K State Consumer Protection Commission, Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the “Commission”) in Application No. 061/2007 on 04-10-2007, dismissing the appeal filed by the writ petitioners against the order dated 23-07-2007 passed by the learned Divisional Consumer Protection Forum, Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the “Consumer Forum”) on the ground of delay.

2. It has been submitted by Mr. Dar, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners that the Commission has taken a hyper technical view of the matter by rejecting the appeal preferred by the writ petitioners before the Commission. It has been submitted that Consumer Forum, Srinagar had passed the award against the writ petitioners on 23-07-2007, which was sought to be challenged before the Commission. The appeal was filed before the Commission on 26-09-2007 after about delay of 33 days and the period of limitation for filing the writ petition was 30 days.

3. It has been submitted that though the appeal was filed on 26-09-2007 and the same was admitted by the Commission and in fact it also stayed the award passed by the Consumer Forum. However, at the time of filing memo of appeal, it was not accompanied by a certificate issued by the President, Divisional Consumers Protection Forum to the effect that the appellant had deposited 25% of the awarded amount with the Consumer Forum payable under the order. The said amount, however, was deposited on 01-10-2007, though it was directed by the Commission to be deposited on 29-09-2007. Unfortunately, the Commission, merely because of delay of 33 days in submitting the said 25% of the awarded amount, held that the appeal is barred by delay. It was observed by the Commission that it is a statutory requirement as provided under Section 13 Second Proviso of the J&K Consumer Protection Act. 1987 and as such the petitioners did not comply with the statutory requirements and since there was also a delay of 33 days, the delay could not be condoned. Accordingly, the Commission rejected the memo of appeal. Section 13 reads as follows:

“Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Divisional Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed:

Provided further that no appeal shall lie unless the memorandum of appeal is accompanied by a certificate issued by the President Divisional Forum to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him 25% of the amounts payable under the order.”

4. It has been submitted that the writ petitioners were entitled to challenge the order of the Consumer Forum and since the appeal filed before the Consumer Forum was rejected on technical grounds, the petitioner will suffer great injustice.

5. It has been submitted that the Consumer Forum had given a finding without adequate material by holding that the writ petitioners had engaged in unfair trade practice. It was held by the Consumer Forum that a mischief was played by the writ petitioners as the ticket purchased by the respondents was of low economy and they could easily resale for the illegal market gain thus casting a serious aspersions on the character of the petitioners which finding was arrived at by the Consumer Forum, without any basis, even if, the finding of deficiency in service is upheld.

6. It has been submitted that in view of above, as serious questions are involved, which cast a doubt on the reputation of the firm, the matter ought to have been heard on merit rather being dismissed on purely technical grounds. It has been also submitted that it was also not a case that there was an inordinate delay in the filing of the appeal. In-fact as submitted above, the appellant had not only deposited 25% of the amount, but the entire amount of compensation as directed by the Consumer Forum. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the