NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/23/2026 (Against the Order dated 12th November 2025 in Appeal SC/9/FA/1614/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar pradesh)

WITH NC/IA/174/2026 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

DR.AKHATAR Through its former director PRESENT ADDRESS - GABADIYA GORABARIKSULTANPUR,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus SANDEEP PATHAK S/o. shiv kumar pathak PRESENT ADDRESS - MOTIYARGANJSULTANPUR,UTTAR PRADESH.

SONIA PATHAK D/o. shiv kaumar pathak PERMANENT ADDRESS - MOTIGARPURSULTANPUR,UTTAR PRADESH.

KHURSHEED AHMAD S/o. late irfan ali PERMANENT ADDRESS - GHARHA KHURD HAJI MASJID , SULTANPUR,UTTAR PRADESH.

RASHID KHAN S/o. abdul basit khan PERMANENT ADDRESS - KARAUDIYAN SULTANPUR,UTTAR PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SAROJ YADAV , PRESIDING MEMBER FOR THE PETITIONER:

FOR THE PETITIONER MR. MISBAH BIN TARIQ, ADV. MR. PARDEEP, ADV.

DATED: 13/01/2026

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioner/opposite party no.1 being aggrieved of the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1614 of 2025, arising out of the Order dated 09.10.2025, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sultanpur (for short the ‘District Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 107 of 2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned State Commission, while passing the stay order in appeal has directed the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount, after deducting the amount already deposited before the learned State Commission. The order so passed is erroneous and also burdensome to the appellant.

4. Considered the submissions made and perused the record.

5. In Manohar Infrastructure and constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Civil Appeal No. 7098 of 2021decided on 07.12.2021, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:

“15. The sum and substance of the above discussion and our conclusions would be that:

(i) Pre-deposit of 50 per cent of amount as ordered by the State Commission under second proviso to Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory for entertainment of an appeal by the National Commission;

(ii) The object of the said pre-deposit condition is to avoid frivolous appeals;

(iii) The said pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay by the National Commission;

(iv) While considering the stay application in staying the order passed by the State Commission, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay directing the appellant(s) to deposit the entire amount and / or any amount higher than

50 per cent of the amount in terms of the order of the State Commission;

(v) However, at the same time, the National Commission has to assign some cogent reasons and / or pass a speaking order when the conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission is passed subject to deposit of the entire amount and / or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount either as an ex parte order or after hearing both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vi) Thus, the National Commission can grant a conditional stay of the order passed by the State Commission on deposit of the entire amount and / or any amount higher than 50 per cent of the amount as ordered by the State Commission in the aforesaid manner.”

6. The conclusion (iii) noted above, shows that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the pre-deposit condition has no nexus with the grant of stay.

7. It is clear from the point No. (v) above, that if any amount higher than 50% is directed to be deposited then some cogent reasons should be given.

8. The perusal of the impugned order shows that while granting the sta