NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. NC/RP/1448/2025 (Against the Order dated 8th October 2025 in Appeal SC/4/FA/281/2025 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh)

WITH NC/IA/13778/2025 (FOR GRANT OF STAY)

K. RAMNATHAN & COMPANY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ELITE ELEVATOR PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR NO.11, LB ROAD ADYAR, CHENNAI-600020.CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU.

SH. KILLAKATHU RAMANATHAN BABU MANAGING DIRECTOR K. RAMNATHAN &

COMPANY ELITE ELEVATOR PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR NO. 11, LB ROAD ADYAR, CHENNAI-600020CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU.

SH. BABU NITHYA DIRECTOR K. RAMNATHAN & COMPANY ELITE ELEVATOR PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR NO. 11, LB ROAD ADYAR, CHENNAI-600020CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU.

SH. RAMANATHANB ABU VISHAL DIRECTOR K. RAMNATHAN & COMPANY ELITE ELEVATOR PRESENT ADDRESS - HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT SECOND FLOOR NO. 11, LB ROAD ADYAR, CHENNAI-600020CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU.

MR. PARVEEN NORTH PRESENT ADDRESS - HEAD OFFICE AT H-88, SATGURU RAM SINGH ROAD, BLOCK H, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110015.NEW DELHI,DELHI.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus AMRINDER GILL PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O SARDAR HARBHAJAN SINGH GILL R/O H.NO.89, SECTOR 11- A, CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

GAGANDEEP SINGH GILL PRESENT ADDRESS - S/O SARDAR HARBHAJAN SINGH GILL R/O H.NO. 89, SECTOR 11-A, CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

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

FOR THE PETITIONER APPEARANCE NOT MARKED DATED: 03/12/2025

ORDER

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the petitioners/opposite parties being aggrieved of the order dated 08.10.2025, passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 281 of 2025, arising out of the Order dated 03.06.2025, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (for short the ‘District Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 217 of 2024.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned State Commission has passed the impugned order, subject to the condition to deposit the entire decretal amount hence the order is erroneous.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on 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