SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 789

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sunita Yadav, President, Dr. Monika Malik, Member
H.D.F.C. Life Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Divya Jyoti Shiksha Samiti Noble College – Respondent
APPEAL NO. 547/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Narayan Singh
For the Respondents: Shri V.K. Deolia

A maintainable appeal requires a 50% deposit of the awarded amount, which was rectified in this case, allowing for judicial consideration.

Headnote:The appellant challenged an order of the District Commission regarding maintenance of appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, specifically examining the need to deposit 50% of awarded amount pre-appeal. The court referenced Section 41 and Rule 9 of the applicable regulations, concluding that the appeal was maintainable because the appellant had rectified prior defects by depositing the necessary amount before consideration. Ultimately, the court dismissed the objection raised regarding the appeal's maintainability. The appeal is set for argument on admission on 25.6.2025.

Table of Content
1. appellant challenges prior order of district commission. (Para 1)
2. maintainability objection based on 50% deposit requirement. (Para 3)
3. court observes principles crucial for interpreting conflict in statutes. (Para 4 , 6 , 8 , 10)
4. court finds appeal maintainable due to rectification of issues. (Para 11)
5. court dismisses objection and schedules further proceedings. (Para 12 , 13)

Per say - Justice Sunita Yadav, President.

This appeal by the appellant/opposite party No.1-HDFC Life Insurance Company Ltd. is directed against the order dated 23.1.2024, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sagar (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 718/2021.

2. Heard on the objection raise by respondent No.1 on the maintainability of this appeal.

3. Shri Deolia argued that this appeal is not maintainable in the light of Proviso (2) of Section 41 , Section 102 (2)(k) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 2021’), because the appellant has failed to annex acknowledgement of receipt along with memo of appeal, in respect to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount. Since 50% of the awarded amount was not paid before filing the appeal, therefore, this appeal be dismissed being not maintainable.

4. To address the objection raised by Shri Deolia, proviso (2) of Section 41 , Section 102 (2)(k) of the Act and Rule-9 of Rules of 2021 are relevant, which read as under:-

“41. Appeal against order of District Commission - Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may refer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five days from the date of the order, in such form and manner, as may be prescribed:

(1)xxxxx (2) Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:

(3) xxxxx

102. Power of State Government to make rules –

(1) xxxx (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters namely :-

(a) xxxxx (b) xxxxx (c) xxxxx (d) xxxxx (e) xxxxx (f) xxxxx (g) xxxxx (h) xxxxx (i) xxxxx (j) xxxxx (k) the manner of depositing fifty per cent, of the amount before filing appeal under second proviso to section 41;

Rule -9 of Madhya Pradesh Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2021 –

9. Manner of depositing amount in appeals before State Commission - Where an appeal is filed before the State Commission under Section 41 , the amount to be deposited by the appellant as provided in the second proviso to the said section shall be remitted in the form of a crossed Demand Draft drawn on a nationalised bank in favour of the President of the concerned District Commission. Acknowledgment of its receipt shall be submitted to the State Commission along with the memorandum of appeal.”

5. The plain reading of 2nd proviso to Section 41 of the Act, indicates that the State Commission shall not entertain an appeal, unless the appellant has deposited 50% of that amount in the manner as prescribed by the rules.

6. To decide the objection of respondent No.1, the word ‘entertain’ is to be understood. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, the word ‘entertain’ means to consider or give judicial attention to a request, motion or appeal. Thus the word “entertain” bears the meaning “admitting to consideration”. In this case the Commission had not taken judicial consideration and the case is still at the stage of admission. The case has not been admitted yet.

7. The perusal of record reflects that the appellant has deposited 50% of the amount before the Di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top