THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA WRIT PETITION No.19454 OF 2025

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated

23.04.2025, passed in F.A.IA.No.504 of 2025 in F.A.No.139 of 2025 by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the State Commission’).

2. Heard Sri P. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that vide respondent No.3 has filed a complaint C.C.No.31 of 2021 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Medak at Sangareddy (for short, ‘the District Commission’), against the petitioners and respondent No.5 complaining deficiency of service.

vide The District Commission order, dated 24.10.2024, has allowed the said complaint and directed the petitioners to pay Rs.6,71,556/-

along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of discharge from hospital till the date of realization; Rs.10,00,000/- towards damages and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation costs. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred the subject appeal i.e. F.A.No.139 of 2025 before the State Commission. In the subject appeal, the petitioners have filed F.A.I.A.No.504 of 2025 seeking stay of the order, dated 24.10.2024, passed by the District Commission. Learned counsel further contended that as per Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Act’), the petitioners have deposited 50% of the decretal amount before filing vide the subject appeal. But, the State Commission impugned order, dated 23.04.2025, has granted stay of the order, dated 24.10.2024, subject to condition of the petitioners depositing entire decretal amount, which is contrary to Section 41 of the Act. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition by setting aside that portion of the order, dated 23.04.2025, passed by the State Commission, wherein the State Commission has directed the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount, and let the State Commission decide the appeal on merits instead of directing the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount, which is contrary to Section 41 of the Act.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 4 had contended that Section 41 of the Act only contemplates depositing 50% of the decretal amount. Admittedly, in the instant case, the State Commission has directed the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount, which is contrary to Section 41 of the Act. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Petition.

5. This Court, having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the State Commission erred in directing the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount, as the same is contrary to Section 41 of the Act. Further, the petitioners have already deposited 50% of the decretal amount and complied with Section 41 of the Act. Therefore, that portion of the order, dated 23.04.2025, passed in F.A.IA.No.504 of 2025 in F.A.No.139 of 2025 by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, wherein, the State Commission has directed the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. The State Commission shall decide the subject appeal, in accordance with law, without insisting the petitioners to deposit the entire decretal amount.

6. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J __________________________ TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J Date: 08.07.2025.

MD