Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Online)(NCDRC) 1220

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.K. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT, S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
TODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
SANJAY AHUJA – Respondent
FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 572 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 573 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2020 | FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2020

Advocates:
For the Appellant:Mr. Milan Negi, Advocate
Mr. Ashu Kansal, Advocate

The requirement of a 50% pre-deposit for entertaining appeals under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is mandatory and cannot be waived.

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 2019 - Section 51 - First Appeal filed against Order by State Commission - Requirement of pre-deposit - The Appellant contended that pre-deposit is not mandatory to entertain the appeal. The National Commission held that pursuant to the 2019 Act, deposit of 50% is compulsory for the appeal to be entertained, referencing prior case law and the legislative intent to prevent frivolous appeals. (Paras 7, 11, 12)

(B) Appeal Process - The court discussed the appeal procedure, where an individual aggrieved by a State Commission’s order must follow the provisions stated under Section 51 of the 2019 Act for proper relief. Finding a substantial question of law involved is also crucial for appeal. (Paras 3, 6)

Facts of the case:
The appeal stemmed from several complaints by the Respondent and others against the Appellant in which the State Commission mandated refunds and interest.

Issues: Marred by the question of enforcing the deposit requirement for appeals under the 2019 Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the statutory mandate for pre-deposit cannot be waived or negated, aligning with the precedent aimed at filtering out unmeritorious cases.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. appeals registered under the consumer protection act. (Para 1)
2. claims against the state commission's orders for refund must comply with pre-deposit guidelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

For the purpose of computation of the cases filed before the National Commission, the Office is directed to register the case as First Appeal and number it accordingly.

These First Appeals, under Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2019 Act”), has been filed by M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through its Resolution Professional against the Order dated 13^th March, 2020, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in Complaint Cases No. 286, 287, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306 & 307 of 2017, filed by Sanjay Ahuja and other Complainants. The State Commission by the Impugned Order has allowed the Complaints, filed by Sanjay Ahuja and other Complainants, and directed M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant herein) to refund the entire amount received from the Complainants, including service tax alongwith compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of each payment till the date on which entire amount alongwith compensation is refunded, with a further direction to pay â‚¹10,000/- as costs of litigation to each of the Complainants. The payment was directed to be made within three months from receipt of copy of the Order.

An Application has been filed by M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant herein) for exemption from pre-deposit of the amount, as provided under Second Proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 51 of the 2019 Act, which has come into force w.e.f. 20^th/24^th July, 2020.

The learned Counsel appearing for M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant herein) submitted that the Appellant is not in a position to deposit the amount as contemplated under the Second Proviso to Section 51 (1) of the 2019 Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that under Sub-Section (2) of Section 51 of the 2019 Act an Appeal lies to the National Commission from an Order passed in Appeal by the State Commission, where there is no requirement of pre-deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission, whereas under the Second Proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 51 of the 2019 Act the Appellant is required to deposit fifty percent of the amount in terms of the Order passed by the State Commission before the National Commission so that the National Commission may entertain the Appeal. A harmonious construction of the various provisions of Section 51 of the 2019 Act has to be made and, if that is done, then the necessary corollary is that the deposit of 50% of the amount awarded by the State Commission for entertaining the appeal is not mandatory but only directory in nature.

The learned Counsel also referred to and relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s Shreenath Corp. & Ors. Vs. Conum. Educ. & Res. Society & Ors., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 657, and submitted that it is open to the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of stay.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the M/s Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant herein) and have considered the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel.

Before adverting to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, we deem it appropriate for ready reference to reproduce Section 51 of the 2019 Act:

“51. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Commission in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-clause (i) or (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 47 may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order in such form and manner as may be pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document