CHOLAMANDALAM INVESTMENTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were respondents in O.P.No.342/2001 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palakkad, filed by the 5th respondent herein. That complaint was allowed directing the petitioners herein to pay an amount of Rs.8,039/- with 12% interest from 31.10.2001, Rs.1,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as costs. Since execution proceedings were initiated petitioners deposited the amount of Rs.12,195/- before the District Forum. THEreafter the petitioners filed Ext.P2 appeal, along with Ext.P3 petition to condone delay, Ext.P4 stay petition and Ext.P5 application to dispense with pre-deposit of the amount directed to be paid, before the State Commission. THE State Commission refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that the petitioners should deposit the amount before the State Commission itself and deposit made before the District Forum is not sufficient compliance with the rules. THE petitioners therefore filed this writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the refusal of the 3rd respondent to number and entertain the appeal filed by the petitioners. THEre is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. An exactly identical question was considered by a learned Single Judge of this court in W.P.(C) No.34165/2004 in which the following judgment was passed on 08.04.2005. "Even though the petitioner is challenging the validity of second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, I do not think, going by the facts of this case there is any need to consider the issue because petitioner admittedly deposited the entire amount of compensation awarded by the CDRF before the CDRF itself in execution proceedings. THE second proviso to Section 15 provides for pre-deposit of 50% of the amount under challenge or Rs.25,000/- whichever is less, for maintainability of the appeal. THE Section obviously applies only in a case where amount is not recovered or deposited in execution proceedings before the CDRF against whose order appeal is filed. Since CDRF is free to proceed for execution even during pendency of appeal, the appellant during the pendency of appeal is free to deposit the amount before the CDRF under protest. If deposit is made before CDRF, then of course the payment before CDRF is sufficient compliance of second proviso to Section 15 of the Act because second proviso applies only in a case where amount is not deposited before CDRF or recovered in execution proceedings. Any other interpretation will lead to double deposit of the very same amount which is not contemplated under the second proviso to Section 15 of the Act. In the circumstances, there will be direction to the third respondent to entertain the appeal and delay condonation petition and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner based on a receipt of payment issued by the CDRF to the petitioner. THE CDRF is directed to give receipt to the petitioner if petitioner has made payment before it. I make it clear that CDRF in execution proceedings is free to release the payment to the beneficiaries subject to orders of the State Commission in stay petition or subject to such terms of security it may fix."

(2.) IN view of the said judgment, with which I respectfully agree, I am satisfied that, this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of that judgment. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent is directed to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioners and the petition to condone delay in filing the same and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioners based on a receipt of payment issued by the CDRF to the petitioners. The CDRF is directed to give receipt to the petitioners if the petitioners have deposited the amount as claimed by them. The same shall be done within two weeks from the date of the petitioners filing a request before the CDRF for a receipt. It is further made clear that, the CDRF, in execution proceedings, is free to release the payment to the beneficiaries subject to the orders of the State Commission in stay petition or subject to such terms of security it may fix.