U JAWAHAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for striking down second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act') as inserted by Act 62 of 2002. He has further prayed for setting aside order dated 22.7.2006 passed by A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short the State Commission') in FA (SR) No.1486 of 2005. Non-petitioner No.3-Mrs.Lavudi Swarajyam filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the allegation that she had made two deposits of Rs.30,000/- each in M/s. Nagarjuna Finance Limited and was assured of refund after the date of maturity, but except one cheque of Rs.5,000/-, two other cheques given by the company for refund were dishonoured by the bank. She further averred that despite legal notices, the company had not paid the amount due to her. In the complaint filed by non-petitioner No.3, the petitioner was impleaded as one of the non-applicants.

(2.) By an order dated 8.2.2005, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad (for short 'the District Forum) allowed the complaint against non-applicant Nos.1 to 3 (including the petitioner) and held that they are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.55,000/- with interest at 12% p.a from 12.11.2000 till the date of payment. The District Forum also directed payment of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

(3.) The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the District Forum was registered as FA (SR) No. 1486 of 2005 because he had not complied with the condition of making deposit in terms of second proviso to Section 15 of the Act. By an order dated 8.2.2005, the State Commission granted two weeks time to comply with second proviso to Section 15 of the Act and at the same time made it clear that failure to comply with the said provision may result in dismissal of the appeal. On 27.6.2005, the State Commission granted further time to the petitioner to comply with second proviso to Section 15 of the Act, but he failed to deposit the amount in terms of the said proviso. Conscquently, thestate Commission dismissed the appeal.