SASHI FILMS P LTD Vs. RAJINDER KAUSHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was on 8th November, 2007 that an order was passed by the single Bench of this Court referring this case for hearing by a Division Bench on account of the fact that interpretation of the second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was involved in this case. The Order dated 8th November, 2007 is reproduced hereunder. It reads thus:-

(2.) AGAINST an award dated 31st July, 2006 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla whereby the appellant was, inter-alia, directed to pay a sum of Rs. Five lacs along with interest etc. in case of its failure to replace a defective machine, Appeal No. 195 of 2007 was filed by the appellant before the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, Shimla. M. A. No. 628 of 2007 was an Application for stay, accompanying the aforesaid appeal. On 25th May, 2007 the learned State Commission passed an order admitting the appeal for hearing and while issuing notice in the stay matter, directed that the execution of the impugned judgment passed by the District Forum would stay subject to the appellant depositing the balance award amount as per the terms of the impugned judgment of the District Forum. It is against this Order dated 25th May, 2007 that the appellant has filed the present Petition in this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing this Order primarily and mainly, rather the only ground that the learned State Commission went beyond the jurisdiction vesting in it in ordering the appellant to deposit the balance award amount as a condition precedent for the stay of execution and operation of the impugned judgment of the District Forum. Reliance in support of the challenge is placed upon the second proviso to section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (1986 Act, for short ).

(3.) UNDER the scheme of 1986 Act, whereas appeals are provided for against the orders passed by the District Forum before the State Commission in Section 15, under section 19 of the said Act any person aggrieved by an order passed by the State Commission (in exercise of the power conferred upon the State Commission under sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Section 17) may prefer an appeal to the National Commission. Both the Sections are in pari materia because both the Sections contain identical provisions. Whereas the first proviso in both the Sections enables the Appellate Fora to entertain the appeals after the expiry of limitation period, second proviso requires the appellants to pay, in case of an appeal filed before the State Commission fifty per cent of the award amount or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less. Now, let's have a look on the provision itself. Section 15 is reproduced hereinunder for ready reference which reads thus :-"15. Appeal.- Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the state Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed : provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not finding it within that period. Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Forum, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited in the prescribed manner fifty per cent of that amount or twenty five thousand rupees, whichever is less. "