AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
The above revision has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh dated 25.05.2023 passed in appeal no. A/57/2023 by which the appeal has been dismissed for non-compliance of second proviso of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The second proviso is quoted below:
Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited 50 per cent of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed.
Admittedly, proviso is mandatory. Therefore, the State Commission has no option except to follow the proviso. Admittedly, the petitioner has not deposited 50% of the amount required to be paid in terms of the order of the District Forum. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed. There is no illegality in it.
The revision is dismissed.