Skip to main content

Consumer commission can impose conditional stay

The Consumer Protection Act requires a party challenging an order in appeal to deposit the prescribed amount at the time of lodging the appeal. Can the appellate authority direct the appellant to deposit further money to grant conditional stay? This question has recently been decided by the Supreme Court in its July 7 judgment delivered by Justice Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Justice V Gopala Gowda in the case of Shreenath Corporation & Others v/s CERS & Others.

Case study: Shreenath Corporation had constructed a building and had handed over possession of the flats in 1992. Within nine years of purchase, a portion of the building collapsed in January 2001 due to poor quality of construction. Several flat purchasers were killed while other sustained injuries. With the help of Consumer Education and Research Society (CERS), a complaint was filed against the builder, seeking compensation. The commission upheld the complaint and directed the firm to pay compensation ranging from Rs 1.5 lakh to Rs 18.6 lakh, along with 9% interest.

The builder appealed to the national commission. The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) requires a party challenging the order to deposit a certain amount of money when the appeal is lodged. In case of appeals to the national commission, this amount is 50% of the amount awarded or Rs 35,000, whichever is lower. Accordingly, the builder deposited Rs 35,000 per appeal.

The builder also applied for an interim stay on the enforcement of the state commission's order during the pendency of the appeal. The national commission granted conditional stay subject to the builder depositing 50% of the principal amount (excluding the interest component), within three months. The amount so deposited was to be invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank. 

The builder challenged this interim order before the Supreme Court. The builder argued that since Rs 35,000 had already been deposited at the time of filing the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the CPA, the national commission had no authority to give a direction to deposit any further amount. 

The Supreme Court observed that the deposit of Rs 35,000 is a "pre-deposit", payable as a condition precedent to filing the appeal. The objective of this pre-deposit is to avoid frivolous appeals. At the time of hearing the appeal, the commission would have the power to pass suitable interim orders. The commission could exercise its discretion while passing such interim orders to either grant a total stay, or a conditional stay, or refusal to grant stay. 

The Supreme Court also observed that the amount payable as a pre-deposit and that which is payable under interim order occur at two different stages of the proceedings. The pre-deposit is payable at the time of filing the appeal and has no link with the merits of the dispute. In contrast, the direction to make a further deposit is passed during the hearing of the application for interim stay, and is determined on a consideration of the merits of the appeal, the balance of convenience, and whether irreparable loss would be caused to a party seeking a stay. 

The Supreme Court accordingly concluded that the interim order passed by the national commission was well within its jurisdiction, and dismissed the builder's appeal. 

Conclusion: It is the discretion of the appellate authority whether or not to grant stay or to impose conditional stay. If stay is not granted, the order has to be complied with regardless of pendency of the appeal. 

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Consumer-commission-can-impose-conditional-stay/articleshow/40033456.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more