State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jeewan Jyoti Deposits And Advances Ltd. vs Sh. Prem Singh. on 14 September, 2022
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, SHIMLA.
Misc. Application No. : 237/2022
in
First Appeal No. : 111/2022
Date of Presentation : 30.08.2022
Date of Order on M.A : 14.09.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeewan Jyoti Deposits and Advances Ltd. RO & HO Jiwanjyoti
Shopping Complex, Mehre, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur, HP
through its Director Sh. Anand Gopal Bharti, S/o Sh. Bakshi
Ram, Village Than, PO Barari, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, HP
...... Applicant/Appellant
Versus
Prem Singh S/o Sh.Sita Ram, R/o Village & PO Bhakeri, Tehsil
Barsar, District Hamirpur, HP.
......Non-applicant/Respondent
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mr.R.K.Verma, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For Applicant : Mr. S.D.Gill, Advocate.
For Respondent : None.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta(Oral)
O R D E R :-
Present Miscellaneous application under order 44 rule 1 read with order 33 rule 1 of CPC has been filed by the applicant seeking exemption to deposit 50% of the awarded amount in terms 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Jeewan Jyoti Deposits & Advances Ltd. Vs. Sh.Prem Singh M.A. No.237/2022 in F.A.No.111/2022 of order passed by learned District Commission in filing appeal and to allow the applicant to file appeal as indigent person.
2. Office report perused. Requisite 50% of the Award amount not deposited. The learned counsel of the applicant has submitted that appellant is unable to deposit the 50% of the award amount in terms of order passed by learned District Forum below and submitted that appropriate order be passed in the matter and relied upon (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases 736.
3. Instead of depositing 50% of award amount, appellant/applicant has filed application under order 44 rule 1 read with order 33 rule 1 of CPC treating the appellant to be indigent person. Version of the counsel of the appellant that Managing Director of the appellant company was in jail on the date of ex-parte order dated 22.07.2021 and appellant company is indigent person does not seem to be correct on the following grounds:-
i). As per the document relied upon by the appellant, the appellant was proceeded ex-parte in CC No.04/2021 on 22.07.2021. The Appellant has filed document issued by Assistant Superintendent Jail, Hamirpur showing that Anand Gopal was admitted in jail on 11.03.2021 in case FIR No.171/2020, dated 05.10.2020 u/s 406 IPC and 5 of HP Protection Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 1999 and released from jail on 19.05.2021. But there is no document on record to show that he thereafter also remained in jail.
2
Jeewan Jyoti Deposits & Advances Ltd. Vs. Sh.Prem Singh M.A. No.237/2022 in F.A.No.111/2022
ii) The appellant has filed copy of order dated 22.07.2021, which shows that notice sent to appellant by District Forum below was received back with remarks refused and hence, appellant was proceeded ex-parte. The appellant has refused the service of notice before 22.07.2021.
iii) The appellant in application has not disclosed the source of information received on 26.10.2021 through whom he came to the access of knowledge of passing of the order dated 09.09.2021. Mere simpliciter alleging that he came to know the factum of passing of impugned order dated 09.09.2021 on 26.10.2021 does not give any strength to his version, particularly when order dated 22.07.2021 shows that notice sent to appellant was refused by it.
iv). The plea of indigent person in the present appeal is after thought version particularly when it has been taken for the first time before this Commission in appeal. Whereas, this plea was already available with the appellant on the date of filing of review petition before the District Commission below and the appellant has not filed any order passed in the said review petition or the ground taken in the said review petition.
4. Para-5 of the limitation application is being reproduced below for ready reference:-
"5. That, though the applicant/appellant is filing appeal against the ex-parte order dated 9.9.2021 but time taken before the Ld. Forum below during the pendency of the review petition may be taken into consideration and this 3 Jeewan Jyoti Deposits & Advances Ltd. Vs. Sh.Prem Singh M.A. No.237/2022 in F.A.No.111/2022 Hon'ble Commission may condone the delay in filing the appeal."
5. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel of the applicant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. Section-41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides for filing appeal against the order of District Commission, which reads as under:-
41. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission on the grounds of facts or law within a period of forty-five 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 forty-five days, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing 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 Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited fifty per cent. of that amount in the manner as may be prescribed:
Provided also that no appeal shall lie from any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 81 by the District Commission pursuant to a settlement by mediation under section 80.
7. A bare perusal of Section-41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reveals that no appeal by a person against the order of District Commission can be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited 50% of the amount as awarded by the District Commission below. The appellant is taking the plea of indigent person for the first time in appeal before this Commission. 4
Jeewan Jyoti Deposits & Advances Ltd. Vs. Sh.Prem Singh M.A. No.237/2022 in F.A.No.111/2022
8. In view of mandatory provision in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the applicant is under legal obligation to deposit 50% of the awarded amount to institute an appeal before State Commission, which it fails to do so. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
9. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
10. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, and their counsel free of cost, as per Rules. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Commission forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President Sunita Sharma Member R.K.Verma Member 14.09.2022 Manoj 5