State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Jaspal Kaur Deol & Ors. on 2 March, 2026
ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.981 of 2022
Date of institution : 16.11.2022
Reserved on : 17.02.2023
Date of decision : 02.03.2026
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. Sriperumbudur, Chennai, Kanchipurum
District, Tamilnadu, (India) through its Managing Director, having its
Office at: C-11 & 11A, Urban Estate-II, City Centre, Sector-29,
Gurugram-122009.
.....Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1. Mrs. Jaspal Kaur Deol, aged 60 years, Wd/o Sh. Manjit Singh
Deol, R/o 94-C, Raj Guru Nagar Threeke, District Ludhiana-
142028.
2. Depinder Singh Deol, aged 27 years S/o Sh. Manjit Singh Deol,
R/o 94-C, Raj Guru Nagar Threeke, District Ludhiana-142028.
....Respondents No.1& 2/complainants
3. Saturn Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., GKP Hyundai, C/o Sandeep Motors,
Govind Bagh, Rajpura road, Gopalpur, Patiala, Punjab-147002.
.....Respondent No.3/OP No.2
4. Godawari Motors Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Ferozepur Road,
Ayali Chowk Ludhiana, Punjab-141021.
....Respondent No.4/OP No.3
First Appeal under Section 41 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the
order dated 16.06.2022 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Kapurthala, Camp Court at Ludhiana in
RBT/CC/617/2016
Quorum:-
Mr. H.P.S. Mahal, Presiding Judicial Member
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate
For respondent No.1 & 2 : Sh. Sahil Abhi, Advocate
For respondent No.3 : Sh. Prince Goyal, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Exparte
FA 981 of 2022 2
KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 against the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala, camp court at Ludhiana (in short, "the District Commission"), whereby the complaint filed by respondents No.1 & 2/complainants against opposite parties (in short 'OPs'), under the Consumer Protection Act, was allowed while granting the following relief:-
"12. In view of above detailed discussion, we partly allow this complaint and direct the OPs either jointly or severally to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainants on account of mental pain and agony suffered by them due to untimely death of Manjit Singh Deol in accident. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the awarded amount would carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of complaint till its realization."
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.
3. Brief facts for the disposal of the appeal, as mentioned in the complaint, are that the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2; namely, Sh. Manjit Singh Deol had purchased a Hyundai Verna Fluidic car bearing registration No.PB-10-EV-8960 from OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,65,399/-. The said vehicle was manufactured by OP No.1 and at the time of its sale, OP No.2 assured that the vehicle contains all safety systems to protect the life of the driver. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the owner's manual and service booklet of the vehicle that air bags have been duly fixed in the vehicle for safety of the driver and other occupants of the car. It was the duty of the OPs to check the car properly, particularly the safety measures i.e. FA 981 of 2022 3 air bags or any other manufacturing defect at the time of sale and subsequently when the car was sent to the authorized dealer at their service station i.e. OP No.3. The said vehicle was also got insured by the said Manjit Singh Deol from TATA AIG General Insurance company Ltd. vide policy No.015547013000. Unfortunately, on 24.12.2015 the vehicle in question met with an accident and the said Manjit Singh Deol, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, died on the spot due to suffering of multiple and grievous injuries. The claim lodged by the complainants under the insurance policy has been duly settled by the insurance company. The complainants further stated that the ignition of the car was on or in a start position as the car was in motion on the highway in speed and deceased Manjit Singh Deol was driving the car at moderate speed and wearing the seat belt. As such, all the essentials for operation of the air bag system as per the owner's manual and service booklet were duly complied with by him. However, the vehicle was having a manufacturing defect as the safety system i.e. air bags had not been installed properly and it did not deploy even in such a severe head on collision of the car with the tree, where the front portion of the car has totally been smashed. Even the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, who had inspected the damaged vehicle in the presence of engineers of OP No.3, has clearly stated that 'Air bag found intact as air bags did not deploy in the accident'. The complainants further stated that the deceased Manjit Singh Deol, died due to faulty and defective air bags system in the vehicle, which was a manufacturing defect. Had proper airbags were installed by OP No.1, the life of deceased would have been saved. The complainants have FA 981 of 2022 4 lost their beloved only on account of negligence and unfair trade practices adopted by the OPs in selling the vehicle, which had a faulty and defective air bag system. The complainants requested the OPs to pay compensation due to the said manufacturing defect in the vehicle, but all in vain. Hence, they filed a consumer complaint before the District Commission and sought directions against the OPs to pay Rs.19 lakhs along with interest @ 12% p.a. as compensation for causing mental tension, torture, agony etc. which they suffered on account of deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs in selling the defective car with the defective and faulty airbag operating system.
4. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs, but OP No.2 failed to appear before the District Commission despite service and was proceeded against exparte. OP No.3 appeared before the District Commission but it failed to file written version, as such, its defence was struck off.
5. OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply, wherein it raised certain preliminary objections, which are not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. On merits, OP No.1 stated that aspects of retail sale and service are strictly inter se complainants and the concerned dealer/workshop. OPs No.2 & 3 are neither agents nor employees of OP No.1, as such, it not liable for any act or omission on the part of OPs No.2 & 3. It has no role in retail sale/after sale service/registration of the car. The complainants have deliberately not stressed on the fact that the deceased was very much aware of the deployment of airbags as at the time of delivery of the FA 981 of 2022 5 vehicle he has been provided with owner's manual and service booklet, wherein function of different parts has been described including functioning of air bags. Air bags will not deploy in frontal crashes below the deployment threshold speed. The airbag are not deployed in collisions with single point objects like pole and tree as has been clearly mentioned on page 16 of user manual safety features airbags. OP No.1 further stated that as per the own admission of the complainants, they have already received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- under P.A. cover and a sum of Rs.8,58,000/- as claim for the car. It is therefore, not permissible that the claim for compensation can be raised by the complainants subsequently alleging manufacturing defects. Moreover, the complainants have failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate its allegations to prove manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Further the claim of loss of income, future income etc, cannot be granted under the Consumer Protection Act. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua it.
6. The appearing parties led their evidence before the District Commission in support of their respective contentions and the District Commission after going through the record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly allowed the complaint of the complainant against OPs, vide impugned order, as above. Aggrieved with the same this appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP No.1.
7. Notice of the appeal was issued to respondents, but respondent No.4 failed to appear despite service. As such, respondent No.4 was proceeded against exparte.
FA 981 of 2022 6
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, respondents No.1 to 3 and have also gone through the written arguments filed by the respondents, as well as record of the case.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the present case relates to an accident by use of a motor vehicle and therefore, the jurisdiction for awarding compensation in such cases is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which regulates all aspects of road transport vehicles. The jurisdiction of the consumer fora and other civil courts has been ousted in such cases. In the present matter, jurisdiction vests with the Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The learned counsel further argued that the vehicle in question was insured and the insurance claim for the car was approved and paid by the insurance company, but the complainant has not impleaded the insurance company as party to the complaint, which ought to have been impleaded being a necessary party. Therefore, the complaint should be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary party. Moreover, it is a well settled law that once a consumer has approached the Insurance company for the settlement of the claim and the same being settled as per the satisfaction of the complainant, then the complainant cannot be said to raise claim of compensation subsequently against the manufacturer/dealer alleging manufacturing defect. The learned counsel further argued that the District Commission has completely ignored the instructions given in owner's manual and service booklet. Further, the deceased may not be wearing the seatbelt at the time of collision and the same would have FA 981 of 2022 7 been the primary reason of the casualty. If he would be wearing seatbelt, it would have been recorded in the list of repair and replacement as a part of report by the surveyor and expert hereto. The complainants have failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate their allegations to prove manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. The allegations are merely based on averments made in the affidavit and ought not to be looked into. In support of their contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the following case laws:-
a) Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation V. Consumer Protection, council, (1995) 2 SCC 479;
b) A.B. Motors Private Ltd. Vs. Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd. and ors. 2010 (3) CPC 648;
c) Smt. Geeta Sparu Vs. Dr. B.L. Kapoor Memorial (III) 2006 CPJ 1 NC;
d) BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Saraf Project Privte Ltd.FA No.84 of 2009 (NC)
The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the written reply and prayed for acceptance of the present appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2/complainants has argued that the appellant was duty bound to check the car properly particularly the safety measures i.e. air bags or any other manufacturing defect at the time of sale. The deceased had received the multiple injuries in the said accident and had the frontal airbags would have deployed, he would not have received the injuries on the head, forehead etc. This shows that there was apparent manufacturing defect, which has taken the life of said Manjit Singh Deol. The learned counsel further argued that motor accident claims tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint as no third party is involved in the present case. Independent opinion of FA 981 of 2022 8 Sh. C.K. Bhatia has been produced on record to show that the non- deploying of the air bags is due to the manufacturing defect and Er. Raman Galhotra, the surveyor appointed by insurance company has proved that the airbags were found intact as they did not deploy in the accident inspite of entire damage caused to the car on the front side. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel has relied on the following citations:-
a) R.Gandhimathi Vs. Volks Wagan Group Sales India Ltd. & another, in 2019(I)CPJ 140 (TN);
b) Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Vs. Lila Sahu and another, Revision Petition No.1014 of 2016 (NC);
The learned counsel further argued on the similar lines as stated in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
11. The learned counsel for respondent No.3/OP No.2 argued that respondent No.3 had entered into dealership agreement with the appellant on 20.08.2014 and as per clause 16(a) of the agreement, the appellant agreed to indemnify the dealer in case of any legal proceedings arising out of manufacturing defect. The said agreement stood terminated on 24.05.2017 and thereafter, an indemnity-cum- undertaking dated 29.09.2019 was entered between the appellant and respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.3 was absolved of its liability and the dealership agreement was terminated. The learned counsel further argued that respondent No.3 duly forwarded its reply via registered letter dated 22.09.2016 to the District Commission, wherein it stated that "The working of the features is a subject matter for discussion in the present case and the manufacturer can offer the best explanation after examining related parameters". After sending the reply, respondent No.3 remained under the bonafide impression that FA 981 of 2022 9 the appellant will contest the proceedings and will apprise the District Commission about its sole liability in case of any manufacturing defect. Once, the manufacturing defect is pointed out by the complainant, there was no occasion for the District Commission to make respondent No.3 liable particularly when it has nothing to do with the manufacturing of the vehicle and it was only a dealer of the appellant. Further airbags are pre-installed feature of any vehicle, which is installed by the manufacturer in its plant and respondent No.3, being the dealer, at the time of pre-delivery inspection had to examine whether there was any error indication on the instrument panel for which any rectification/setting was required. The respondent No.3 had exercised its due diligence at the time of delivery of the vehicle and there was neither any error indication on the instrument panel nor any defect was reported by the customer or respondent No.4 till the date of accident. Thus no fault is attributable to respondent No.3 and the defect, if any, was only a manufacturing defect. The learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the present appeal as well as consumer complaint against respondent No.3.
12. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. The factual matrix of the case is that the husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant No.2; namely, Sh. Manjit Singh Deol had purchased a Hyundai Verna Fluidic car, manufactured by appellant/OP No.1, bearing registration No.PB-10-EV-8960 from respondent No.3/OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.10,65,399/- (Ex.C-2). The said vehicle was also got insured by the Manjit Singh Deol from TATA FA 981 of 2022 10 AIG General Insurance company Ltd. vide policy No.015547013000 (Ex.C-3. On 24.12.2015, the vehicle in question met with an accident and the said Manjit Singh Deol, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, died on the spot due to suffering of multiple and grievous injuries. The claim lodged by the complainants under the insurance policy has been duly settled by the insurance company. The complainants alleged that the vehicle was having a manufacturing defect as the safety system i.e. air bags had not been installed properly and it did not deploy even in such a severe head on collision of the car with the tree, where the front portion of the car had totally been smashed. The complainants further alleged that the deceased Manjit Singh Deol, died due to faulty and defective air bags system in the vehicle, which was a manufacturing defect. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, which has been partly allowed vide impugned order as above. Aggrieved with the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/OP No.1.
14. The foremost contention raised by the appellant/OP No.1 is that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the present case relates to an accident by use of a motor vehicle and therefore, the jurisdiction for awarding compensation in such cases is governed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which regulates all aspects of road transport vehicles. The jurisdiction of the consumer fora and other civil courts has been ousted in such cases. However, we are not inclined to accept the said contention raised by the appellant/OP No.1 as in the present matter the respondents/complainants alleged FA 981 of 2022 11 deficiency in service on the part of the OPs due not non deployment of airbags at the time of accident of the vehicle, which is alleged to be a manufacturing defect. Under Section 35 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with a District Commission by a consumer. The relevant part of Section 35(1) is reproduced as under:-
"Section 35. (1) A complaint, in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with a District Commission by--
(a) the consumer,--
(i) to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service is provided or agreed to be provided; or
(ii) who alleges unfair trade practice in respect of such goods or service;"
Accordingly, the Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to decide such type of matter, where the dispute is between a consumer and the sellers of the goods, qua quality of product sold by them after receiving the consideration from the consumer. As such, this said contention raised by the appellant/OP No.1 is hereby rejected.
15. So far as contention raised by the appellant/OP No.1 that once a consumer has approached the Insurance company for settlement of the claim and the same being settled as per the satisfaction of the complainant, then the complainant cannot be said to raise claim of compensation subsequently against the manufacturer/dealer alleging manufacturing defect, is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainants have different cause of action against the insurance company qua settlement of claim under the FA 981 of 2022 12 insurance policy purchased by the deceased for the said vehicle, which was duly settled by the insurance company. Whereas, against the appellant/OPs, the complainants alleged deficiency in service on their part due to having a manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by them from the OPs, because of which the driver of the vehicle suffered grievous injuries, which is a separate cause of action. The judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of "A.B. Motors Private Ltd. Vs. Admiral Impex Pvt. Ltd."(Supra) is not applicable as in the cited authority the complainant firstly filed insurance claim and then filed consumer complaint on the same cause of action, whereas in the present case the cause of action is different. As such, the complainants can approach the Consumer Commission for redressal of their present grievance against the appellant/OPs. Since, the insurance claim has already been settled by the insurance company and the complainants have no grievance against it, therefore, there is no need to implead it in the array of the parties. According, we do not find any force in the contention raised by the appellant and the same is hereby declined.
16. Now, we proceed to decide the main contention of the appellant that the respondents/complainants have failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate their allegations to prove manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. Moreover, the non-deployment was not due to any manufacturing defect as the airbags will not deploy in frontal crashes below the deployment threshold speed and under all other conditions, which are clearly mentioned in owner's manual. In this regard, it is relevant to discuss the conditions of deployment of airbags as mentioned in the owner's manual, which are reproduced as under:- FA 981 of 2022 13
"How does the air bag system operate • Air bags are activated (able to inflate if necessary) only when the ignition switch is turned to the ON or START position.
• Air bags inflate instantly in the event of a serious frontal or side collision(if equipped with side air bag or curtain air bag) in order to help protect the occupants from serious physical injury.
• There is no single speed at which the air bags will inflate.
Generally, air bags are designed to inflate based upon the severity of a collision and its direction. These two factors determine whether the sensors produce an electronic deployment/inflation signal.
• Air bag deployment depends on a number of factors including vehicle speed, angles of impact and the density and stiffness of the vehicles or objects which your vehicle hits in the collision. The determining factors are not limited to those mentioned above.
• The front air bags will completely inflate and deflate in an instant."
As per above said conditions, the deployment of airbags depends upon ignition position of the vehicle, speed, angles of impact, severity of collision and the density and stiffness of the vehicles or objects to which the vehicle hits in the collision etc. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question met with an accident, which resulted in a head on collision with a tree and the vehicle was declared as 'Total Loss' by the surveyor of the insurance company. However, the air bags installed in the vehicle did not deploy in the said accident and the said fact was duly corroborated from the report of surveyor and expert opinion given by Engineer Sh. C.K. Bhatia. It is also an admitted fact that the insurance company settled the claim lodged by the complainant on total loss basis. Even from the perusal of photographs Ex.C-5 to C-10, it has been duly established that the front portion of the vehicle is totally damaged and smashed. Keeping in view the severity of the collision, we FA 981 of 2022 14 are of the considered view that the airbags would have to be deployed properly, if there was no manufacturing defect in the said safety system. The contention of the appellant that the airbags will not deploy in frontal crashes below the deployment threshold speed and under all other conditions, which are clearly mentioned in owner's manual, has no force as the collision, in the present case, meets the manufacturer's specified criteria (e.g., speed, ignition, angle, force) for deployment. Further, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the non-deployment of air bags could also be due to the reason that the driver may not be wearing the seatbelt at the time of collision. Although there is no specific condition of deployment of air bags mentioned in the owner's manual or service booklet qua the seat belt, however, the appellant itself is not sure that whether the driver was wearing the seatbelt or not. Since, the insurance company has already settled the claim of the complainants under the policy and in the absence of any finding by the surveyor qua wearing the seatbelt or not, the benefit has to go to the innocent consumer. The respondents/complainants have duly established on record by leading cogent evidence in the shape of expert opinion given by Sh. C.K. Bhatia, Mechanical Engineer (B.E. Mech) with 48 years of Experience, Ex.C-90, which was duly supported by his affidavit Ex.CD, wherein he duly opined that "Non Deployment of air bags with the kind of impact that car under reference has suffered in accident, itself reflects that there was some in build defect in the airbag system which made it to fail at the time for which it was designed and installed. There are global records that fairly good number of such failures has occurred and even FA 981 of 2022 15 renowned auto manufacturers of the world, like Volks Wagon, Toyota, Ford, Honda etc. have called back their vehicle to remove the defects in these safety system..." The appellant/OP No.1 has failed to rebut the finding given by the expert opinion. Moreover, in the present case prima-facie under the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it is proved that in the said accident the air bags did not deploy, even when the impact was very high from the front side, which led to the death of the driver instantly. As such, no further evidence was required to prove the manufacturing defect in the vehicle manufactured by appellant/OP No.1. We are fortified with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case titled as "Hyundai Motor India Limited v. Shailendra Bhatnagar", decided on 20.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No.3001 of 2022 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4881 of 2021), wherein it has been held as under:-
"9. There are findings of the two fora about the defect in the product sold, in this case being a vehicle. This was sold with front airbags and there was frontal damage. The airbags did not deploy. The accident caused injuries to the respondent. The appellant referred to various portions from the owner's manual to contend that the impact of the collision was not sufficient to activate the sensor which in turn would have resulted in deployment of the airbags. We would not like to revisit the facts on which findings have been returned by the two fora against the appellant. The State Commission relied on the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur to affix the liability of the manufacturer as regards defect in the airbag system, having regard to the nature of the collision. The National Commission affirmed this finding referring to certain photographs of the damaged vehicle, which showed substantial frontal damage. In such circumstances, both the aforesaid fora took the view that expert evidence was not necessary in the subject case. Such view cannot be faulted as being unreasonable, in the given facts.FA 981 of 2022 16
10. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the National Commission. We would like to add here that ordinarily a consumer while purchasing a vehicle with airbags would assume that the same would be deployed whenever there is a collision from the front portion of the vehicle (in respect of front airbags). Both the fora, in their decisions, have highlighted the fact that there was significant damage to the front portion of the vehicle. Deployment of the airbags ought to have prevented injuries being caused to those travelling in the vehicle, particularly in the front seat. A consumer is not meant to be an expert in physics calculating the impact of a collision on the theories based on velocity and force. In such circumstances, we do not find that there is any error in the findings of the two fora as regards there being defect in the vehicle."
17. It has been contended by respondent No.3/OP No.2 that it had entered into dealership agreement on 20.08.2014 with the appellant and as per clause 16(a) of the said agreement, the appellant agreed to indemnify the dealer in case of any legal proceedings arising out of manufacturing defect. Respondent No.3/OP No.2 further contended that the said agreement stood terminated on 24.05.2017 and thereafter, an indemnity-cum-undertaking dated 29.09.2019 was entered between the appellant and respondent No.3. In support of its contention, respondent No.3/OP No.2 has placed on record Annexures R-3 i.e. Dealership Agreement, vide MA No.956 of 2023 for leading additional evidence. Be that as it may, it is pertinent to mention here that the admission of respondent No.3/OP No.2 qua the fact that it remained under the bonafide impression that the appellant/OP No.1 would contest the proceedings and would apprise the District Commission about its sole liability in case of any manufacturing defect, itself makes clear that respondent No.3/OP No.2 chose to stay out of the proceedings before the District Commission despite its service, due FA 981 of 2022 17 to which it was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the District Commission. Respondent No.3/OP No.2 has not challenged the said exparte order and even when the District Commission passed the impugned order while holding the liability to pay the compensation by all the OPs, it still not challenged the said order before this Commission by way of filing a separate appeal. Since the said impugned order had attained finality, respondent No.3/OP No.2, at this stage cannot take shelter of its own mistake by not contesting the complaint before the District Commission and even not challenging the impugned order passed against it by way of filing an appeal before this Commission. So far as the dealership agreement alleged to be entered between the parties, is concerned, it is the inter se matter between them and respondent No.3/OP No.2 is at liberty to recover the amount, if any, from the appellant under the said agreement executed between them, as per law.
18. Sequel to our above discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly decided the case and there is no material infirmity and irregularity in the order of the District Commission. Finding no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant/OP No.1, the same is hereby dismissed & the order of the District Commission is upheld.
19. The pending applications, if any, are disposed off.
20. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal and further deposited an amount of Rs.7,30,000/- in compliance of order dated 18.11.2022. These amount alongwith interest, which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Commission forthwith. Respondent No.1& FA 981 of 2022 18 2/complainants may approach the District Commission for the release of the above amount and the District Commission may pass the appropriate order in this regard after the expiry of limitation period in accordance with law.
21. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(H.P.S. MAHAL) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER March 2, 2026 (Dv)