State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sigma Motors vs 1. Sayaji Dashrath Kawde on 8 August, 2012
1 F.A.No.: 137-11
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 17.02.2011
Date of Order: 08.08.2012
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 137 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 337 OF 2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD.
Sigma Motors
Through Mahesh Meghraj Jetwani
R/o. Chatrapati Society,
3rd Floor, Kopri Colony, Thane. ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Sayaji Dashrath Kawde
H. No. 8, Jaibhawani Nagar,
Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad.
2. Branch Office, Collection Centre,
Sigma Motors, Plot No. 842,
N-5, Sahyadri Nagar,
Cidco, Aurangabad. ...Respondents
... Respondent
Coram : Mr. B. A.Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member Present: Adv. Shri. U. N. Shete for the appellant.
Adv. Shri. S. N. Lavekar for the Respondent No.1.
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mr. B. A. Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
1. Adv. Shri. U. N. Shete is present for the appellant. Adv. Shri. S. N. Lavekar is present for the Respondent No.1. Adv. Shri. Shete has submitted that the appellant is unable to deposit the statutory amount in the appeal as 2 F.A.No.: 137-11 directed by this Commission. He further submitted that the account of the appellant has been sealed by the police authorities and therefore there are no funds available with appellant to deposit statutory amount. He also submits that the appellant is going to file writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court to challenge virus of the second proviso of Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act under which direction is given to deposit the statutory amount, before the appeals is entertained. He therefore seeks adjournment. Adv. Shri. S. N. Lavekar has strongly opposed for grant of adjournment on the ground that the appellant has been already granted sufficient time by this Commission for depositing the statutory amount and that now the appellant is adopting prolonging tactics, and therefore his request may not be considered.
2. It is seen that initially revision petition was filed before this Commission against the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum below, on 27.12.2010. The advocate of the revision petitioner was heard on the point of maintainability of the revision petition u/s. 17 of Consumer Protection Act, on 17.02.2011. After hearing him it was found by this Commission on that date that the revision petition was required to be converted in appeal. Thus on 17.02.2011 the applicant/appellant herein was directed to convert revision petition into appeal. Accordingly revision petition came to be converted in appeal. The appeal was then adjourned to 25.03.2011.
3. On 25.03.2011 Adv. Shri. U. N. Shete appeared for the appellant and sought time and hence adjournment was granted and appeal was fixed on 25.04.2011. On 25.04.2011 the advocate holding for Adv. U. N. Shete sought time and hence appeal was adjourned to 21.06.2011. Appeal was then fixed and adjourned on 22.08.2011, 21.10.2011, 16.01.2012, 14.03.2012 and 07.05.2012 On 07.05.2012 Adv. Shri. Shete filed a pursis stating that the appeal is not pressed against Respondent No.2 and hence the appeal stood dismissed as against the Respondent No.2 on 07.05.2012. On that date it was brought to the 3 F.A.No.: 137-11 notice of this Commission that, appellant did not comply with the mandatory second proviso of Sec. 15 of C.P. Act. It was observed by this Commission under order dated 07.05.2012 that, unless the statutory amount deposited, the appeal can not be taken into consideration. The appeal was therefore adjourned to 12.06.2012, with a direction to make the said compliance till 12.06.2012.
4. On 12.06.2012 it was found that the statutory amount as per provision of Sec. 15 was not deposited and hence last chance was given to the appellant to make compliance of the same till 31.07.2012.
5. On 31.07.2012, advocate of the appellant sought time to deposit the statutory amount. This Commission again granted last chance for depositing the statutory amount in the appeal. The appeal came to be adjourned to 08.08.2012.
6. Today i.e. on 08.08.2012, the appellant has come with a new plea that the vires of provision about depositing statutory amount as made under provisions of Sec. 15 is being challenged before Hon'ble High Court under Writ Petition. Hence again time is sought by the appellants advocate. It is seen that when the revision came to be converted into appeal as back as on 17.02.2011, it was necessary for the appellant to deposit the statutory amount as per second proviso of Sec.15 of C.P. Act. Thus, from 17.02.2011 till this date i.e. 08.08.2012, the said statutory amount is not deposited by the appellant.
Second proviso of Sec. 15 of C. P. Act reads as, "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." Thus the appellant has been required to deposit the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- as per the said provision before the appeal is entertained by this Commission. There was sufficient time for the appellant to file the writ petition 4 F.A.No.: 137-11 since the revision was converted into appeal long back. However, the appellant sought adjournment from time to time for depositing the statutory amount. Twice last chances were also granted. Thereafter the appellant has come with a new plea that writ petition is going to be filed in the Hon'ble High Court to challenge the aforesaid provision second proviso of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore necessary interference can be drawn that the appellant was not at all intending in deposit the statutory amount earlier and simply adjournment was sought from time to time. The appeal is thus prolonged without any progress since long. Under these facts and circumstances we are not inclined to grant further time to deposit the statutory amount in the present appeal. Hence, we reject the request of the appellant's advocate which is made for adjournment. As the statutory amount is not deposited, even though ample time has been granted, there is no question of entertaining the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is rejected. No order as to costs.
(K. B. Gawali) (B. A. Shaikh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar