Telangana High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Condition Of 50% Deposit For Preferring Appeals Under Consumer Protection Act 2019
The Telangana High Court has issued notice to the Union of India in a writ petition filed challenging the second proviso to Section 41, 51 & 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The writ petition was being heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar. The petitioner is an opposite party in a consumer complaint that was initiated against him....
The Telangana High Court has issued notice to the Union of India in a writ petition filed challenging the second proviso to Section 41, 51 & 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The writ petition was being heard by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar.
The petitioner is an opposite party in a consumer complaint that was initiated against him. The Trial Court decreed the complaint in favor of the complainant and when the petitioner chose to prefer an appeal, he came to know that he is bound to deposit 50% of the decretal amount in order to prefer an appeal.
Aggrieved by the provisions of the statue he has preferred the present writ petition.
Counsel Baglekar Akash Kumar appearing for the petitioner contended that impugned provisos mandates an opposite party, preferring an appeal to deposit 50% of the decree amount under the Consumer Protection Act and the same is ultra vires to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner further contended that the statute does not mandate the complainant in the consumer complaint to pay any amount while preferring an appeal and such burden is solely cast on the opposite party, creating discrimination between the same class i.e., an appellant.
"It is submitted that in the main part of the Sections 41, 51 and 67, the words used are "any person aggrieved by an order", therefore, the Statute has created one class, i.e., Appellant, which may be either the or the Opposite party. Hence, by discriminating within a Class, i.e., the Appellant by asking one of them, i.e., the Opposite party to deposit 50% of the amount at the time of filing appeal and not asking the Complainant to deposit such amount, the second provisos to Sections 41, 51 and 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the petition read.
It was also contended that a first appeal is the continuation of the suit, wherein the error of the lower Court, if any, can be set aside by the Appellate Court. However, when the statute mandates a deposit of 50% amount the same is bound to detter the opposite party from preferring an appeal.
"It is submitted that it is well settled that a proviso cannot take away the right conferred by main part of the Statute. Therefore, when the main part confers the right to appeal against the order of the lower court to superior court, the imposition of stringent condition of depositing 50% of the amount is violative of main part of the Section."
M/s. Adi Roh Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs. Union on India and Ors.
Counsel for petitioner: Baglekar Akash Kumar