Telangana HC Issues Notice on Challenge to 50% Deposit Condition for Appeals Under Consumer Protection Act 2019

LI Network

Published on: November 22, 2023 at 00:10 IST

The Telangana High Court has issued notice to the Union of India in response to a writ petition challenging the second provision of Sections 41, 51, and 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Division Bench, consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar, is hearing the petition filed by an opposite party in a consumer complaint.

The petitioner, dissatisfied with the trial court’s decree in favor of the complainant, decided to appeal the decision. However, the petitioner discovered that, in order to file an appeal, a 50% deposit of the decretal amount is required under the Consumer Protection Act.

Counsel Baglekar Akarsh Kumar, representing the petitioner, argued that the impugned provisos create an obligation for an opposite party, appealing under the Consumer Protection Act, to deposit 50% of the decree amount.

The petitioner contends that this requirement is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, as it imposes a financial burden on the opposite party while exempting the complainant from a similar obligation.

The petition emphasizes that the Consumer Protection Act uses the term “any person aggrieved by an order” in the main sections, creating a single class that includes both the appellant and the opposite party.

The petitioner argues that by imposing a deposit condition only on the opposite party and not on the complainant, the second provisos to Sections 41, 51, and 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The petitioner further contends that the deposit requirement hinders the right to appeal, which is a continuation of the suit, and is inconsistent with the main part of the statute.

The petition asserts that a proviso cannot take away the right conferred by the main part of the statute, and the imposition of the stringent condition is in violation of the section’s main part.

Case titled: M/s. Adi Roh Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs. Union of India and Others.

Related Post