Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

Complainant/Respondent No.1 purchased a truck after getting it financed from Citi Corp Finance (I) Ltd., respondent No.2 herein ; and got it insured from the petitioner.  The said truck met with an accident on 4.6.2008 during the currency of the policy.  Respondent informed the petitioner about the accident which appointed a surveyor.  Respondent was directed to take the vehicle to a garage and get the estimate for repairs prepared. Respondent took the vehicle to Samal Automobiles which prepared an estimate of Rs.5,08,000/- towards the repair of the vehicle.  But, thereafter, petitioner – insurance company failed to settle the claim of the respondent.  Aggrieved by this, respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

District Forum vide its order dated 30.7.2009 allowed the complaint against the petitioner but dismissed the same against respondent No.2.  District Forum directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,71,488/- after deducting the sum of Rs.3,43,000/- which had already been paid to Samal Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. earlier.  Rs.10,000/- were granted by way of compensation and Rs.5000/- towards  costs. 

Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit the statutory amount in terms of proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 in spite of several opportunities given to the petitioner to do so.  Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act., 1986 provides that “Any person  aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty 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 thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.”  Proviso to Section 15 which reads under was inserted by Act 50 of 1993-

“Provided further that 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 50% of that amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less.”

Admittedly, petitioner did not deposit either 50% of the awarded amount or Rs.25,000/-.  Petitioner was given four opportunities to do so including the last opportunity on 12.10.2009.  The case was adjourned to 15.10.2009 on which date the case was not listed.  Office put up the case before the Bench on 23.10.2009.  Counsel for the petitioner was informed of the date and the counsel for the petitioner put in appearance.  On 23.10.2009, petitioner sought an adjournment, which was declined, as the last opportunity had already been given on 12.10.2009.  Even on 23.10.2009, petitioner did not offer to deposit the requisite amount under proviso to Section 15.

Counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why petitioner did not comply with the mandate of proviso to Section 15.  It has been held by this Commission repeatedly that compliance of the proviso to Section 15 is a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal and in case the requirement of proviso to Section 15 is not met with, appeal is liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.  Admittedly, the petitioner had failed to comply with the mandate of proviso to Section 15 in spite of four opportunities having been given.  No reason is forthcoming as to why the petitioner did not comply with the statutory requirement.  Dismissed.