Heard counsel for the petitioner.  The petitioners challenge the order dated 10.8.2010 of the State Commission whereby review application filed by them, had been dismissed.  It is now well settled that the State Commission has no power to review its own order and in spite of that the petitioner sought review of the order passed by the State Commission.  The review application was, therefore, rightly dismissed and no revision against the same can be entertained.  The revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

In fact, the petitioner should have challenged substantive order dated 1.7.2010 passed by the State Commission whereby First Appeal No.1360 of 2003 was dismissed for non-compliance of second Proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act.  Accordingly, we had given opportunity to the petitioner of hearing in respect of order dated 1.7.2010.  Counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment dated  5.12.2006 of this Commission in LIC VS. Shri Shaggan Lal in RP No.2311 of 2006 and he argued that order dated 1.7.2010, is liable to be set aside.

          Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act reads as under :-

“15. Appeal --- 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 :

{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 fifty percent of that amount or twenty-five thousand rupees, whichever is less.}”

          The second Proviso contemplates that no appeal shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited 50% of the amount payable under the order of the District Forum or Rs.25,000/- whichever  is less.  The second Proviso was added by Act 62 of 2002 and come into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003.  The appeal in question was filed on 2.7.2003 and as such the petitioner/appellant was required to comply second Proviso to Section 15 of the Act.  However, the petitioner did not deposit the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- either at the time of filing of the appeal or pursuant to the directions given vide order dated 11.11.2003 and 25.2.2004 by the State Commission.   The matter came up for hearing on many occasions during the years 2005 to 2010 but the appellant did not deposit the statutory amount and on 1.10.2010, the State Commission dismissed the appeal for want of deposit of the statutory amount.  It is only subsequently that the appellant along with the review application tried to deposit a draft of Rs.25,000/- with the State Commission.  The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the non deposit of statutory amount was bonafide unintentional and on account of inadvertence.  We cannot accept this explanation since the statutory amount was not deposited even after directions of the State Commission on 11.11.2003 and 25.2.2004 and thereafter, till the appeal was dismissed on 1.7.2010, even though, the matter came up for hearing on many occasions.  Reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of this Commission LIC VS. Shri Shaggan Lal (supra) is totally misplaced.  In the said case, it was observed by this Commission that if an application for condonation of delay is filed with a prayer for depositing the amount, then there is no reason to dismiss the appeal for non deposit.  No such application had been filed by the petitioner and it was only after the appeal was dismissed, that the appellant tried to tender the statutory amount which is not permissible as we have already pointed out that no review lies before the State Commission.  The fact that the State Commission did not have President for sometime and more particularly till 2005 did not prevent the petitioner to deposit the statutory amount till the appeal was dismissed on 1.7.2010.  In our opinion, the petitioner has been grossly negligent in depositing the statutory amount after obtaining order of stay from the State Commission. The appellant continued to reap the benefits of stay without even depositing the statutory amount till the appeal was dismissed on 1.7.2010.  The present case is a gross violation and misuse of the provisions of law and the appeal obviously could not be entertained and was rightly dismissed by the State Commission for non compliance of orders of State Commission dated 11.11.2003 and 25.2.2004 and statutory provision of deposit. 

          In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this revision and the revision, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.