Petitioner, which was the opposite party before the District Forum, has field this Revision Petition against the order dated 04.1.2006 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal no. 508/2003 filed by the petitioner

for non-compliance of the second proviso to Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

-2-

          Provisions of Second proviso to Section 15, which were inserted vide Amended Act No.62 of 2002, which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003, read as under:

“ Provided further that no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of order of the District Consumer 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 appeal was filed on 28.3.2003.  Second proviso to Section 15 provides that no appeal filed by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of order passed by the District Forum shall be entertained unless he deposits in the prescribed manner either 50% of the amount or Rs.25,000/- rupees, whichever is less.  Admittedly, the petitioner had not deposited the amount in terms of the provisions of second proviso to Section 15.  On 17.2.2004, the State Commission had granted an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the amount as required under the Amended Act, but the requisite amount was not deposited.  Even on the date of passing of the order

-3-

by the State Commission, the petitioner had not deposited the amount.  Counsel for the petitioner had also not taken care to appear before the State Commission.  The State Commission relying upon the judgment of this Commission in “Akash Ganga Courier Service Vs. Sumit Goel, decided on 16.09.2005” held that the appeal could not be entertained without complying with the provisions of second proviso of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that compliance with the provisions of second proviso to section 15 is mandatory.  The appeal can be entertained subject to compliance with the provisions of second proviso to Section 15.  The State Commission has rightly held that the appeal could not be entertained as the petitioner had failed to comply with the provisions of second proviso to Section 15.  No merits.  Dismissed.