THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR DATED: 30-11-2010 WRIT PETITION No. 29924 OF 2010 Between: Mummadi Chandra Mouli ..... PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, rep., by its Chairman, Khairatabad, Hyderabad and six others .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No. 29924 OF 2010 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, 1st respondent herein to entertain the appeal (SR) No.6756 of 2010 against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karimnagar (for short ‘the District Forum’) in CC No. 75 of 2006 without reference to proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e., without insisting for deposit of statutory amount for entertaining the appeal against the orders of the District Forum. The 2nd respondent herein filed the said CC before the District Forum under Section 12 of the Act to direct the appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 herein to pay to her a sum of Rs.42,000/- being the maturity value of the FDRs along with agreed interest from the date of maturity till the date of realization; Rs.3,000/- towards compensation; Rs.2,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The District Forum by its order dated 27-08-2010 allowed the CC and directed the writ petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein to pay jointly and severally the 2nd respondent the maturity amount payable on her seven FDRs (Exs.A-1 to A-7) i.e., Rs.42,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till the date of realization and Rs.1,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of that order. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent without making statutory deposit as required under Section 15 of the Act. The 1st respondent by order dated 11-11-2010 required the writ petitioner to pay the statutory amount for entertaining the appeal. Hence the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent ought to have dispensed with the condition of deposit of the statutory amount. It is needless to mention that the Parliament has enacted the Act to provide for better protection of the interests of the consumers and for that purpose made provision for the establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. This is a speedy remedy. Under Section 15 of the Act, deposit of 50% of the amount or Rs.25,000/-, whichever is less is a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal filed against the order of the District Forum. Having realized the need of the people, the Parliament has incorporated the said condition which cannot be ignored. It is settled legal position that if the remedy of appeal is conferred with some conditions, the same have to be adhered to or followed scrupulously. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is misconceived and it is accordingly dismissed. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J N. RAVI SHAKNAR, J 30-11-2010 ks