In a significant reaffirmation of procedural clarity under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) in a recent matter concerning two connected First Appeals challenging a common order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (“SCDRC Chandigarh”), the Hon’ble NCDRC has reiterated that there is no legal requirement to make separate pre-deposits in each appeal, provided they arise from the same judgment. The judgement aligns with the intent of the Act and furthers the objective of preventing multiplicity of compliance and unnecessary procedural rigidity.
The controversy arose in First Appeal No. NC / DN / 30 / 2025 – FA, titled Mr. Manish Uppal & Ors. v. Vikram Batra & Ors., and First Appeal No. NC / DN / 31 / 2025 – FA, titled Uppal Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikram Batra & Ors. Both appeals were filed by different sets of Opposite Parties challenging the same Final Order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC Chandigarh in Complaint No.76 of 2024. In compliance with the Hon’ble NCDRC’s prior direction dated 22.04.2025, the Appellants deposited a demand draft representing 50% of the awarded amount.

Respondent’s Objection And Appellant’s Submission

The Complainant (Respondent in Appeal), objected to the consolidated deposit, contending that the 50% pre-deposit must be made separately in each appeal. However, it was submitted on behalf of the Appellants that:

  1. Both Appeals arise from a common judgment;
  2. The Act does not mandate separate deposits where the order impugned is the same;
  3. The purpose of pre-deposit under Section 51 of the Act is to secure the rights of the Complainant/Decree Holder, which is fulfilled by a singular 50% deposit;
  4. Requiring multiple deposits would amount to an undue burden on Appellants and is not contemplated by the legislative intent.

The Hon’ble NCDRC concurred with these submissions and observed that in “Kanakia Spaces Realty Private Limited & Ors. v. Kamal Aggarwal & Anr.” [First Appeal No. 115 of 2024] and “Guru Prerna Corporation v. Kamal Aggarwal & Ors.” [First Appeal No. 224 of 2024], the Hon’ble NCDRC had already dealt with an identical objection and upheld the validity of a consolidated pre-deposit in connected appeals challenging the same order. The Hon’ble NCDRC reiterated that the requirement of 100% deposit is an exception and not the rule, applicable only in exceptional cases involving specific statutory or factual circumstances.

The Manohar Infrastructure Case

This principle was also examined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Manohar Infrastructure and Construction Private Limited v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and Ors.”, (2022) 8 SCC 474. The Hon’ble Court analysed Section 51 of the Act and clarified the twin purpose of the pre-deposit requirement:

  1. As a statutory precondition for maintainability of the appeal (Section 51, second proviso); and
  2. As a distinct measure from the conditions for grant of stay.

The Hon’ble Court held:

“It is a condition precedent to deposit 50% of the amount before the appeal is entertained by the National Commission. However, that does not take away the jurisdiction of the National Commission to order deposit of the entire amount and/or any amount higher than 50% while considering a stay application… Pre-deposit has no nexus with the grant of stay.”

Further, the Hon’ble Court emphasized that any direction to deposit more than 50% must be through a speaking order, and discretionary directions to do so must be justified by specific facts.

This decision also reaffirmed the ratio of “Shreenath Corporation v. Consumer Education and Research Society”, (2014) 8 SCC 657, which had earlier held that the pre-deposit condition is intended to curb frivolous litigation and must not be equated with merits-based interim relief considerations.

Conclusion

This reaffirmation by the Hon’ble NCDRC is a welcome development, especially in complex disputes involving multiple parties where each set of Opposite Parties may file separate appeals against the same consumer order. The order underscores the importance of substantive justice over procedural formality and aligns appellate procedure with commercial and administrative realities.

With this decision, the Hon’ble NCDRC has reiterated that the statutory purpose of pre-deposit is security and not duplication. Therefore, a single, consolidated pre-deposit in connected appeals arising from a common order satisfies the mandate of Section 51 of the Act, and need not be repeated mechanically across all appeals.

This clarity in law will help reduce multiplicity of compliance and promote efficient administration of justice in appellate consumer litigation.

The Appellants were represented by KNM & Partners Law Offices, who effectively argued the matter before the Hon’ble NCDRC and secured this beneficial clarification for similarly placed litigants across the country.