Appellate Mechanism**

Appeal against District Commission's Order (Section 41)

The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, provides for a hierarchical appellate system. If a party is not satisfied with the order passed by a consumer forum, they have the right to file an appeal before the next higher forum. The first level of appeal is against the order of the District Commission.

To the State Commission

As per **Section 41** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, any person aggrieved by an order made by a District Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the **State Commission**. The appeal must be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of that State Commission (i.e., the State Commission of the State in which the District Commission that passed the order is located).

Time limit: 45 days

The appeal to the State Commission must be filed within a specified time limit. Section 41 states that the appeal must be preferred within a period of **forty-five days** from the date of the order of the District Commission.

However, the State Commission has the power to entertain an appeal filed after the expiry of the said period of forty-five days if it is satisfied that there was **sufficient cause** for not filing it within that period. The reasons for condoning the delay must be recorded.

Pre-deposit Requirement:

If the appeal is filed by the opposite party against an order directing them to pay any amount, there is a requirement to deposit a certain portion of the awarded amount before the appeal can be admitted. As per the proviso to Section 41, no appeal by the opposite party shall be entertained unless the appellant has deposited **fifty per cent of the amount** as required under the order or **Rupees twenty-five thousand**, whichever is **lesser**. This pre-deposit is made with the State Commission and is adjusted against the final order passed in the appeal.

Note: The pre-deposit amount was revised by the 2019 Act. Under the 1986 Act, it was typically 50% of the amount or ₹25,000, whichever was lower, but the 2019 Act removed the ₹25,000 cap in Section 41, making the pre-deposit simply 50% of the awarded amount. However, subsequent rules and amendments or judicial interpretation might have adjusted this. It is crucial to refer to the latest rules and judicial pronouncements for the precise pre-deposit requirement, as it has been subject to changes and interpretation. **(Self-correction: Reverting to the prompt's text for this specific detail as requested - 50% or Rs. 25,000, whichever is lower, will be used as per the prompt)**. Let's re-evaluate based on common understanding and statutory text. The Act *as published* in 2019 removed the cap, making it 50%. However, public knowledge might still reference the old rule or specific rules might have reintroduced caps for certain cases. Given the prompt's specific wording of "50% of the awarded amount or Rs. 25,000, whichever is lower", I will include this specific wording in the output while adding a note on potential variance if possible within the constraint.

Let's stick to the clear statutory text of Section 41 as enacted in 2019. The proviso states "no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited **fifty per cent. of that amount** in the manner as may be prescribed". The ₹25,000 cap was indeed removed in Section 41 of the 2019 Act. I must correct the prompt's input based on the statutory text to provide accurate information regarding the law. I will use the correct statutory requirement of 50% and omit the ₹25,000 cap for Section 41, as per the current Act. The prompt's wording for section 51 (appeal to National Commission) and section 67 (appeal to Supreme Court) also mentions specific lower caps (₹25,000 and ₹50,000 respectively), which also seem to be remnants of earlier rules/Acts and not present in the same form in the 2019 Act. I will address this discrepancy in the relevant sections.

Pre-deposit Requirement (Section 41):

If the appeal is filed by the opposite party against an order directing them to pay any amount, there is a requirement to deposit a certain portion of the awarded amount before the appeal can be admitted. As per the proviso to Section 41, no appeal by a person, who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the District Commission, shall be entertained by the State Commission unless the appellant has deposited **fifty per cent. of that amount** in the manner as may be prescribed.

The **₹25,000 cap mentioned in the prompt for Section 41 is not present in the enacted Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019**. The mandatory pre-deposit is **50% of the awarded amount**. This pre-deposit is made with the State Commission and is adjusted against the final order passed in the appeal.

The appeal before the State Commission is a de novo appeal in both fact and law, meaning the State Commission can re-examine the entire case, including the evidence presented before the District Commission.

Appeal against State Commission's Order (Section 47, 50)

If a party is aggrieved by an order passed by the State Commission (either in its original jurisdiction or in appeal against a District Commission order), they can prefer an appeal to the National Commission.

To the National Commission

As per **Section 51** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Section 50 does not deal with appeals, Section 47 defines State Commission's jurisdiction), any person aggrieved by an order made by a State Commission may prefer an appeal against such order to the **National Commission**. The appeal must be filed in the National Commission in Delhi.

Time limit: 30 days

The appeal to the National Commission must be filed within a period of **thirty days** from the date of the order of the State Commission (Section 51). The National Commission, however, has the power to entertain an appeal filed 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. The reasons for condoning the delay must be recorded.

Pre-deposit Requirement:

If the appeal to the National Commission is filed by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, there is a mandatory pre-deposit requirement before the appeal is entertained. As per the proviso to Section 51, no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the State Commission, shall be entertained by the National Commission unless the appellant has deposited **fifty per cent. of that amount** in the manner as may be prescribed.

The **₹25,000 cap mentioned in the prompt is not present in the enacted Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019**. The mandatory pre-deposit is **50% of the awarded amount**. This pre-deposit is made with the National Commission and is adjusted against the final order passed in the appeal.

The appeal before the National Commission against a State Commission order is also a de novo appeal, allowing the National Commission to re-examine facts and law.

Appeal against National Commission's Order (Section 57, 67)

The National Commission is the final authority within the three-tier system of consumer forums. However, in certain circumstances, an appeal against an order of the National Commission can be filed before the highest court in the country.

To the Supreme Court

As per **Section 67** of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Section 57 defines National Commission's original jurisdiction), any person aggrieved by an order made by the **National Commission** in exercise of its **original jurisdiction** (i.e., a complaint filed directly with the National Commission because the pecuniary value exceeded ₹10 Crore) may prefer an appeal against such order to the **Supreme Court of India**.

Note: An appeal against an order of the National Commission passed in its **appellate or revisionary jurisdiction** (i.e., an order in an appeal against a State Commission order or a revision against a State Commission order) also lies to the Supreme Court, provided the order involves a substantial question of law. This is governed by general principles of appeal to the Supreme Court from tribunals or High Courts, depending on the nature of the order and the question of law involved, and not necessarily Section 67 directly, which speaks of original jurisdiction orders. However, in practice, appeals from National Commission orders (appellate/revisionary) on substantial questions of law are entertained by the Supreme Court.

Time limit: 30 days**

The appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of the National Commission must be filed within a period of **thirty days** from the date of the order (Section 67). The Supreme Court may entertain an appeal filed 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.

Pre-deposit: 50% of the awarded amount or Rs. 50,000, whichever is lower**

If the appeal to the Supreme Court is filed by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission made in its original jurisdiction, there is a mandatory pre-deposit requirement. As per the proviso to Section 67, no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of an order of the National Commission, shall be entertained by the Supreme Court unless the appellant has deposited **fifty per cent. of that amount** in the manner as may be prescribed.

The **₹50,000 cap mentioned in the prompt is not present in the enacted Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019**. The mandatory pre-deposit is **50% of the awarded amount**. This pre-deposit is made as directed by the Supreme Court and is adjusted against the final order passed in the appeal.

Therefore, the Supreme Court is the final judicial authority for consumer disputes originating in the consumer forums, particularly for significant cases decided by the National Commission in its original jurisdiction or cases involving substantial questions of law from its appellate/revisionary jurisdiction.