1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. At the outset we may point out that this revision petition was filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the Registrar of the SCDRC, Madhya Pradesh, where by the appeal has been reported to be dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 10.01.2024.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Registrar is completely without jurisdiction, in as much as, the Registrar is no authority to order dismissal of any complaint, appeal or revision under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently the order deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the petitioner even otherwise had voluntarily deposited the decretal amount before the District Commission and therefore there was no deficit in compliance of the second proviso of Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which requires a statutory pre-deposit of 50% of the decretal amount.

4. He points out that this aspect has been taken into notice of by this Commission after the orders were passed on 27.09.2024, which is extracted herein under:

                          "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

                          The appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed on the ground that the appellant did not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit condition while filing the appeal.

                          This revision petition has been filed and it is informed that the entire decretal amount as per the order of the District Commission has already been deposited through demand draft dated 01.03.2024, which according to the learned counsel has been accepted by the District Commission and is lying with the District Commission in the shape of a term deposit receipt.

                          Be that as it may, let the said information be filed on record along with an affidavit.

                          Today an affidavit has been filed stating therein that the complainants have not yet preferred any execution application.

                          The order dated 30.01.2024 of the State Commission with regard to the appeal not being maintainable prima facie does not appear to be infirm, in as much as the appeal could not have been entertained without the statutory pre-deposit.

                          Learned counsel however submits that inspite of the same the entire decretal amount has been deposited before the District Commission and therefore the appeal may be directed to be heard on merits. This cannot be done without issuing notice to the other side.

                          Issue notice to the respondent on the delay condonation application as well as on the appeal, returnable on 25.02.2025.

                          Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve the respondent dasti. Office to proceed accordingly."

5. This was followed by the filing of an affidavit explaining the same and the following order was passed on 31.10.2025:

                          "It has been pointed out that the entire decretal amount has been deposited through a demand draft of Rs.16,69,325/- drawn in favour of the President, DCDRC from Axis Bank. A copy of the same has been filed alongwith the proof of deposit vide Diary Number 28429 dated 28.10.2025.

                          It is stated by the learned counsel that the next date fixed in the execution matter is 20.11.2025.

                          Let this be listed on 14.11.2025 for directions.

                          Passing of this order shall be communicated by the learned counsel to Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, who had appeared for the Respondent on 25.02.2025. A copy of this order shall also be placed on the record of the execution proceedings before the DCDRC itself for an appropriate information to the Respondent. Learned counsel shall also produce the order-sheet of the execution proceedings on that date. "

6. The matter then came up on 14.11.2025, when the following order was passed:

                          "Regarding the deposit made by the petitioner as recorded in the order dated 31.10.2025, Mr. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for the respondent, has invited the attention of the Bench to para-4 of the reply tendered by the petitioner before the District Commission which states as follows:

                          "4) That, the Opposite Party no.2 Aavas Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AFL) had sanctioned a loan of INR 30,84,692/- in favour of the deceased husband of the complainant. In order to secure the said amount, AFL drew a life insurance policy of Rs.30 Lakhs as sum assured by enrolling Mr. Dinesh Sirwani (hereinafter referred to as Life Assured) as a member of the Group Insurance Scheme namely Group Credit Protection Plus issued by BALIC to AFL. Under the said policy, the date of the commencement of the risk was 23/12/2019 while the date of maturity was 23/12/2025. A copy of the said policy along with the certificate of insurance is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R-1/2."

                          It is pointed out by him that it is the said amount that was the desired amount as referred to in para-14 of the order of the District Commission which is extracted hereunder:

                          "14. It is clear from the above case law that before rejecting the insurance amount, the insurance company should submit an affidavit of the doctor in support of the grounds taken by it and should submit the hospital records related to the previous illness so that it can be proved that the deceased was already suffering from diseases and that it was hidden by him while obtaining the insurance policy. The case law shown on behalf of the defendant No. 1 is respectable in its place, but since the facts of this case are different, it does not help the defendant No. 1.

                          Issues for consideration No. 2 Assistance and expenses: Therefore, on the basis of all the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the complainant has proved his complaint against the defendant no. 1, for this reason the following order is given in favor of the complainant against the defendant no. 1:- 1. Defendant no. 1, shall pay the entire desired amount of home loan along with interest under the Surface Act issued by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 2 and get the complainant's property released from mortgage and defendant no. 1, shall pay the remaining amount of the insurance amount under the insurance policy given in favor of the complainant after paying off the loan to the complainant within one month, on which interest will be payable at the rate of 8 percent per annum. 2. To meet the mental and physical suffering of the complainant, the defendant no. 1 shall pay a compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/ (Rupees fifty thousand only) and also pay the expenses of this complaint of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)."

                          It is therefore urged that keeping in view the figures as admitted by the petitioner in its reply before the District Commission, the same does not seem to be in tune with the amount which has been deposited as stated in the affidavit filed on 28.10.2025 vide Dy. No. 28429. Mr. Kshirsagar may file a response to the said affidavit within four weeks. Learned counsel for the petitioner may also verify the correctness or otherwise of the said contention and file an appropriate affidavit along with the calculations.

                          Let the matter be listed once again on 20.01.2026."

7. Finally on 20.01.2026 information was tendered about the amount deposited to which the learned counsel for the respondent took objection about the shortage in the said amount. The order dated 20.01.2026 is extracted herein under:

                          "Today, when the matter was taken up, it was informed that a sum of Rs.18,00,742/- has been tendered through a banker's cheque dated 20.11.2025 before the DCDRC Indore.

                          Learned counsel for the respondent states that on in instructions it is correct that the said amount has been tendered but he submits that even the said amount does not satisfy the directions, inasmuch as according to the learned counsel there is an approximate shortage of Rs.1,50,000/- in the deposit of the same which also includes the costs that had been imposed.

                          Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to verify the same as well and then proceed to answer the submissions that have been raised on behalf of the respondent regarding the maintainability of these proceedings.

                          Let the matter be listed on 19.03.2026."

8. The matter was adjourned on a couple of occasions and was directed to be listed before this Bench. As such the matter has been heard today at length.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that in view of the deposit already having been made the impugned order dated 30.01.2024 deserves to be set aside.

10. The petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent contending that the filing of this petition is a clear abuse of the process of court and it has been done to forestall the proceedings of execution. It is further submitted that the petition was also filed without any proper pleadings or relief, in as much as, the only prayer made in the revision petition is to set aside the order dated 30.01.2024. It is urged that the said prayer is misconceived, in as much as, the order dated 30.01.2024 recorded in the proceedings by the Registrar is only a compliance of the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by a Bench of the State Commission.

11. We may point out that when the matter had been entertained we had called upon the learned counsel on 06.09.2024 to file a copy of the order dated 10.01.2024. The said order passed by the State Commission has been produced now by the learned counsel during the course of hearing and the same is extracted herein under:

                          "Ms. Sangeet Moharir, learned counsel for appellant has sent an application seeking adjournment in the matter.

                          Appellant has not yet removed the default as pointed out by the office.

                          Two weeks' time is granted for the same.

                          If the default as pointed out by the office is not removed within two weeks, the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Bench."

12. This order has been admittedly passed by a Bench of the Acting President of the State Commission along with an Hon'ble Member, and is a order on the judicial side.

13. What we find is that there is no challenge raised to this order nor any relief prayed for setting aside the same. We may point out that under the provisions of Section 68 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 every order of the Commission is final unless an appeal has been preferred in accordance with the Act. Section 68 is extracted herein under:

                          "68. Every order of a District Commission or the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, shall, if no appeal has been preferred against such order under the provisions of this Act, be final."

14. In our considered opinion the order dated 10.01.2024 remains unchallenged and has therefore become final. It is this final order of the State Commission that has been complied by the Registrar through his proceedings dated 30.01.2024 which are not judicial proceedings, but are in compliance of the judicial order dated 10.01.2024.

15. Consequently, the argument raised that the order dated 30.01.2024 is without jurisdiction is wholly untenable and is not sustainable on any legal ground. The order dated 30.01.2024 is practically a ministerial recording of the directions of the Bench dated 10.01.2024 and in compliance thereof. Admittedly the proof of deposit of the 50% of the decretal amount was not tendered nor was the amount actually tendered as directed by the Bench on 10.01.2024.

16. Consequently, there was no option for the Registrar, but to have complied with the order and therefore we find no infirmity much less a legal infirmity in the order dated 30.01.2024.

17. There is one more substantial legal reason for not accepting the argument on behalf of the petitioner. The second proviso to Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mandates a statutory pre-deposit of 50% and it provides that an appeal "shall" not be entertained unless such deposit has been made. There is no power conferred to either grant any extension of time or exercise discretion in respect of any convenience being given for a pre-deposit. The law has been confirmed and the issue is no longer res integra as held by the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, (2022) 8 SCC 474. The provisions being mandatory there is no scope for granting any time or extending any time for deposit. The condition is a precondition and the 50% amount has to accompany the memo of appeal and only then the appeal can be entertained. Consequently, for this reason also there is no error even in the order dated 10.01.2024.

18. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that it should be clarified that any order passed in this matter would not prejudice the respondent in pursuing the execution pending before the District Commission. This request cannot be entertained for the simple reason that this is a revision petition filed by the Insurance Company in the circumstances indicated above.

19. An apprehension was expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent as we pointed out that deposits made by the petitioner under the interim orders of this Commission, after the filing of the revision petition, cannot be retained and so far as the respondent is concerned, in case any decretal amount is to be realised, the same has to be done through execution proceedings.

20. We therefore provide that any amount deposited by the petitioner under the orders of this Commission shall be refunded to the petitioner without prejudice to the rights of the complainant-respondent to realize any amount through the execution proceedings.

21. However, it is clarified that any amount deposited by the petitioner voluntarily prior to the filing of this revision petition would be subject to any orders being passed by the District Commission.

22. The revision petition is accordingly consigned with the said observations.