1. The petitioner is a dealer from whom the respondent, purchased two buses. The petitioner had quoted an all-inclusive price, including registration and RTO charges. The deposits were made, and one of the buses was supplied, whereas the balance of the price for the second bus was deposited on 11.04.2025. The second bus was delivered on 05.05.2025, and in between, the Government of Uttar Pradesh Transport Department had issued a notification enhancing the road tax on vehicles costing above Rupees Ten Lakh, from 7% to 11%. This intervening increase in the road tax resulted in an additional amount becoming payable for registration of the second bus. The complainant/respondent resisted the same, urging that thy had already paid the complete quoted price, inclusive of the registration and other charges, way back on 11.04.2025, and therefore any delay in the delivery of the bus by the petitioner had created that liability of additional registration charges. Hence the same should be borne by the petitioner. The bus was taken delivery of without the registration, and according to the petitioner, they had offered to refund the amount of Rs.1,89,000/- deposited by the respondent for the registration charges to enable the respondent to get the registration done on its own.

2. The respondent/complainant instead filed the complaint, CC/79/2025, before the PCDRC, Hathras, and also claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000 per day from 15.05.2025 till the vehicle gets registered. The complaint was contested by the petitioner, denying any delay attributable to them. The District Commission, however, after assessing the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, as the complainant had already deposited the registration fee way back on 11.04.2025, and if there was any responsibility of additional payment, the same lay with the petitioner and not the respondent. The petitioner filed First Appeal No. 918 of 2026, that has been entertained and is pending before the SCDRC, Uttar Pradesh. Pending appeal, an interim order has been passed on 03.08.2026, directing the petitioner/appellant to deposit the balance of the decretal amount, apart from the statutory pre-deposit.

3. The petitioner has come up contending that the said interim order dated 03.08.2026 is erroneous, as it does not record any specific reason for depositing the balance of the amount. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Manohar Infrastructure & Constructions (P) Ltd. v. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, (2022) 8 SCC 474.

4. We have considered the submissions made and on facts, we do find that there is no specific reason enumerated by the State Commission while passing the interim order on 03.08.2026 for the deposit of the entire amount, even though it records that the State Commission was of the considered opinion that the interim relief should be granted, and then directed the deposit of the remaining decretal amount.

5. Strictly, going by the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the event the entire decretal amount, is directed to be deposited, then some reasons had to be recorded. However, on the facts of the present case, as indicated above, the District Commission has in its wisdom, come to a conclusion which is yet to be tested in the appeal, and we find that there were ample reasons to protect the interest of the respondent/complainant by calling upon the petitioner/appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount, as it appears to be justified on the facts of the present case, where the issue of any fault being attributed on the complainant is yet to be determined. The petitioner's interest is also protected, in as much as, any amount deposited shall always be subject to the final outcome of the appeal.

6. In the event the petitioner undertakes to get the registration of the vehicle done at its own cost during this interregnum period, then it will be open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for such consideration before the State Commission itself. On the peculiar facts of this case, we do not find any reason to exercise our revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the revision petition is accordingly consigned with the said observations.