Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46955 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4763 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kishore And Co. Thru. Proprietor Mr. Brij Kishore Respondent :- Smt. Radha Devi And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameeksha Chadha,Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary,Piyush Mani Tripathi Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, 'National Commission') in First Appeal No.NC/FA/1209/2023. Briefly, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that before the State Commission Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short, 'State Commission'), when the complaint was filed, the parties had agreed for a settlement in terms thereof, the petitioner had offered a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which was only for the purposes of compromise insofar as the proceedings arising out of an FIR lodged by the respondents. It is urged the compromise did not relate to the proceedings before the State Commission and it is in furtherance thereof that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was deposited before the State Commission. It is urged that once the order passed by the State Commission imposing a compensation amount of Rs.21,00,000/-, the petitioner herein, preferred a first appeal before the National Commission at New Delhi. The first appellate Court by means of the order dated 08.07.2025 whereby the appeal has been partly allowed and the order passed by the State Commission was modified and the awarded sum of compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- was reduced to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- along with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. In order to assail the aforesaid decision, it has been submitted that there was no material before the National Commission upon which it could arrive at a figure of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid as compensation. It is urged that the State Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding a compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- and the National Commission also without appreciating the contention of the petitioner advanced, has reduced the amount to Rs.5,00,000/- which is without any basis, hence, the order passed by the National Commission is bad in the eyes of law. Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the National Commission while reducing the compensation from Rs.21,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- has specifically recorded that this amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was an amount which was voluntarily offered by the petitioner during the proceedings before the State Commission and as taking that as a basis, the compensation has been awarded. There does not appear to be any patent illegality in the order passed by the National Commission as far as the basis for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is concerned. There is another way to look at the entire issue and that is while the petitioner was appearing before the State Commission on 28.02.2022, the State Commission had specifically noticed that the present petitioner on his own/voluntarily had offered a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was only for the compromise regarding the FIR and not the proceedings before the State Commission. However, what is relevant to note that even after the order dated 28.02.2022 was passed which clearly recorded the statement of the petitioner, yet at no point of time before the State Commission any such application was moved by the petitioner to state that the statement recorded in the order dated 28.02.2022 was incorrect. Having proceeded with the matter an order of compensation was passed by the State Commission on 20.11.2023 and thereafter the same came to be assailed in a first appeal before the National Commission. There was no specific ground raised by the petitioner regarding this aspect of amount as offered was only in respect of the compromise relating to the FIR. In the aforesaid circumstances, the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not impress this Court inasmuch after having suffered two orders, this ground has been raised for the first time, for which, there was no foundation either before the State Commission or before the National Commission. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find that there is any patent illegality in the impugned orders to persuade this Court to entertain the aforesaid petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Rakesh/- Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench