Back
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.C. Bhargava, President & Mr. Banarsi Das, Sr. Member
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, ALLAHABAD—Appellant
versus
AVINASH GUPTA—Respondent
Appeal Nos. 104, 105 & 106/SC of 1998—Decided on 19.11.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Dinesh Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
There is no provision for review or restoration of the cases decided by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - APPEAL - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - RESTORATION OF CASE - NO PROVISION FOR REVIEW OR RESTORATION OF DECIDED CASES ON MERIT BY THE FORUM - APPEALS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, filed appeals against the orders of the District Forum dated 17.6.1997 and 18.12.1997. The respondent-complainant opposed the appeals on the ground that they were time-barred and the applications for condonation of delay were not tenable.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission dismissed the appeals as time-barred and held that there was no provision for review or restoration of the cases decided by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the appeals were time-barred? 2. Whether there was any provision for review or restoration of the cases decided by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appeals were time-barred as the appellant failed to file them within 30 days of the impugned orders. 2. There was no provision for review or restoration of the cases decided by the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed as time-barred.
Mr. Banarsi Das, Sr. Member—Appeal Nos. 104/SC/1998/A/105/SC/1998 and A/106/ SC/1998 of Sr. Superintendent of Post Office v. Avinash Kumar Gupta were heard.
2. All these appeals were filed on 14.1.1998 against the impugned orders dated 17.6.1997 passed by Complaint Nos. 67/1996, 66/1996 and 65/1996 and restoration orders dated 18.12.1997. Since both the parties are common in all the appeals and orders are of the similar nature passed by the same District Forum and questions of law and facts are also the same which are involved in these appeals, these are being decided by this single order.
3. The respondent-complainant has opposed the appeal on the ground that they are time- barred and the applications for condonation of delay in all the cases have been moved by the learned Counsel for appellants along with the affidavits.
4. According to the provision of Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, appeals can be preferred within 30 days of the order passed by the District Forum concerned under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act or from the date of the notice of the order. In these three cases the opposite party who is appellant have assailed the orders passed by District Forum on 17.6.1997 for not granting adequate time for filing written statement had filed restoration application for recalling of the orders to be heard on merit as they were passed ex-parte.
5. The District Forum after having considered the facts of the case rejected the restoration application on 18.12.1997 on the grounds:
Firstly that no restoration application or review application lies against the order passed on merits of the case.
Secondly, that the appellant had failed to avail the opportunity to file written statements in time given for the parties and, therefore, the application for restoration has no force.
6. The appellant has challenged both the original orders dated 17.6.1997 as well as restoration order dated 18.12.1997.
7. As regards the appeal against impugned order dated 17.6.1997 the appeals are time-barred. Reasons shown for the delay in the application for condonation is that there is no fault of the appellant as he was advised by his Counsel to file restoration application as the appeal is in time. Therefore, the appellant should not be debarred from hearing all the appeals on merits.
8. In support of above plea, he has relied upon a case, Collector, Land Acquisition Anant- nag v. Smt. Katiji and Others, decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court AIR 1987 SC 1353. But this case is not of any assistance. Though, the Apex Court has held that Courts should adopt liberal approach, yet the facts of the case are different from the facts of the case in these appeals before us. There was a question of explanation in day-to-day delay but this is not the case before us. Since learned Counsel for appellant says that the delay was due to wrong advice given by the Counsel of the appellant.
9. The second case relied uponby the learned Counsel for appellant is Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi v. Sri Simon, (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1866 decided by Allahabad High Court. This citation is of no help to the appellant. Since the facts of the case are different as in that case the delay was caused because of certain delay in dealing with the files in the office.
10. The third case relied upon by learned Counsel for appellant is Urban Improvement Trust v. Poonam Chand, decided by Rajasthan High Court, AIR Rajasthan 134. In that case, it was held that benefits available to State Government will be available in case of instrumentality of State. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appeal could not be filed due to wrong advice of the Counsel. This is a legal matter and if the parties have been rightly or wrongly advised. They cannot take advantage to get the extension of time for filing of appeal. The filing of restoration application cannot be treated a good ground for the delay in these appeals
