Back
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HYDERABAD
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President;
Mr. K. Ranga Rao & Dr. (Mrs.) Matnata Lakshmanna, Members
DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, APSEB & ANR.—Petitioners
versus
T. NARASAIAH—Respondent
FA IA No. 1222 of 1998 and FA SR No. 2159 of 1997 and RP No. 25 of 1999—Decided on 23.3.1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners:Mr. J. Siddaiah, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Served.
Filing of a certified copy of the order under appeal is mandatory for a valid presentation of an appeal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 15 - APPEAL - FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER - NECESSITY - DELAY IN FILING APPEAL - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - INACTION AND NEGLIGENCE OF APPELLANTS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum without attaching a certified copy of the order. The appellants filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, stating that they received the copy of the order on 28.7.1997 and presented the appeal papers on 28.8.1997, resulting in a delay of one day.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the appeal was not validly presented as it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order of the District Forum, as required under Rule 8(3) of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987. The Commission also found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as they had ample time to obtain and file the certified copy of the order.
Issues: 1. Whether an appeal can be validly presented without a certified copy of the order of the District Forum? 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned in the absence of sufficient cause?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The State Commission relied on Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and Rule 8(3) of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, to hold that an appeal cannot be validly presented without a certified copy of the order of the District Forum. 2. The Commission also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 575, to hold that the Appellate Court has no power to dispense with the filing of the copy of the decree or order under appeal.
Final Decision: The State Commission dismissed the appeal as it was not validly presented and there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Mr. Justice S. Parvatha Rao, President— We do not find that a proper appeal was filed before this Commission. FA SR No. 2159/1997 purports to be an appeal presented by the opposite parties in O.P. No. 618/1996 seeking to question the order of the Nellore District Forum in that O.P. dated 30.6.1997. The appeal papers were presented on 28.8.1997 with only a typed copy of the order of the District Forum and without the certified copy of the order. The papers were returned by the office on 30.8.1997 raising several objections including the objection as regards non-filing of the certified copy of the order of the District Forum. Appeal papers were resubmitted on 4.10.1997. Subsequently an application for condoning the delay of 436 days in presenting the appeal i.e., FA IA No. 1222/1998 was filed on 12.10.1998. The petition for condoning the delay itself was dated 12.12.1997 and the affidavit in support of the same was dated 12.12.1996 (obviously a typographical error for 1997). In that affidavit it was stated : “.the F.A. (obviously meaning opposite party) was disposed of by an order dated 30.6.1997 by the learned District Forum which was dispatched on 26.7.1997 which was subsequently received by the respondents (petitioners ?) herein on 28.7.1997 after receipt of the above orders the respondents (petitioners ?) have initiated step to proceed in appeal of the above said matter. Due to the administrative formalities there occurred some delay. I submit that a delay of one day had occurred mainly due to the administrative reasons which is neither wilful nor wanton”. From this it is obvious that it was the petitioners who received the copy of the order on 28.7.1997 and as the appeal papers (though without the copy of the order) were presented on 28.8.1997, it was reckoned that there was a delay of one day in presenting the appeal.
2. But no appeal can be validly presented without the certified copy of the order of the District Forum questioned in the appeal. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission “in such form and manner as may be prescribed”. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 8 of the A.P. State Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 the A.P. Rules’ for short) requires that “each memorandum (appeal) shall be accompanied by the certified copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against and such of the documents as may be required to support grounds of objection mentioned in the memorandum”. Thus Rule 8(3) of the A.P. Rules mandates that a certified copy of the order should be filed alongwith the memorandum of appeal. Filing of the certified copy of the order under appeal is also necessary for finding out whether the appeal was presented within time or not. Interpreting Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court held in Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 575, that “the memorandum of appeal is not validly presented, unless it is accompanied by certified copies of the decree and the judgment” and that under that rule the Appellate Court could dispense with the filing of the copy of the judgment but it had no power to dispense with the filing of the copy of the decree—this was because that rule provided that “the memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from and (unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith) on the judgment on which it is founded”. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the A.P. Rules expressly does not provide for dispensing with filing of the certified copy of the order of the District Forum appealed against. In Telecom District Engineer & Ors. v. Bhushan Dewan, II (1998) CPJ 164, the Himachal Pradesh State Commission held that where the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a certified copy of the order, the appeal was defective, incompetent and was not validly presented, and therefore, dismissed
