IMPORTANT POINT
Benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act would be available to petitioners only if they had pursued remedy in wrong forum with due diligence and in good faith.

Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved of dismissal of their application for condonation of delay as well as appeal vide order dated 31.12.2012 of the State Commission the petitioners/opposite parties have preferred this revision petition.

2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent/complainant filed consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioners alleging deficiency in service and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.17,64,400/- with 24% interest p.a. besides the cost of litigation.

3. Notice of the complaint was sent to the petitioners but the petitioners failed to put in appearance before the District Forum-II, Krishna at Vijaywada. The District Forum therefore proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners/opposite parties and allowed the complaint. The petitioners were directed to pay sum of Rs.17,64,400/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization besides cost amounting to Rs.2,000.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum, petitioners preferred an appeal after a delay of 1088 days. Alongwith the appeal an application for condonation of delay was filed. The cause shown by the petitioners for inordinate delay in filing of appeal as set out in the affidavit filed alongwith the application before the State Commission is that on coming to know of the ex-parte order, the petitioners moved an application, being I.A. No.1481/2009, under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order. The District Forum however dismissed the application on 18.7.2009.

5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. the petitioners filed Civil Writ Petition No.3938/2009 before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on 12.8.2011 observing that it was not maintainable since alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 17 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Thereafter the petitioners filed revision petition No.4950/2011 before the State Commission on 5.9.2011 which was withdrawn by the petitioners on 18.11.2011 in order to prefer a regular appeal. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile the petitioners were negotiating an amicable settlement with the complainant but he dragged on the settlement on one pretext or other. When the settlement did not come through, the petitioners filed the appeal in the State Commission.

6. The State Commission being not satisfied with the explanation given for delay in filing of the appeal, declined to condone the delay. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. Consequently the appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation.

7. sLearned counsel Shri G.V.R. Choudary, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the impugned order of the State Commission declining to condone the delay in filing of the appeal has been passed in utter disregard of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that if a litigant due to bona-fide mistake pursues his right before a wrong forum the period consumed before that forum ought to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Expanding on the arguments counsel for the petitioners submitted that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that under mistaken belief the petitioners preferred a writ petition against the order of District Forum before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh instead of filing the appeal before the State Commission and that period ought to have been excluded while computing the period of limitation. In support of this contention learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council, Tonk1 as also Union of India v. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.2 and Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secret