Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Manavshakti Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Through its President, Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob & Anr. Petitioners
versus
Ramesh Sampatrao Rewatkar —Respondent
Revision Petition No. 1347 of 2013
(From order dated 30.03.2012 in First Appeal No. A/07/1077 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench, Nagpur )
WITH IA/2498/2013 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY)
Decided on 6.8.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. M.R. Khan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if Court was to entertain highly belated petitions.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Revision—Delay—Court has to keep in mind that special period of limitation has been prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters—Object of expeditious adjudication of consumer disputes will get defeated if Court was to entertain highly belated petitions—Delay to the extent of 176 days to 250 days, cannot be condoned—There must be some cause which can be termed as a sufficient one for the purpose of condonation of delay—Even if it is assumed that President was not well case could have been pursued by any other responsible official of Society—No explanation is forthcoming—Revision Petition dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000. (Paras 5 to 9)
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—The case of the petitioner was dismissed in default by the State Commission. There is delay of 176 days in preferring the revision petition for setting aside the order passed by the State Commission. The impugned order, dated 30.03.2012, runs as follows:-
“Present:
None … for the Appellant
None … for the Respondent
ORDER
(Delivered on 30.03.2012)
S.M. Shembole, Judicial Member—Appellant as well as his counsel are absent. None for the Respondent is present. As both parties are absent since long, on 17.12.2011, notice was issued to them but no report is received. On perusal of the office copy of the notice, it reflects that it was issued on the correct address of the parties, as shown in the appeal memo. Therefore, it will have to be presumed that the appellant as well as Respondents are served with notice. But nobody turned up. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed in default. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in default. No order as to costs”.
2. The delay has been explained in Para No.3, of the application for condonation of delay, which is reproduced herein as under:-
“It is submitted that the Hon’ble State Commission, Nagpur was pleased to dismiss the matter in default on 30.03.2012. The applicant applied for the certified copy of the order on 18.07.2012, and the copy was ready for delivery on 11.01.2013, and the certified copy was received by the applicant, on 11.01.2013. There is a 90 days of limitation for preferring the revision application before this Hon’ble Commission. The applicant could not prefer the revision application well within time, for the reasons that the applicant is suffering from various ailments and infirmities and due to severe Asthama and Diabetes and High Blood Pressure which were beyond his control. There was no deliberate intention on the part of the applicant for not preferring revision application for restoration of the appeal before this Hon’ble Commission. The applicant has got a good prima facie, in his favour and therefore, the learned Commission was pleased to grant interim relief in favour of the applicant. The applicant undertakes to attend the matter on each and every date, before the Hon’ble State Commission, Maharashtra State, Nagpur. The applicant on account of genuine, pressing and compelling circumstances, could not prefer the revision application, well within time, which was beyond his control, on account of his illness. There is hardly delay of 176 days for preferring the revision application. The delay, if any, may kindly be condoned, in the interest of justice”.
3. While para 3, read in conjunction with impugned order, noted above, it appears that, on 17.12.2011, the notice was issued to the petitioner, at the correct address. The application is silent about that notice. The said notice, dated 17.12.2011, is presumed to be served on the petitioner. He has not explained as to why he could not appear before the State Commission from 17.12.2011 to 30.03.2012. The counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he has placed on record the Medical Certificate and Discharge Summary of Mr. Sheikh Mehmood Sheikh Mehboob, which go to show that he was admitted on 20.03.2012 and was discharged on the same day, i.e., 20.03.2012. The originals of the same are not filed before us. Only photocopy of the computer print-outs of those documents are placed on file. The prescription issued by Dr. Nitin Tiwari, dated 15.03.2012 was also placed on record. Out-Patient Bill has also been placed on record. It explains that Sheikh Mehmood was not well from 15.03.2012 to 20.03.2012. Much reliance cannot be placed on these documents because they do not explain 176 days’ day-to-day delay. Moreover, the Registry has counted the delay from 18.07.2012, which comes to 176 days. In case, the delay is counted, w.e.f. 17.12.2011 or 30.03.2012, delay comes to more than 250 days, which is the actual delay in filing the revision petition. The petitioner has received notice for 30.
