IMPORTANT POINT
Long delay of 430 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved by impugnedORDER dated 10.7.2013, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ‘State Commission’), Petitioners/Complainants have filed the present petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’).

2. Brief facts are that Shri V.S. Prasad-Complainant (since deceased) filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the Respondents/Opposite Parties alleging medical negligence on their part.

3. The complaint was contested by the respondents who filed their respective written statements before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (for short, ‘District Forum’).

4, On 30.8.2011, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as there was no representation on behalf of complainant.

5. Aggrieved by theORDER of District Forum, present petitioners (who are legal heirs of the deceased complainant) filed an appeal before the State Commission. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 430 days was also filed which was accompanied by the affidavit of petitioners’ counsel, namely Shri N. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate.

6. The State Commission was of the considered view that explanation given by the petitioners was not reasonable and believable and also was not sufficient. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. With the result, the appeal was also rejected.

7. Hence, this present petition.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also summoned the original record of both the fora below and gone through the same.

9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that State Commission had failed to consider the just explanation given in the application seeking condonation of delay in representing the appeal. It is further contended that the delay which has occurred in representing the appeal before the State Commission is not attributable to the petitioners and it had only occurred due to inadvertence of the Advocate. In support, petitioners have relied upon following judgments of the Apex Court;

i) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy1, and

ii) G. Ramegowda, Major and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore.2

10. Alongwith present revision, petitioners have filed an application seeking permission to file additional documents.

11. The documents which petitioners now want to place before this Commission, pertain to the period ranging from August, 2011 to October, 2011. All these documents were in existence when the impugnedORDER was passed. There is no explanation as to why these documents were not filed before the State Commission. Moreover, no reason whatsoever has been given in the application seeking permission to file these additional documents. Accordingly, application for filing additional documents stand rejected.

12. Admittedly, the complaint filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the District Forum, since on the date of hearing before the District Forum the complainants were not present.

13. The State Commission has non-suited the petitioners on the ground that there was delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before it. In the entire application for condonation of delay, it had been nowhere mentioned as to when and how the petitioners, got the knowledge of the impugnedORDER.

14. The State Commission in its impugnedORDER has observed;

“1. The petition is filed seeking condonation of delay of 430 days in representing the revision petition on the premise that the returned bundle was misplaced with the disposed of bundles in the office and they could not be traced it and on 2.12.2012 when the petitioner was shifting the disposed bundles they traced the bundle and in the process delay of 430 days has occasioned.

2. The respondent has resisted the petition and denied the statement of the petitioner that bundle was mixed with the disposed bundles. The petitioner failed to explain the reasons for