IMPORTANT POINT
Genuine delay in filing of appeal must be condoned.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against impugnedORDER dated 25-07-2013 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 978 of 2012 – Narayan Kumar Khaitan & Ors. vs. M/s Duncan Industries Ltd., by which appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

2. complainant/petitioner in pursuance toORDER dated 16-10-2008 passed by learned State Commission filed execution application no. 126/2008 before District Forum and learned District Forum videORDER dated 25-09-2012 observed that complainant has received amount as per his entitlement and not entitled to get any more amount. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugnedORDER, as appeal was filed with delay of 53 days against which this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of reasonable explanation learned State Commission committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay and dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugnedORDER be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted thatORDER passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

5. Perusal of record reveals that there was delay of 53 days in filing appeal before State Commission. Complainant in application for condonation of delay filed before State Commission submitted that certified copy of theORDER was received on 12-10-2012 by the complainant and he sought opinion of the Advocate. He further submitted that on account of Puja vacations, Advocate of the petitioner went out of station and when returned back on 20th November, 2012 he drafted appeal and on 03-12-2012 complainant was intimated and appeal was filed on 19th December, 2012 and in such circumstances, delay occurred in filing appeal may be condoned. Learned State Commission observed that there was no sufficient explanation for condonation of delay and dismissed application.

6. From perusal of application it appears that delay occurred as Advocate engaged by the complainant proceed out of station due to Puja vacations and further took time in preparation of appeal. As there was delay of only 53 days in filing appeal against the dismissal of execution application, learned State Commission should have condoned delay. This Commission in revision petition no. 3400/2012 – Sanjay Panchal vs. Indubhai Parekh Memorial Hospital refused to condone delay of 59 days and Hon’ble Apex Court videORDER dated 24-02-2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4226/2014 – Sanjay Panchal vs. Indubhai Parekh Memorial Hospital & Anr. allowed SLP and condoned delay and remanded the matter to this Commission for considering the same on merits. In such circumstances, we deem it appropriate to allow this revision petition and condone delay subject to cost.

7. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugnedORDER dated 25-07-2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 978/2012 – Narayan Kumar Khaitan & Ors. vs. M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. is set aside and delay of 53 days is condoned subject to depositing Rs.5,000/- as cost with Legal Aid fund of the State Commission and matter is remanded back to State Commission to decide the appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

8. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 08.07.2014.

Revision Petition allowed.

2014(2) CPR 719 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRASSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member

Narayan Kumar Khaitan & Ors. —Petitioners

versus

M/s. Duncan Industries Ltd.

& Anr. —Respondents

Revision Petition No. 3718 of 2013

(From theORDER dated 25.07.2013 in S.C. Case No. FA/978/2012 of the West