K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.2013 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1123/2013 – Gilda Finance and Investment Ltd. Vs. Smt. Basamma by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent got his vehicle financed from OP/respondent to the tune of Rs.3,70,000/- on 10.2.2010 and complainant himself contributed Rs.1,77,600/-. Loan amount was to be re-paid in 36 monthly instalments commencing from 10.3.2010. It was further submitted that OP got signatures of complainant on many blank papers and also obtained 10 blank cheques. Complainant made payment of instalments in time even then, OP seized vehicle without any intimation and sold it and further demanded Rs.5,000/- from him. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complaint was not maintainable and further submitted that complainant committed default in payment of two instalments; so, as per agreement, vehicle was sold after notice to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.1,77,600/- with 6% p.a. interest to complainant and further awarded Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission as barred by limitation as well as on merits 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 even though there was no delay in filing appeal, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation. It was further submitted that impugned order is not a speaking order on merits; hence, revision petition be allowed and matter may be remanded back to learned State Commission to decide it by speaking order after treating appeal in limitation. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent also agreed that appeal was not barred by limitation and submitted that impugned order is a speaking order which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

5. As far delay in filing appeal is concerned, learned State Commission observed that it cannot be believed that petitioner has not received copy of order from District Forum; hence, application for condonation of delay is rejected. It has further been observed that petitioner got copy of District Forum’s order on 14.6.2013 and appeal was filed on 17.7.2013. As far free copy of District forum’s order is concerned, perusal of District Forum order reveals that free copy was not sent to the petitioner by District Forum and in such circumstances, learned State Commission committed error in believing that petitioner must have received free copy of the District Forum order. Stamp on certified copy of District Forum order clearly reveals that free copy was not sent to the petitioner, but he applied for certified copy on 13.6.2013 and got copy on 14.6.2013. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that appeal was filed on 10.7.2013 instead of 17.7.2013; hence, appeal was within limitation from receiving copy of the order. He further submitted that even if it is presumed that appeal was filed on 17.7.2013, there was delay of only 3 days which should have been condoned by the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the respondent also agreed that apparently there was no delay in filing appeal. Thus, it becomes clear that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation and appeal has to be treated within limitation and even if there was delay of 3 days i