IMPORTANT POINT
If file not traceable, complainant prepared another complaint and filed before Forum in time and should have taken time for filing necessary documents.

K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.4.2015 passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in F.A.I.A. No.91/2015 & FA (SR) 6429/2014, Tanjigari Sudhakar v. M. Nageswara Rao & Ors., by which, appeal was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-Petitioner filed complaint before District Forum which was dismissed by learned District forum on account of delay of 3818 days in filing complaint. Appeal filed by Complainant was dismissed by learned State Commission as it was barred by 210 days as well on merits against which, this revision petition has been filed.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that complaint could not be filed before District forum in time, as complainant was busy in attending his family members, who were hospitalized and file was also misplaced and learned District forum committed error in dismissing application for condonation of delay. It was further submitted that inspite of reasonable explanation for condoning delay in filing appeal, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be admitted.

5. Petitioner in affidavit evidence in support of application for condonation of delay of 210 days before State Commission mentioned as under:

“I am aged about 60 years having old age elements (six ailments) for which I am regularly attending for medical checkup and treatments and in view of my ill health I could not properly moved freely to anywhere thus my health is not permitted me to approach this Hon’ble Forum to prefer this appeal in time as such there was delay of 210 days. I have got strong case in this appeal and if the delay of 210 days will not be condoned, I will not be condoned, I will be put to irreparable los and damage”

In support of aforesaid statement, he has not filed any documents pertaining to treatment taken by him and in such circumstances; learned State Commission has not committed any error in dismissing application for condonation of delay in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and Anr. 2013 (4) CPR 806 (SC) : (2010) 5 SCC 459, Office of The Chief Post Master General and Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. 2013 (3) CPR 622 (SC) : (2012) 3 SCC 563 and Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, 2012 (2) CPC 3 (SC).

6. As far merits of the case is concerned, complainant filed complaint before District Forum after 3818 days and prayed for condoning delay of aforesaid period on the ground that he was busy in attending his family members, who were hospitalized in Chennai and file could not be traced. Learned District forum rightly dismissed application for condonation of delay as he did not file any supporting evidence for treatment of his family members for such a long period. It cannot be believed that file was not traceable for more than 10 years. Even if file was not traceable, complainant could have prepared another complaint and could have filed before District Forum in time and should have taken time for filing necessary documents in support of complaint. Learned State Commission rightly dismissed appeal on merits also as there was delay of more than 10 years in filing complaint.

7. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs. Revision dismissed