NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President and M. Shreesha, Member
Ajay Babu and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
T. Srivalli —Respondent
Revision Petition No.822 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 27/12/2016 in Appeal No. 945/2015 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 18.12.2017

IMPORTANT POINT
When a special Statute prescribes a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and observed scrupulously.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Appeal—Limitation—When a special Statute prescribes a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and observed scrupulously—Even otherwise, unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty—State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by Petitioners to justify inordinate delay ranging between 503 and 628 days in filing appeals—District Forum had duly issued notice to Petitioners which was either received by them or they had refused to accept the same and only after recording its satisfaction on service of notice on Petitioners, District Forum had forfeited their right to file Written Version—Petitioners had failed to make out any cause, much less a sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay in filing appeals—Revision petitions dismissed in limine.

       Held: It is trite that when a special Statute prescribes a particular period of limitation, it has to be construed strictly and observed scrupulously. Even otherwise, an unlimited limitation leads to a sense of uncertainty. Regard being had to these broad principles, we are of the view that the State Commission has not committed any jurisdictional error in coming to the conclusion that no sufficient cause had been made out by the Petitioners to justify the inordinate delay ranging between 503 and 628 days in filing the Appeals.

       The afore-stated inordinate delay was sought to be explained by the Petitioners mainly on the grounds that no notice was served upon them by the District Forum and also they were not informed about the final orders passed in the Complaints. As far as the plea as regards non-receipt of the notice from the District Forum is concerned, a perusal of final orders passed in the Complaints shows that the District Forum had duly issued notice to the Petitioners, which was either received by them or they had refused to accept the same, and only after recording its satisfaction on the service of notice on the Petitioners, the District Forum had forfeited their right to file the Written Version, which otherwise had to be filed within the maximum period as stipulated in the Act. Under the circumstances, the District Forum had no option but to proceed with the cases and pass final orders therein on merits, on evaluation of the material on record. Further, it is evident from the impugned order that the address of the Petitioners in their Appeals before the State Commission and the Complaints, preferred by the Complainants, was the same. In any case, it was not even the case of the Petitioners in their Appeals. In such a situation, in our view, the District Forum was justified in recording its satisfaction relating to service on the Petitioners/Opposite Parties. Coming to the plea that the Petitioners were not informed about the orders passed by the District Forum, we find that there were contradictory averments in the application, seeking condonation of delay. While at one place the said plea was taken, subsequently it was stated that Petitioners’ staff had misplaced the order appealed against. Evidently, the earlier plea was not correct and deserved to be rejected. In view of the above, it belies conviction that the Petitioners had no knowledge about the proceedings before the District Forum. When notice was received/refused to accept in the Complaints, being the Opposite Parties therein, the Petitioners ought to have contested the same, more so, when it is a Body Corporate but it was not so. It seems that the Petitioners were not bothered by the said proceedings as well as directions issued to them by the District Forum in the final orders in the Complaints. It was only after initiation of the execution proceedings that the Petitioners woke up and filed the Appeals before the State Commission on 29.07.2015, with the afore-stated inordinate delay, for which, except for the aforesaid bald pleas, no convincing explanation was forthcoming from the Petitioners/Appellants. We are convinced that the Appeals before the State Commission was nothing but an unholy attempt by the Petitioners to protract the matter on one pretext or the other. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Petitioners had failed to make out any cause, much less a “sufficient cause” for condonation of the afore-stated inordinate delay in filing the Appeals and, hence, the State Commission, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, did not commit any jurisdictional error in dismissing the Appeals as barred by limitation. Consequently, the Revision Petitions fails and are dismissed in limine accordingly (Paras 12 to 15)

       Result: Revision Petition dismissed.