IMPORTANT POINT
The special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Act for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras are entertained

Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the Secretary of Uthamapalayam Cooperative Building Society Ltd., Opposite Party No.4 in the Complaint under the Act, is to the order dated 10.07.2017, passed by the Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Madurai (for short “the State Commission”) in CMP No. 243/2015 in FASR No. 340/2015. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal, preferred by the Revision Petitioner herein, on the ground that it was barred by limitation, the delay being 1689 days.

2. It is observed from the record that the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Theni (for short “the District Forum”) has observed in the order dated 20.01.2011 that Opposite Parties No. 2, 4 and 5 had filed their vakalatnama on 29.10.2010 through their Advocate and Opposite Parties No. 1 and 3 had filed a memo for filing their vakalatnama. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned six times. However, there was no representation on behalf of the Opposite Parties. After granting a final opportunity, on 13.01.2011 the Opposite Parties were set ex-parte. It is relevant to note that this order, setting the Opposite Parties ex-parte on 13.01.2011, was never challenged. The substantive order dated 20.01.2011 was challenged before the State Commission with the delay of 1689 days, i.e. more than four years. While dismissing the Appeal, the State Commission has observed as follows:

“Both side counsel heard. The petitioner is the Secretary of a Co-operative building Society and not an ordinary person. The delay is 1689 days, i.e. nearly more than 4 years. The complaint was filed seeking directions to the present petitioner/opposite party to return the document pledged by the complainant/respondent herein and the same was ordered accordingly, with the cost of Rs.5000/- besides compensation of Rs.5000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party would submit that the society is in a ruined state having lost all the business and the delay is due to the reason that the petitioner has to obtain legal opinion from the concerned sections. A perusal of the affidavit in support of the petition would show that the inordinate delay has not been properly explained by the petitioner. Hence, we are of the view that delay could not be condoned in the interest of justice. Hence, in the result the petition is dismissed.”

3. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has vehemently argued that the management of the Petitioner Society has changed and the elected board of the management was not aware of the pendency of the case and that no copy of the ex-parte order was served upon them.

4. It is evident from the record that the Petitioner Society was represented by an Advocate before the District Forum and, therefore, it can safely be construed that they were aware of the proceedings before the District Forum and that inordinate delay of 1689 days, without giving any substantial reasons, cannot be casually condoned.

5. Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner has further submitted that he had applied for copy of the order passed by the District Forum on 22.09.2015 and deposited 50% of the awarded amount on 23.09.2015 and only thereafter preferred an Appeal before the State Commission, with the afore-noted delay. This argument does not hold good as the main direction of the District Forum to the Revision Petitioner was to return the original title deeds to the Complainant within one month, together with total compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs quantified at Rs.3,000/-. Mere deposit of Rs.9,500/- before the State Commission cannot be a substantial cause for condoning the delay.

6. Keeping in view the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [(2011) 14 SCC 578] to the effect that while deciding an application for condonation of delay,