IMPORTANT POINT
When there is no illegality in the order passed by the lower fora, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the State Commission—The revision petition therefore has no merit and has to be dismissed.

Shri Radhey Shyam Dwivedi, Advocate is present on Caveat. He is discharged.

(ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by Uttar Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) in Appeal No.615 of 2018. The appeal before the State Commission has been filed against the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lucknow (First) in complaint case no. 483 of 2009. Vide order dated 19.12.2017, the District forum had allowed the claim of the complainant / respondent.

2. Along with an appeal no. 615 of 2018, petitioner / opposite party had filed an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal. The delay was stated to be of 73 days. The said application of the petitioner for condonation of delay was dismissed and the present revision petition is against the said order of the State Commission.

3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had duly explained day to day delay in filing appeal and yet the same was not considered by the State Commission and it has arbitrarily dismissed the application of the petitioner. For that purpose, counsel has relied on the affidavit of one Shabeena Tabassum, Deputy Manager of the petitioner explaining the delay in filing the appeal. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the said affidavit which explains the delay, are reproduced as under:

“5. That on 22.03.2018 Caveat application was received by aforesaid office i.e. Divisional Office II Lucknow and on enquiring it came to knowledge that aforesaid file was misplaced in Dispatch Department, therefore, it did not reach Regional Office Lucknow. File was searched and on 26.03.2018 aforesaid office also recieved execution notice related to aforesaid matter.

6. That on 28.03.2018 file containing certified copy of judgment andother document was found and on 28.03.2008 it was sent to Regional Office Lucknow immediately.

7. That Regional Office Lucknow received the file on same day i.e. 28.03.2018 in late working hours.

8. That on 29.03.2018 to 01.04.2018 were holiday therefore note before higher officials of Regional Office Lucknow was put on next working day i.e.02.04.2018 and it was decided to file appeal and Advocate Rehana Khan was deputed for filing appeal. She collected the documents on same day.

9. That draft of statutory amount was prepared on 04.04.2018 and it was handed over to advocate on 04.04.2018.

4. After considering these facts and hearing the arguments of learned counsel, the State Commission has given the findings which are reproduced as under:—

“In the present appeal, it has been stated that file was misplaced in the divisional office of the appellant / respondent, insurance company. The alleged dispatcher who is stated to have got the file misplaced is an employee of the appellant / respondent insurance company and is under their control. Hence since no departmental enquiry is conducted against him the story of the appellant / respondent regarding delay appears to be false and imagined. Hence in the facts of the present case the appellant / respondent insurance company cannot be given benefit of that said judgment of the Hon’ble Commission.

5. It is argued that observation of the State Commission that no action was taken against the delinquent employee of the petitioner is wrong because suspension order dated 26.04.2018 had already been issued and the concerned official was suspended. It is also admitted by counsel that this fact was never, at any stage, brought to the notice of the State Commission. In view of the fact that this fact that some action taken against the delinquent official of the petitioner has not been brought to the notice of the learned Members of the State Commission, it cannot be said that findings of the State Commission are contrary to the facts or perverse. Even if for the sake of arguments, I accept that action has been taken, the question ar