IMPORTANT POINT
Even if there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay, a court may not condone the delay based on the other contents of the case.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b), 19 and 2(1)(c) – Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Sections 58, 41 & 2(6) – Complaint by post – Delay in filing appeal – Scope – Petitioner-complainant submitted two separate complaints through post – Both complaints registered by District Forum, thus, there was no grievance left for the complainant – Since complaints registered, there was no point for filing the appeal – However, appeal was filed but with delay of 150 days – Since, State Commission found no sufficient treasons rightly dismissed the appeal, as being time barred – Interference with declined.
Result: Petition dismissed,

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Radhakrishan .R, against the order dated 03.09.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.421 of 2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant submitted two separate complaints from his home on 02.06.2018 through speed post no. RL085280241IN & RL085280122IN before the CDRF. It has been alleged that after receiving the applications & fees, OP1 neither provided a chance to the complainant to appear before the CDRF nor rejected the complaint. The complainant also informed OP2 about the deficiency and omission of law by OP1 but as a competent authority, no positive approach or action was taken by OP2. Hence the complainant had grievance against not registering the two complaints sent by post and therefore, filed the complaint before the District Forum. The complainant impleaded the President, CDRF (OP1) and Food & Supplies Department (OP2) as the opposite parties. District Forum in its order dated 24.12.2018 stated that there is no procedure in this forum to register the complaint(s) received through internet or post. As stated by complainant, the two complaints referred in this complaint are already received in this forum. Further, the registry was directed to register both complaints for hearing on its admission on 8.01.2019. Accordingly, the complaint was disposed of. State Commission vide its order dated 03.09.2019 dismissed the appeal of the complainant on the ground that:

(i) It is not permissible to array court/presiding officer against whose order the appeal has been filed as respondent.

(ii) Appeal was barred by limitation.

3. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. Heard the petitioner in person at the admission stage. The petitioner stated that the State Commission has not considered the true facts causing delay in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The petitioner stated that the complaint was filed before the District Forum for not considering and registering the two complaints sent by post. Complaint has been disposed of by the order of the District Forum dated 24.12.2018 stating that there was no procedure in the District Forum to register the complaints received by post. The District Forum also ordered registration of these two complaints. The complainant preferred appeal of this order before the State Commission however, the appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on other grounds. The petitioner stated that District Forum is also providing a service and there was deficiency in the service that they did not register the complaints sent by post. It was requested that the revision petition may be admitted.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner in person and have examined the record. The appeal was filed with a delay of about 150 days as mentioned in the application filed by the petitioner before the State Commission for condoning the delay. The application for condonation of delay mentions the reasons for delay as follows:-

“2. It is humbly submitted that this condonation for delay application is before this Hon’ble State Commission from a order against disposal of the complaint No. 483/2018 of the appellants on 24.12.2018 passed by Hon CDRF New Delhi.

3. The True Copy of the order in CC 483/2018 received this appellant on 17th day of January 2019 through post. In as much the appeal ought to have been filed on 17th February 2019 but unfortunately appellant failed to file the same and that was due to delay in obtaining legal information’s & delay in obtaining the information about Hon. Supreme Court orders and observations to prepare this appeal and also due to the some financial problems. Hence a delay of 150 days is caused in filing the appeal. The said delay is not due to my willful default.”

6. The State Commission in the impugned order has considered the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTEven if there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay, a court may not condone the delay based on the other contents of the case.

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if there is sufficient ground for condoning the delay, a court may not condone the delay based on the other contents of the case.