IMPORTANT POINT
If the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the consumer forum commits an illegality.

ORDER

These four Revision Petitions have been filed by Sri Surappaneni Viidyasagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Petitioner”) u/s 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the separate Orders all dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal Nos. 981 to 984 of 2019 whereby the State Commission had dismissed the Applications filed by the Petitioner herein for condonation of delay in filing the Appeals before it as also on merits.

2. It may be mentioned here that First Appeal No. 981 of 2019 which was filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission, was against the Order dated 19.05.2018 passed by the Additional Bench District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mysuru (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 1357 of 2016 filed by Shri Ramachandra Krishna Bhat against the present Petitioner. The District Forum had allowed the Complaint in part and directed the Petitioner who had been arrayed as Opposite Party before the District Forum, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 15% p.a. from 29.07.2016 till the date of payment within 60 days of its Order. Further, the Petitioner was also directed to complete the pending work of Apartment and also extra amenities work within 60 days failing which he was made liable to pay Rs.500/- penalty per day till the order is complied with as also Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3000/- towards costs of the proceeding within 60 days failing which interest @ 12% p.a. on the total sum of Rs.18,000/- from the date of the Order till payment was to be paid.The District Forum had further directed that in case of default to comply with the Order, the Petitioner shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine u/s 27 of the Act. The Petitioner has approached this Commission by filing Revision Petition No. 599 of 2020.

3. First Appeal No. 982 of 2019 was filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission against the Order dated 19.05.2018 passed by District Forum in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 1356 of 2016 filed by Dr. Suresh K. The District Forum had granted the same relief to the Complainant as had been granted in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No.1357 of 2016. The Petitioner has approached this Commission by filing Revision Petition No. 600 of 2020.

4. First Appeal No. 983 of 2019 was filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission against the Order dated 19.05.2018 passed by District Forum in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 1354 of 2016 filed by Sri Baby John. In this case also, the District Forum had granted the same relief to the Complainant as had been granted in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 1357 of 2016.The Petitioner has approached this Commission by filing Revision Petition No. 601 of 2020.

5. First Appeal No. 984 of 2019 was filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission against the Order dated 19.05.2018 passed by District Forum in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 1355 of 2016 filed by Sri Haridass P.T. The District Forum had granted the same relief to the Complainant as had been granted in Consumer Complaint (C.C.) No. 1357 of 2016. The Petitioner has approached this Commission by filing Revision Petition No. 602 of 2020.

6. The Petitioner had approached the State Commission by filing four separate First Appeal Nos. 981 to 984 of 2019 against the separate Orders dated 19.05.2018 passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint Nos. 1357, 1356, 1354 and 1355 of 2016 with a delay of 370 days. The Petitioner had also filed the Applications seeking condonation of the said delay.

7. The State Commission, vide separate Orders dated 27.02.2020, has dismissed all the Applications filed by the Petitioner seeking condonation of delay and decided the cases on merits. The relevant paragraphs 4 and 5 and the operat