IMPORTANT POINT
Condonation of delay by imposition of costs justified.

ORDER (ORAL)

Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member.—The present Revision Petition, under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “the Act”) has been filed against the three orders dated 17.12.2019, 28.08.2020 and 31.08.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odissa (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No.127 of 2019 alleging that these orders are arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a Complaint had been filed by the Respondent before the District Forum. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.09.2018 allowed the Complaint ex parte against the Petitioner holding that the Petitioner had failed to appear before it despite service of notice of the Complaint.

3. The Petitioner filed Appeal No.127 of 2019 before the State Commission wherein they had challenged the order of the District Forum on several grounds. The Appeal was delayed. An application for condonation of delay in filling the Appeal was filed. One of the arguments for condonation of delay was that they had not been properly served with the notice of the Complaint and that they had come to know of the filing of the Complaint only after receipt of the notice in the execution petition. The State Commission considered the arguments of the Petitioner. The Appeal was apparently filed with a delay of 236 days and this delay in filing of the Appeal was condoned by the State Commission vide its order dated 17.12.2019. While condoning this delay, cost of Rs.1 Lakh was imposed.

4. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the State Commission had imposed an exorbitant cost and that is why an application for recalling of the said cost had been filed before the State Commission. Vide order dated 28.08.2020, this application was dismissed and the Petitioner was given an opportunity to deposit the cost during the course of the day and the matter was adjourned for 31.08.2020. Finally on 31.08.2020, the Appeal was dismissed on account of non-compliance of the order dated 17.12.2019 and 28.08.2020. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged this order on the ground that the direction in the order dated 28.08.2020 that the cost is to be deposited during the course of the day is harsh and could not have been complied with because an Advocate is not expected to pay the cost out of his pocket and therefore, this order is arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. It is also argued that the subsequent order dated 31.08.2020 is, therefore, liable to be set aside.

5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned Counsel and have perused the file.

6. Admittedly, the Petitioner had filed an Appeal before the State Commission with a delay of 236 days and sought condonation of such delay on the ground that it was not served with the notice of the Complaint and came to know of the order under challenge when a notice of execution petition was served upon it. The condonation of delay in filing of the Appeal was sought on this ground. It is, therefore, apparent that the State Commission in its order dated 17.12.2019 has not considered the issue on merit regarding service of notice of Complaint upon the Petitioner/Appellant but prima facie considering the arguments of learned Counsel for the Appellant to this effect condoned the delay in filing the Appeal and adjourned the matter for arguments on admission and listed the matter for admission of Appeal for 24.01.2020. The order dated 17.12.2019 is reproduced as under:

“This is an application for condonatian of delay of 236 days in filing FA No. 127 of 2019.

Heard.

Ex parte order impugned in this appeal was passed on 3.9.2018. The appeal has been field on 31.5.2019.

The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that no notice was received by the appellant from the District Forum regarding the complaint case. The appellant could know about the complaint only after receipt of notice in the exec