IMPORTANT POINT
No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may cause to require this Commission to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel.

Perused the material on record.

1. This petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in challenge to the Order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab in misc. application no. 448 of 2020 in first appeal no. 90 of 2020.

2. The dispute is in relation to non-payment of the maturity value of a fixed deposit made by the complainants with the opposite parties.

The District Commission, vide its Order dated 13.12.2019, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposit till realization along with Rs. 4,000/- for the loss and injury and cost of litigation.

The State Commission, vide its impugned Order of 04.09.2020, dismissed the appeal on limitation.

3. The District Commission, in its Order of 13.12.2019, has specifically mentioned that notice was served on the two opposite parties, the opposite party no. 2 appeared in person but thereafter both the opposite parties were proceeded against ex parte. That is to say, the opposite parties were aware of the case before the District Commission, one of them put in appearance, and then both chose to absent themselves in the District Commission.

4. The appeal was filed with a delay of 20 days. The State Commission condoned the delay subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within three weeks. For not satisfying the condition precedent to condonation of delay, the State Commission dismissed the appeal on limitation.

Here, the following extract from the State Commission’s impugned Order of 04.09.2020 is reproduced for ready reference:

M.A. No. 448 of 2020 (for Delay)

In this miscellaneous application, vide order dated 13.02.2020, the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within three weeks. The case was adjourned to 01.04.2020. But the cost was not deposited. The case was taken up on 19.06.2020, as there was no sitting of this Commission on 01.04.2020. On 19.06.2020, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 10.08.2020 and intimation was sent to counsel for the appellant. On 10.08.2020 also none appeared on behalf of the appellant and the case was adjourned for today i.e. 04.09.2020 and intimation was sent to the counsel for the appellant. Today also, none has appeared on behalf of the appellant despite repeated calls since morning. The payment of cost was condition precedent to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Since the appellant has not deposited the cost, which is condition precedent to condone the delay and entertain the appeal, therefore, the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal stands dismissed due to non-compliance of the order dated 13.02.2020.

Main Case

2. Since the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant is also dismissed being barred by limitation.

A bare reading shows that sufficient opportunity, and more, was provided to the appellant (the revisionist herein) by the State Commission to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000/- with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission for condoning the delay in filling the appeal before the State Commission.

On the face of it itself, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was reasonable and just, and in no manner unreasonable or unjust.

We find nothing wrong in the State Commission dismissing the appeal on limitation when the condition precedent for condoning the delay was not satisfied

5. As such, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may cause to require this Commission to exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Section 58(1)(b) of the Act 2019 in interfe