IMPORTANT POINT
Revisional Jurisdiction - finding of facts recorded by the State Commission in Appeal, cannot be interfered with in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction unless the said finding has been recorded by misreading of evidence, materials on record or ignoring them or it is contrary to the law laid down in this regard by higher court of law.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. 98 / 2022, whereby the State Commission condoned the delay in filing the Appeal and directed to withdraw the Revision Petition instituted before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court before the next date of hearing, in case, the Appellant wanted to pursue the Appeal before the State Commission.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an MOU was entered between Rahul Sharma, the Complainant/Petitioner herein, who is a professional artist, and the Dremz And Aspiration, Opposite Party Company/Respondent herein, who is engaged in live show launching, album recording etc. According to the said MOU, the Petitioner has to make a payment of Rs.15,00,000/- in instalments to the Respondent Company. It was alleged that despite having received a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, the Respondent Company miserably failed to give even a single chance of singing to the Petitioner. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Company, a Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/813/2016 was filed before the District Forum on 28.06.2016.

3. The District Forum vide Order dated 18.09.2017 proceeded exparte and allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed the Respondent Company to pay Rs.7,00,000/- alongwith interest @9% from 17.02.2014 and Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @9% w.e.f 15.03.2014 together with compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and litigation costs.

4. Execution Application was filed before the District Forum. Notice on Execution Application was issued to the Respondent Company in March 2019. The Respondent Company filed reply to the Execution Application and Application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908 for setting aside exparte decree before the District Forum. The District forum vide order dated 02.03.2020 dismissed the Order 9 Rule 13 Application.

5. Being Aggrieved, the Respondent Company filed Civil Revision Petition No. 35 / 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court, Jaipur, which is still pending in defect and not yet listed before the Hon’ble High Court.

6. The Respondent Company filed Appeal before the State Commission challenging the Exparte Order dated 18.09.2017 alongwith Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1554 days in filing the Appeal against Exparte Order dated 18.09.2017.

7. After hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, the State Commission passed the impugned Order and allowed the Application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the Appeal by observing as under:—

“It is asserted on behalf of the respondent/complainant that the complainant by continuouslytrying to comply with the impugned judgment has taken effective action and at different levels directions for recovery by taking coercive steps as per rules against the appellants /opponents have also been issued by the Competent officer and the facts which are admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants /opponents and has further asserted that admittedly an ex-parte proceedings have been conducted against the appellants /opponents i.e. it is a violation of principles of natural justice and no sufficient opportunity for hearing has been granted to the appellants. Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits while condoning the delay.

Like it is stated above that the fact of impugned judgment to have come to the knowledge of the appellants/opponents after receipt of notice of the execution proceedings initiated by the complainant against them appears to be instinctive and thereafter time elapsed in seeking legal advice and initiating proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and thereafter the pe