A. Alagesan vs T. Kamalam & 3 Ors

R.K. Agrawal, J

The present Revision Petition has been filed with a delay of 72 days. Mr. Manimuthu, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has sufficiently explained the delay and the same is condoned. The Revision Petition be treated as having been filed within limitation.

The present Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 07-01-2019 passed by the Circuit Bench of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, Circuit Bench at Madurai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) whereby the State Commission has declined to condone the delay of 3561 days in filing the Appeal and, consequently, the Appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was not aware about the order passed by the District Forum and, therefore, could not file the Appeal within time and a delay of 3561 days has occurred. He further submitted that the Counsel who conducted the case before the District Forum did not inform about the order passed by the District Forum and, therefore, the Appeal was not filed in time. According to him, the delay of 3561 days in filing the Appeal had satisfactorily been explained and the State Commission ought to have taken a lenient view and condone the delay.

The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is wholly misconceived. The State Commission in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the impugned order has dealt with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. For ready reference, paragraphs 7 to 9 of the impugned order are reproduced below:

"7. Point: On perusal of the records, we find that the respondents/complainants filed a consumer complaint against the petitioner/opposite party before the District Forum, Pudukottai in CC No.53/2003 alleging that he had committed deficiency in service during the medical treatment given to one Thangaraj, who is husband of the 1st respondent and father of the respondents 2 to 4 negligence by the petitioner. During the enquiry, even though the petitioner/opposite party initially appeared before the District Forum through his counsel and subsequently he was absent and did not file any written version and hence the District Forum, Pudukottai passed an exparte award on 27-10-2007 against the petitioner/opposite party and hence the petitioner/opposite party has preferred this appeal before this Commission after a delay of 3561 days before this Commission. It is also seen from the records that after filing of Execution Application by the respondents/complainants in the year 2007 before the District Forum, the petitioner/opposite party has come before this Commission after the delay of 10 years.

Further, the petitioner/opposite party has stated in his affidavit that his counsel was negligent in conducting his case which caused delay in filing the appeal within time which is not acceptable since the petitioner who is the opposite party against whom the award was passed by the District Forum, has appeared before the District Forum through his counsel in the execution proceedings (in EA No.04/2008) on 01.09.2008. It is the duty of the petitioner/opposite party to contest the case in the proceedings either before the District Forum or before this Commission, if he had aggrieved against the order of the District Forum. Mere leveling allegations against the counsel for the delay caused in filing the appeal is not acceptable since it is only adoption of delaying tactics to drag on the execution proceedings pending before the District Forum. The delay could not be condoned when it was not explained by the petitioner/opposite party with proper and valid reasons. We do not consider the reasons stated in the affidavit is proper and valid and thereby we are of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

In a citation reported in I (2017) CPJ 187, the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of Bhagirathi Godawari Aqua Pure Private Limited Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. at page No.190 has also held as follows: "The matter has been examined in a number of judgments passed by the Honourable Apex Court and this Commission from time to time. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, reported in IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), it has been observed as follows: "it is also the opposite party to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay the court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of consumer dispute will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Fora."

From a reading of the aforesaid order, it is absolutely clear that the District Forum had decided the matter on 22-10-2007. It cannot be accepted that the Petitioner was not aware about the said order at least on 01-09-2008 when in Execution Proceedings (EA No.4 of 2008) he had appeared before the District Forum. It is common knowledge that Execution Proceedings cannot be initiated unless there is an order passed by the District Forum. He having appeared before the District Forum in the Execution Proceedings is presumed to have the knowledge of the order passed by the District Forum dated 22-10-2007 at least on 01-09-2008. The Appeal was filed in the year 2017 i.e. almost about after nine years. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the period of nine years was taken for filing the Appeal. In our opinion, the State Commission has rightly declined to condone the inordinate delay of 3561 days in filing the Appeal.

The order passed by the State Commission is based on appreciation of evidence and material placed on record and does not suffer any illegality which may call for interference in our revisional jurisdiction.

The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.