ASHOK DHOBLE vs V.B. RAMDHAVE

THE Petitioner herein is a practising Dentist against whom a complaint was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service in the matter of administering treatment to her. THE complaint was filed before the District Forum, Latur. THE Petitioner did not appear on the date on which the case was called for hearing but he had applied to the District Forum for an adjournment. According to the Petitioner, the date to which the case was adjourned was not intimated to him by the District Forum with the result that he was unaware of the next posting date and the case happened to be disposed of against him ex-parte by its order of the District Forum dated 22nd June, 1991. THE Petitioner has sworn in an affidavit which he filed along with an appeal preferred before the State Commission that the Order of the District Forum which was communicated to him was received by him only on or about 5th July, 1991. THE appeal was preferred by him before the State Commission within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the Order. That appeal has been dismissed by the State Commission under the impugned order stating that the appeal was belated inasmuch as it has been preferred beyond 30 days from the date of the Order of, the District Forum. Even though the Act mentions that the appeal has to be filed within 30days from the date of the Order passed by the District Forum, it is proper to interpret the section as implying that time will start running against the aggrieved party only with effect from the date on which he is served a copy of the Order, except incases where the Order was pronounced by the Forum in the presence of the parties. Such an interpretation of the provision is consistent with the principles of natural justice as otherwise a party having no knowledge of passing of the Order by the District Forum will be effectively deprived of his right of appeal on a plea of limitation taken by the Opposite side. Applying the said principle to the present case, we find that the appeal which was filed on 3rd August was well within 30 days from the date on which petitioner was served a copy of the Order of the District Forum. Hence the appeal was not time barred and its dismissal on the ground that it was barred by limitation cannot be sustained. We accordingly, set aside the Order passed by the State Commission and remand the appeal to the State Commission for disposal on the merits in accordance with law. THE parties will, bear the irrespective costs. Appeal allowed.