Deposit Insurance And Credit Guarantee Corpn. vs Fakeerappa Basavantappa Kudari

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 3906 of 2010 - The Deposit Ins. and Credit Guarantee Corpn. Vs. Fakeerappa Basavantappa Kudari & Ors. by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent no. 1 filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 9.6.2010 allowed complaint and directed OP/petitioner and Respondent nos. 2 & 3 to pay Rs.4,10,256/ - with 8% p.a. interest and further Rs.1,000/ - towards compensation and Rs.500/ - for mental agony. Petitioner filed revision petition before State Commission, but learned State Commission treating it as appeal dismissed appeal as barred by 61 days and for want of depositing statutory amount against which, this revision petition has been filed. None appeared for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and they were proceeded ex -parte.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he never requested learned State Commission to treat his revision petition as appeal and further submitted that revision petition was filed within the prescribed period; even then, learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing it as appeal barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 has no objection if the matter is remanded back. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he did not receive free copy from the District Forum, but came to know from Respondent No. 2 -Liquidator about the order of District Forum dated 22.7.2010 and filed revision petition on 14.9.2010 and petitioner never requested State Commission to treat his revision petition as appeal because revision petition was maintainable.

PERUSAL of impugned order reveals that petitioner filed revision petition before State Commission, but as per objections of office, learned State Commission treated it as appeal. Petitioner never requested State Commission to treat this revision petition as appeal. If it is treated as revision petition, it was well within limitation and in such circumstances; it ought not to have been dismissed as barred by limitation. Even it is treated as appeal, as per statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner, petitioner received intimation about the impugned order on 22.7.2010 and filed this revision petition on 14.9.2010 meaning thereby, there was delay of 23 days in filing appeal and learned State Commission should have asked petitioner to move application for condonation of delay and only after that aspect of delay should have been considered. 8. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside and matter is to be remanded back to learned State Commission giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner regarding maintainability of revision petition and then decide it afresh by a speaking order.

CONSEQUENTLY, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No. 3906 of 2010 - The Deposit Ins. and Credit Guarantee Corpn. Vs. Fakeerappa Basavantappa Kudari & Ors. is set aside and matter is remanded back to learned State Commission to decide the maintainability of revision petition after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before the learned State Commission, Karnataka on 8.9.2014.