AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the parties.
The Office has submitted the report that the appeal has been filed with delay of 499 days. The impugned order was passed on 08.04.2022 and the appeal was filed on 19.09.2023. The appellant has filed IA/13920/2023 for condoning the delay in the appeal. In the application, the appellant has stated that after passing the order dated 08.04.2022, the appellant filed an IA/537/2022 for recalling the order dated 08.04.2022 within limitation. Arguments in the IA were heard on 26.09.2022. The judgment was not passed in the presence of the parties nor the judgment was uploaded on the website up to 11.09.2023. On 11.09.2023, the clerk of the appellant visited the state commission and came to know that the IA/537/2022 has been dismissed. The order was uploaded on 14.09.2023. The certified copy of the order was obtained on 12.09.2023 and the appeal was filed on 19.09.2023. As under Rule 8 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, the state commission was required to send a free copy of the final order, disposing of the application and it was not sent nor it was uploaded on the website up to 11.09.2023. Therefore the appellant could not know about the order which was passed on 26.09.2022 and delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
The respondent has filed reply to this IA. In this reply, the respondent has disputed the contention of the appellant that the order was not uploaded up to 11.09.2023. The respondent has stated that appellant deliberately failed to appear in the matter as he handled the matter in most casual manner. Further, if there was any technical glitch, the counsel could have appeared in person in the state commission or would have gone to the commission to check the status of the matter, which he failed to do and now the appellant is making false allegation. During arguments, the counsel for the respondent points out that in screenshot as filed on page 179 of the paper book bears the date 11.09.2023, it is the date of the computer of the appellant and not the date of the website. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on it for the proposition that the order was not uploaded up to 11.09.2023. We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties. Even it is a date of computer of the appellant, which is on page 79, showing that computer print was taken on 11.09.2023, but, that is not material, and material is that even on 11.09.2023 status of the application was not showing as disposed of. Therefore, the allegation of the appellant that it was not uploaded up to 11.09.2023 is not liable to be disbelieved. The appellant stated that the clerks came to know about the order on 11.09.2023 and its certified copy was obtained on the next day i.e. 12.09.2023. The appeal was filed on 19.09.2023. It was well within the knowledge of the order passed by the state commission.
The Rule 8 of Delhi Consumer Protection Rule, 1987, casts a duty upon the state commission to supply the free copy of the final orders to the consumers. Since the application was finally disposed of, therefore, it was a final order in the application and it requires to be communicated. The Supreme Court in Housing Board, Haryana Vs. Housing Board Colony Welfare Association & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 672, having noticed the similar set of the regulations of Haryana has held that limitation will run from the date when the free certified copy has been handed over to the litigant.
The counsel for the respondent, however, rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal Vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 579, in which delay up to 233 days in filing the special leave petition had been declined to be condoned, inasmuch as, as per allegation, the petitioner came to know about the order on 20.11.2010 and the SLP was filed in July, 2011 and the Supreme Court found that after coming to knowledge of the order on 20.11.2010, there was latched on the part of the petitioner in not filing the SLP within a reasonable time. Similarly, the other case relied by the counsel for the respondent, in which the order was passed on 01.08.2018 and the appeal was filed with delay of 404 days and it was found that the order was received to the appellant on 12.10.2018 and there was further inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The case law relied upon by the counsel for the respondent has no application in this case. As in this case from the date of knowledge, there was no delay in filing the appeal. In the circumstances, the IA/13920/2024 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
FA/945/2023
The above appeal has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 08.04.2022, dismissing the complaint in default of the appellant and 26.09.2022, rejecting IA/537/2022 as not maintainable.
So far as, the order dated 08.04.2022 is concerned the counsel for the appellant states that at that time due to pandemic Covid-19 the hearing was going on through video conferencing and due to disturbance in the video conferencing the connectivity could not be made and complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in G.P Srivastava Vs. R.K. Raizada & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 54, and in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Srinivasan recall has been filed, inasmuch as, the Supreme Court has found that every court has inherent power to recall its order passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the recall application was maintainable and it has been wrongly dismissed by the state commission. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The original order dated 08.04.2022 has been passed during the period when the limitation has been waived by the Supreme Court due to Covid-19 and the hearing was going on in various courts through video conferencing and it has been stated by the appellant that although he attended the video conferencing, but, due to technical default, he could not connect himself from the Commission and the complaint was dismissed for want of prosecution. In such circumstances, we consider it proper that the ex-parte judgment be set aside and the complaint be restored and be heard on merit.
ORDER
In the result, order dated 26.09.2022, rejecting IA/537/2022 and order dated 08.02.2022, dismissing CC/123/2013 are set aside. The complaint is restored to its original number. Both the parties appear before us, they will appear before state commission along with certified copy of this order on 23.07.2024. Thereafter, the state commission shall fix a date for hearing according to its own convenience and decide the complaint in accordance with law.