K. Alfred vs Mahindra And Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, ''the State Commission '') in CMP No. 712/2012 in FASR No. 2142/2011 Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Vs. -K. Alfred by which, application for condonation of delay was allowed.

COMPLAINANT /petitioner filed complaint before District Forum. OP/respondent did not file written statement and was proceeded ex -parte and District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.10,000/ - towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. Both the parties preferred appeals before State Commission and respondent also filed application for condonation of delay of 200 days. Learned State Commission vide impugned order condoned delay subject to payment of Rs.500/ - as cost against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard petitioner in person and Counsel for respondent finally at admission stage and perused record.

PETITIONER submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in allowing application for condonation of delay of 200 days without assigning any reason; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that after condonation of delay at the insistence of petitioner both appeals were decided by learned State Commission vide order dated 24.9.2013. In such circumstances, revision petition has become infructuous and may be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that impugned order dated 2.11.2012 condoning delay was not a speaking order. Record further reveals that after preferring revision, petitioner insisted before State Commission to decide appeal and in such circumstances, learned State Commission decided appeal of both the parties by order dated 24.9.2013. As appeals have been decided finally by the learned State Commission, revision petition challenging order of condonation of delay becomes infructuous and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Petitioner is free to challenge the order dated 24.9.2013 by filing a fresh revision petition in which he can also challenge the order dated 2.11.2012 regarding condonation of delay. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed as having become infructuous with no order as to costs.