MONOTYPE INDIA LTD. & ANR vs SHAILENDRA VERMA & ANR

This Revision Petition by the Opposite Party in the Complaint, viz., Monotype Private Limited, is directed against order, dated 10.12.2014, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal no.2785 of 2000. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the

Petitioner against the order, dated 06.01.1999 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Varanasi (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint no.414 of 1994 as barred by limitation. According to the State Commission, the Petitioner had not explained satisfactorily the delay of two months in filing of the Appeal.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Complainant, who appears in person, and perused the application filed by the Petitioner before the State Commission, seeking condonation of delay, in our opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

In the application, it was stated that the final arguments in the Complaint were heard by the District Forum in the month of December 1998 and the orders were reserved. The orders were finally pronounced on 06.01.1999, but the Petitioner never received a free copy of the said order, to which he was legally entitled to. It was only in the month of October 2000 when the Petitioner received notice in Execution Case no.26 of 1999 that they learnt about the final order having been passed in January 1999. In support of its stand that a free copy of the final order had not been communicated to the Petitioner, learned Counsel has invited our attention to the answer given by the clerk of the District Forum on 27.01.2015 to the query raised by the Petitioner under RTI, as to whether a free/certified copy of the order, dated 06.01.1999, passed in Complaint no.414 of 1999 had been communicated to the Petitioner or not. In response to the said query, the clerk had answered that " as per inspection of file we could not find that the judgment has been communicated to Opposite Parties or not".

Though, the response is cryptic and does not explain as to whether a free copy was in fact sent to the Petitioner or not. Nevertheless, it can be safely inferred from the said reply that there was no evidence on the record of the District Forum to show that it was in fact issued to the Opposite Party. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said with any amount of certainty that the free copy of the order passed by the District Forum, which was required to be sent to both the parties

by registered post was in fact dispatched to the Petitioner. If that be so, the aforestated explanation furnished by the Petitioner for the delay in filing the Appeal cannot be said to be unsatisfactory.

Under the circumstances, we allow the Revision Petition; set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication on merits of the Appeal.

Since the Complaint was filed as far back as in the year 1994, we request the State Commission to dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as practicable, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Revision Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 06.07.2015 for further proceedings.