AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 1.6.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in revision petition No.18 of 2016.
By way of the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 18.3.2016 in application filed for setting aside the order dated 28.11. 2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bundi (in short 'the District Forum') in consumer complaint No.76 of 2014.
Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent No.1/ complainant had purchased mobiles for Rs.93,450/- and delivered to opposite party number 2 for sending it to his Bundi address. The packet of mobiles did not reach the complainant and therefore complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum. OP 1 and OP 2 did not appear before the District Forum and District Forum finally passed an ex Parte order dated 28.11. 2014. OP 1 and OP 2 filed application for setting aside ex- parte order dated 28.11.2014 before the District Forum and the same was dismissed by the District Forum wide its order dated 18. 3. 2016.
Aggrieved by the order dated 18. 3. 2016 of the District Forum, the opposite party number 1 preferred revision petition before the State Commission which has been dismissed vide order dated 1.6.2017 of the State Commission.
Hence the present revision petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage and perused record. It has been stated by the learned counsel that no notice was served on the petitioner by the forum and therefore the ex parte order passed by the District Forum was not justified and that is why an application was moved before the District Forum for setting aside the ex Parte order dated 28. 11. 2014. However the District Forum rejected this application on the ground that District Forum did not have any power to review its own order. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has a good case on merit and the petitioner has got no opportunity of defense before any of the fora and to put forward his case on merits. Accordingly it was prayed that the impugned order of the State Commission should be set aside and State Commission be directed to hear the appeal on merits and to decide the same.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. First of all, it is seen that the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 126 days and the reason given in the application for condonation of delay relates to the delay having occurred due to the fact that the counsel for the petitioner did not respond and did not prepare appeal in time. The following has been mentioned in the application for condonation of delay:-
"2. That the appellant's counsel applied for the certified copy of the impugned order dated 01.06.2017, on dated 11.07.2017 and the same was delivered on 27.07.2017 and thereafter the appellant regularly contacted his counsel, and the counsel assured to file the appeal against the impugned orders. But even after passing a considerable time when no appeal was prepared and filed by his counsel, the appellant somehow got back the case file from the said counsel in the first week of December, 2017 and thereafter engaged the present counsel, who then prepared the accompanying appeal and therefore the same is being filed today before this Hon'ble Commission.
That there has been no intentional and willful delay on the part of the appellant and it is only due to aforesaid reason and circumstances."
From the above averment made in the application for condonation of delay, it is seen that the petitioner has not even disclosed the name of the learned counsel who has delayed the matter. It was open to the petitioner to have engaged some other lawyer. No explanation has been given for day to day delay in the matter. Special periods of limitation have been prescribed in the Consumer Protection Act 1986, its rules and regulations for speedy disposal of consumer disputes. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anshul Aggarwal vs. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has laid down that;
"It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the consumer Foras."
Decision of Anshul Aggarwal (Supra) has been reiterated in CicilyKallarackalVs. Vehicle Factory, IV (2012) CPJ 1(SC) 1, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court observed;
"4. This Court in Anshul Aggarwal v. NOIDA, (2011) CPJ 63 (SC) has explained the scope of condonation of delay in a matter where the special Courts/ Tribunals have been constituted in order to provide expeditious remedies to the person aggrieved and Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is one of them. Therefore, this Court held that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in such cases the Court must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statute (s).
In the instant case, condoning such an inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation by this Court in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature for filing the special leave petition. Therefore, we do not see any cogent reason to condone the delay.
Hence, in the facts and circumstance of the case as explained hereinabove, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions. The same are dismissed on the ground of delay."
In R.B. Ramlingam Vs. R.B. Bhavaneshwari, 2009 (2) Scale 108, Supreme Court observed:-
"We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the special appeal leave petitions stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecution of his appeal/petition".
The above quoted authoritative judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Negligence and deliberate inaction are clearly imputable to the petitioner in filing the present revision petition. Valuable rights might have accrued to the other party i.e. the complainant. In this perspective, I do not find any merit in the application for condonation of delay as no sufficient cause has been shown for condoning such huge delay.
Further it is seen that the revision petition before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 18. 3. 2016 which was only a dismissal order of the application which was moved by the petitioner for setting aside of the ex Parte order dated 28. 11. 2014 passed by the District Forum. In fact, the ex Parte order dated 28.11. 2014 was not challenged in the revision petition filed before the State Commission. This would be clear from the prayer made in the revision petition which reads as under:
"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to allow the present revision petition and set aside the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by Learned District Forum, Bundi and allow the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte order dated 28.11.2014."
From the above examination, it becomes clear that the order dated 18. 3. 2016 was only challenged before the State Commission and the State Commission has rightly dismissed the revision petition as the order dated 18. 3. 2016 did not suffer from any illegality. It is clear that in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kasinath Karekar & Anr. (2011) 9 SCC 541, that the District Forum and the State Commission do not have power to review their own order. Clearly there was no illegality in the order passed by the District Forum dated 18. 3. 2016 and therefore the State Commission rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner. As this is the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that District Forum and State Commission have no power to set aside the ex Parte order and therefore I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 1.6. 2017 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, revision petition No.15 of 2018 is dismissed at the admission stage on the ground of limitation as well as on merits.