NEEL RATNA SONI vs XEROX MODI CORP. LTD.

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenges order dated 27.6.2002 in Complaint No. 259/2002 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant, with the direction that the complainant/appellant may seek redressal in the Civil Court. The appeal is time barred and an application for condonation of delay purporting to be under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay. THIS order shall dispose of the said application.

APPELLANT in the application for condonation of delay has averred that District Forum passed the impugned order on 27.6.2002 but by mistake the complainant filed review petition before the District Forum. The said review petition however, was dismissed on 25.11.2002. It is averred in the application that the said review application was filed under bona fide belief that District Forum has the jurisdiction to consider the review petition. It is, therefore, averred that delay caused on account of the said circumstances, be condoned. The application has been resisted by the respondents. It was stated that the memo of appeal bore dated 31.7.2002 while the review petition was filed on 27.6.2002. It was averred that the complainant/appellant was thus trying to pursue two parallel remedies one by way of review petition and another by way of this appeal.

It is noticed that the memo of appeal bears dated 31.7.2002 but as per office order sheet the same was filed in this Commission on 5.12.2002 i.e., after about 5 months after the impugned order dated 27.6.2002. It may be pertinent to mention that since the memo of appeal is dated 31.7.2002, it is clear that the appeal was ready on 31.7.2002, yet it was not filed in time and was filed with much delay on 5.12.2002.

IT is stated in the application for condonation of delay that since review petition was filed under bona fide belief, the appeal was not preferred within time. However, it may be noted that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not confer power of review on the Consumer Fora. IT is clear that power of review cannot be exercised by a Court or authority unless specifically conferred by statue. Reference in the above connection may be made to the decision of National Commission in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Surya Credit Ltd. & Anr., III (1998) CPJ 19 (NC) and in M/s. Scooter India Ltd. v. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, III (1999) CPJ 77 (NC)=2000 (1) CPR 10 (NC). In view of the above, it is clear that the petition for review was totally misconceived and did not lie. In the aforesaid circumstances, appellant cannot take shelter of the fact that he entertained bona fide belief that a review petition, could be filed. Since law does not permit a petition for review, the belief or impression as above of the appellant, cannot be treated as bona fide.

MOREOVER, as noticed above the appeal was prepared and was ready on 31.7.2002 as reflected from the date put by the appellant''s Counsel on the memo of appeal, the same could have been filed immediately thereafter. It has not been so done. The reason assigned for the delay does not constitute sufficient cause. Learned Counsel for appellant relied upon the decision of Orissa State Commission in Anupam Pani v. Director of Admission, Orissa Engineering College and Another, III (2000) CPJ 418, in which it was held that each and every Court or Tribunal etc. have inherent powers to pass orders for ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. However, the above decision is of no avail to the appellant, in the facts and the circumstances in the instant case. In view of the above, the application for condonation of delay is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.