Rahul Sharma vs Dremz And Aspirations

R.K. Agrawal, President Member,

The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Impugned Order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as State Commission) in Appeal No. 98 / 2022, whereby the State Commission condoned the delay in filing the Appeal and directed to withdraw the Revision Petition instituted before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court before the next date of hearing, in case, the Appellant wanted to pursue the Appeal before the State Commission.

Brief facts of the case are that an MOU was entered between Rahul Sharma, the Complainant/Petitioner herein, who is a professional artist, and the Dremz And Aspiration, Opposite Party Company/Respondent herein, who is engaged in live show launching, album recording etc.  According to the said MOU, the Petitioner has to make a payment of ₹15,00,000/- in instalments to the Respondent Company.  It was alleged that despite having received a sum of ₹12,00,000/-, the Respondent Company miserably failed to give even a single chance of singing to the Petitioner.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Company, a Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC /813 / 2016 was filed before the District Forum on 28.06.2016.

The District Forum vide Order dated 18.09.2017 proceeded exparte and allowed the Consumer Complaint and directed the Respondent Company to pay ₹7,00,000/- alongwith interest @9% from 17.02.2014 and ₹5,00,000/- alongwith interest @9% w.e.f 15.03.2014 together with compensation of ₹10,000/- towards mental agony and litigation costs.

Execution Application was filed before the District Forum.  Notice on Execution Application was issued to the Respondent Company in March 2019.  The Respondent Company filed reply to the Execution Application and Application under Order 9 Rule 13 r/w Section 151 of CPC 1908 for setting aside exparte decree before the District Forum.  The District forum vide order dated 02.03.2020 dismissed the Order 9 Rule 13 Application.

Being Aggrieved, the Respondent Company filed Civil Revision Petition No. 35 / 2022 before the Hon’ble High Court, Jaipur, which is still pending in defect and not yet listed before the Hon’ble High Court.

The Respondent Company filed Appeal before the State Commission challenging the  Exparte Order dated 18.09.2017 alongwith Application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 1554 days in filing the Appeal against Exparte Order dated 18.09.2017.

After hearing both the Parties and perusal of material on record, the State Commission passed the impugned Order and allowed the Application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay in filing the Appeal by observing as under:-

“It is asserted on behalf of the respondent/complainant that the complainant by continuouslytrying to comply with the impugned judgment has taken effective action and at different levels directions for recovery by taking coercive steps as per rules against the appellants /opponents have also been issued by the Competent officer and the facts which are admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants /opponents and has further asserted that admittedly an ex-parte proceedings have been conducted against the appellants /opponents i.e. it is a violation of principles of natural justice and no sufficient opportunity for hearing has been granted to the appellants. Therefore keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case it is necessary for disposal of the appeal on merits while condoning the delay.

Like it is stated above that the fact of impugned judgment to have come to the knowledge of the appellants/opponents after receipt of notice of the execution proceedings initiated by the complainant against them appears to be instinctive and thereafter time elapsed in seeking legal advice and initiating proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and thereafter the period as per directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court due to Covid-19 is condonable. Therefore the delay caused in fling the appeal in the particular facts and circumstances of this case is condonable.

Like we have stated above that it is admitted both parties that appellants/opponents have already instituted a Civil Revision before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court which presently has not been registered in a regular manner and is laying pending defects. As per our courteous opinion the appellants /opponents cannot seek two legal remedies at the same time respectively by way of present appeal under consideration and by way of Revision Petition filed before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court and if the appellants/opponents want to pursue this appeal them definitely before the next date of hearing will have to ensure withdrawing the Revision Petition instituted before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. Hence the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the appellants/opponents is allowed subject to the condition of withdrawal of the Revision Petition filed before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court by the appellant’s / opponents before the next date of hearing. Application is disposed of in above terms.”

Aggrieved by this Order, the Petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission.

I have heard Mr. Avnish Dave, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, perused the Order passed by the State Commission, other material available on record and have given a thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by him.

I find it a fit case to rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107”, which has been constantly followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases including “Hemlata Verma versus M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. &Anr.” [Civil Appeal No. 5131 of 2019 decided on 01.07.2019], in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“We may consider it apposite to observe that the Commission while declining to condone the delay placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361. However, the later decision of this Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 has held that in matter of condonation of delay, the Court should take liberal view. In our view, the Commission should have, therefore, taken note of subsequent decisions of this Court on the issue of condonation of delay.”

It is settled principle of law that the finding of facts recorded by the State Commission in Appeal, cannot be interfered with in exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction unless the said finding has been recorded by misreading of evidence, materials on record or ignoring them or it is contrary to the law laid down in this regard by higher court of law.  In the present case, the finding of the State Commission that the delay in filing the Appeal is to be condoned, is based on appreciation of evidence and material on record.  It does not suffer from misreading of evidence or ignoring any material on record.  It is not contrary to the law laid down by the higher court of law.

The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the State Commission condoning the delay in filing the Appeal, does not call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 18.05.2022 passed by the State Commission is upheld and the Revision Petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.