Rajesh Gupta And Anr vs Rajesh Kumar Sharma

Avm J. Rajendra, Avsm Vsm (Retd.), Presiding Member

This Revision Petition No.2331 of 2023 is filed challenging the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (‘State Commission’) dated 16.08.2023 wherein the Application being IA/1699/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeal No. FA 363/2023 was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant failed to sufficiently demonstrate reasons for 289 days delay.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material available on record.

Learned Counsel for petitioners asserted that the State Commission erred while dismissing the Appeal on account of delay of 289 days in filing the same. This delay of 289 days was neither intentional nor mala-fide, rather bona fide due to the reasons stated in the Application seeking condonation of delay and the same ought to have been condoned and the First Appeal ought to have been decided on merits as the Petitioner has a good case on merits.  He has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Raheem Shah & Anr. Vs. Govind Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.4628 of 2023, decided on 24.07.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

(ii) Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.4758 of 2023, decided on 24.07.2023 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent argued in favour of the impugned orders passed by the Fora Below. He sought the Revision Petition be dismissed with costs.

In the Application seeking condonation of delay filed before the learned State Commission, the Petitioners mainly raised the following grounds:

“1. The appellant has filled this against the order dated 07.09.2022, received by the District Consumer Disputes Commission in C. C NO 209/18.

That for the sake of brevity the contents of the accompanying Appeal are not being reproduced herein. The applicant prays to this Hon'ble court that the contents of the said petition be allowed to be read & referred to as part and parcel of the present application.

That the Respondent had concealed the fact from the Ld. District Consumer forum by not disclosing the fact that the refund of Rs. 70,000/- had already been credited in the account of Respondent for the assessment year of 2014-2015 and the same also reflected in his status of Income Tax Refund dated 28.12.2020 (Copy of the same has been annexed herewith), much before passing of the impugned order and judgment.

That as per the notice received on 02.03.2023 the appellants got to know regarding the proceedings against them and after enquired about the same this fact came into the knowledge of the appellants that the summons were sent on email id of the appellant, which email might missed by the appellants as in the year 2021-2023 the appellant no.2 was diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment from Apollo Hospital and the appellant no.1 was looking after his wife, due to which all their work and life got affected. In these circumstances, the appellants could not appear before the Ld. District Forum and were proceeded ex parte.

That the new counsel applied for the certified copies of all the records and thereafter application was filed before the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nand Nagri.

That in view of the above mentioned present case, facts and circumstances of the present case, it is therefore prayed to condone delay of 289 days in filing of the appeal which is not deliberate or malafide in the interest of justice.

Any other and further relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the present case, may also be granted in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.”

Considering the submissions made and facts and circumstances of the case, as also, the reasons given in the Application, the delay in filing the Appeal before the State Commission is condoned, subject to the Petitioners paying Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the Respondent, namely, Rajesh Kumar Sharma by way of a demand draft, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.08.2023 is set aside and the Appeal No.363 of 2023 is restored to its original number before the State Commission and the learned State Commission is requested to decide the Appeal as per law.

Consequently, Revision Petition No. 2331 of 2023 is allowed.

All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

All parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 30.07.2024. The Petitioners are directed to file the proof of payment of cost before the State Commission on that date.