AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IT is opposite party who is appellant before us.
ON a complaint filed by the complainant-respondent, who had purchased ten corporate memberships at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per membership totalling Rs. 8.00 lakhs from the appellant. State Commission by order dated 24.9.1997 directed the appellant to pay the amount of Rs. 8.00 lakhs with interest to the complainant. Rs. 5,000/- was also awarded as cost. Appellant did not choose to file any appeal against that order. Complainant thereafter took execution proceedings and by order dated 29.10.1999 State Commission allowed the complainant to approach the Criminal Court for conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It may be noted that the order in execution was passed by the State Commission as the Karnataka High Court had taken the view that Section 27 is not a valid piece of legislation. We were told that the appeal against that order of the High Court is pending before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. However, after the order was made on 29.10.1999 on the application filed by the complainant in execution, earlier order dated 24.9.1997 had not been complied, appellant, it appears filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, it being Writ Petition No. 29881/2000. This was disposed of by order dated 22nd February, 2001 of the High Court whereby it was held that it was open to the appellant ''to file an appeal before the National Consumer Forum under Section 19 of the Act. It was also observed that the appellant is ''entitled to plead before the Appellate Authority when they seek for condonation of delay in filing the appeal that they were adjudicating the matter before this Court''. After the order of the High Court this appeal was filed on 11.4.2001. An application seeking condonation of delay was filed only on 14.11.2002. The Act provides 30 days for filing appeal. Even after the order of the High Court appeal was filed after more than 30 days of that order. That apart the order on merit of the controversy was made on 24.9.1997. That order was challenged in the High Court after the order dated 29.10.1999 was made in execution. No explanation is being offered as to why the order dated 24.9.1997 of the State Commission was not challenged in the National Commission within 30 days of passing of the order. That being the position and the order becoming final there was no way out to execute the order and to approach the State Commission again. That order passed in execution was also barred by limitation. We see no ground to condone the delay.
It was then submitted on merit also that this case went against the decision of the National Commission in the case of Dalmia Resorts International (P.) Ltd. v. Dr. Ranjana Gupta, I (1997) CPJ 63 (NC). That decision has been differentiated by the State Commission. Lastly, it may also be noticed that the appellant remained ex parte before the State Commission in spite of service.
THERE is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed both on the ground of limitation as well as merit. Appeal dismissed.