Sarita Bhatnagar vs YOGENDER SHARMA

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04 -09 -2013 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 821/2013 - Smt. Sarita Bhatnagar Vs. Yogender Sharma by which appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 27 -06 -2013 dismissed complaint and further observed that if there is any dispute with regard to agreement in question, same can be adjudicated before the competent civil court. Complainant filed appeal before State Commission and during course of hearing, complainant withdrew appeal, so appeal was dismissed, against which this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay of 261 days.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of serious illness, petitioner could not approach the counsel and delay occurred in filing revision petition. Petitioner has annexed medical certificates and in such circumstances, for the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing revision petition stands condoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal though claim was maintainable before consumer Fora, hence revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record reveals that District Forum observed that dispute with regard to agreement in question can be adjudicated before the competent civil court. During course of arguments before State Commission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dispute of this nature will not fall within jurisdiction of District Forum and he will approach civil court in this regard and withdrew the appeal. Learned State Commission further observed that petitioner may claim benefit of limitation for the period spent before consumer Fora.

PERUSAL of impugned order nowhere reveals that State Commission directed petitioner to withdraw the appeal but order makes it crystal clear that petitioner ''s counsel himself withdrew the appeal as he felt that such dispute cannot be adjudicated by consumer Fora. In the revision petition, it is wrongly mentioned that State Commission passed order on an erroneous and misconceived interpretation on the applicability of law and allowed issues of the respondent. State Commission has not discussed any merits in the impugned order but appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Nowhere in the revision petition it has been pleaded that counsel for the petitioner not prayed for withdrawal of appeal and in such circumstances revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.