AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 177 of 2013 - General Manager, Sawai Madhopur Co -op. Consumer Whole Sale Bhandar Ltd. Vs. Ravindra Singh Jadaun by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant filed complaint before District forum with an allegation that complainant/respondent deposited Rs.88,000/ - with OP/petitioner for taking delivery of wheat for disbursement to BPL, but wheat was not delivered. OP was proceeded ex -parte and learned District forum allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.88,000/ - along with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.2,000/ - as compensation and Rs.1,000/ - as cost of litigation. Later on, OP filed application on 9.2.2012 for recall of the order dated 1.4.2011 allowing complaint, but that application was dismissed by order dated 31.12.2012. Petitioner filed appeal before State Commission challenging both the orders along with application for condonation of 658 days delay. Learned State Commission dismissed appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation as well as on merits; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.
LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, there was no delay in filing appeal, but learned State Commission wrongly dismissed appeal as barred by limitation. Perusal of record reveals that District Forum proceeded ex -parte against OP and passed ex -parte order on 1.4.2011. OP moved application dated 9.2.2012 for recalling order dated 1.4.2011 and submitted that as complainant filed one petition before Permanent Lok Adalat and another complaint before District Forum and OP on account of excessive work treated both the matters one and the same so could not get information about ex -parte proceedings. Learned District Forum rightly dismissed application for recalling the order as District forum had no jurisdiction to recall its ex -parte order.
IN the application for condonation of delay filed before State Commission, petitioner submitted that petitioner came to know about ex -parte order first time on 11.1.2012 when notice u/s 27 of C.P. Act was received by him. On the other hand, in review application, he submitted that on account of excessive work and on the understanding that both the matters were pending before District forum and Permanent Lok Adalat were one and the same, he did not appear before District forum. Thus, it becomes clear that he has taken contradictory stand before the District Forum and the State Commission and in such circumstances, learned State Commission rightly dismissed application for condonation of delay of 658 days.
WE do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdiction error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.
AMOUNT deposited by the petitioner with the District Forum in pursuance to order dated 26.8.2013 may be refunded to him.