AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 25.10.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur Bench no.1 ('the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 1048 of 2017.
The brief facts of the case are that respondent nos.1 and 2 filed a Consumer Complaint against the OPs for not giving the maturity amount of FDs which were issued by OP no. 1 and were purchased through OP no.2. OP no.2 is the present petitioner herein, who did not file the written statement before the District Forum, however, later on filed their written submissions. The District Forum vide its order dated 06.03.2017 allowed the complaint and directed both the OPs jointly and severally to pay the maturity amount of the FDs.
The petitioner/ opposite party no.2 filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 25.10.2017 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as there was delay of 152 days.
Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that against the order dated 06.03.2017 of the District Forum, a revision petition was filed before the State Commission which was later on dismissed as not being maintainable on 22.08.2017 and then this appeal was filed. In the application for condonation of delay an averment was made that as per section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay may be condoned as the matter was pending before the State Commission in the Revision Petition. However, the State Commission did not agree to the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed.
Hence, the present revision petition has been filed.
It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been heard on merit either, before the District Forum or before the State Commission. The petitioner was only a facilitator and had no control over the finances collected through fixed deposit. FDs were issued by OP no.1/ respondent no. 3. It was requested that the matter may be remanded to the District Forum so that the defence of the petitioner could be put forward before the District Forum.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2/ complainants states that even the revision petition before the State Commission was filed beyond the period of limitation and even the certified copy was only collected in June 2017, whereas, the order was passed on 06.03.2017. The State Commission has observed that there is no justification given for this delay. It was stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner was present on both the dates, i.e., on 30.01.2017 and 06.03.2017, however, it has been stated that the counsel had noted the wrong date. The State Commission had also observed various malafides on the part of the petitioner herein which speaks of the conduct of the petitioner. Since the District Forum has already given its decision on merit therefore, particularly, it will be futile to remand the matter to the District Forum.
I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Without going into the details of delay, it is clear that the petitioner has not got an opportunity to advance his arguments for his defence. It also a fact that earlier revision petition was filed against the order dated 06.03.2017 of the District Forum and the appeal was only filed after the revision petition was dismissed by the State Commission as not being maintainable. There is some explanation for the delay however, it is clear that the petitioner has not acted diligently in prosecution of its case. As the petitioner has not got any opportunity to put forward his case on merit though the petitioner is responsible to some extent for this lapse, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the State Commission after condoning the delay of 152 days so that the matter may be considered on merit by the State Commission at a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to respondent nos.1 and 2/ complainants. Cost be paid before the State Commission. Accordingly, the order of the State Commission dated 25.10.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the State Commission for restoring the appeal to its original number and to decide the appeal on merit after the cost has been paid to the complainant.
Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 6th August 2019. As the matter is already an old one, State Commission will make an endeavour to decide this matter within a period of six months.