Ajay Rana vs SHAGUN

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.6.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 215/2013 - Ajay Rana Vs. Ms. Shagun by which, appeal under Section 27 -A was dismissed as barred by 1245 days.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and by order dated 21.08.2009, District Forum allowed complaint and directed OP to refund Rs.6,700/ - and further awarded Rs.50,000/ - as compensation and Rs.2500/ - as costs. OP did not comply the directions and complainant filed petition under Section 27 of the C.P. Act for not complying the order. Learned District Forum vide order dated 23.12.2009 sentenced OP to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.10,000/ -. OP filed appeal along with application for condonation of delay and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal as barred by limitation 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 on account of compromise entered between the parties, petitioner could not file appeal within time and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and delay in filing appeal be condoned. 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 has drawn our attention towards compromise dated 9.11.2012 entered between the parties which run as under: ''''3. ....., the matter has been compromised between the parties of First Part and Second Part with their full and final settlement amounting to Rs.75,000/ - with the DD No. 000797 vide dated 08.11.2012 with their sound mind free will and without any undue pressure and in the presence of witnesses mentioned below. 4. That now the partly of Second Part on the basis of this compromise deed will withdraw the same execution pending before the Consumer Court -II, UT, Chandigarh and will further have no recovery or any kind of entitlement against the party of First Part if thus said DD paid to the party of Second Part is encashed and similarly the party of First Part undertakes the encashment of the said DD presented to the party of Second Part and in case any party resile from performing their duties as per this compromise deed, this deed will have no further entitlement against each other and party of First Part reserves its rights against recovery of Rs.75,000/ - along with interest which is as paid to the party of Second Part in view of this compromise deed. This deed further WITNESSED AS : - Party of IInd Part will withdraw the execution pending before consumer Court -II, U.T., Chandigarh on the encashment of the said DD. And similarly party of second undertakes for the encashment of the said DD given to the party of Second Part and further also reserves its rights against the recovery of Rs.75,000/ - if in case the party of Second Part resiles from this compromise deed ''''.

The aforesaid compromise has not been disputed by Counsel for the respondent. Perusal of compromise reveals that Rs.75,000/ - has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent and as per compromise, respondent was to withdraw the execution proceedings pending before Consumer Forum, but respondent has not withdrawn execution proceedings. In such circumstances, petitioner filed Revision Petition along with application for condonation of delay of 1245 days.

NO doubt, there is inordinate delay of 1245 days in filing appeal, but it has clearly been written in the application for condonation of delay that he took time for arranging money and paid Rs.75,000/ - in lump sum to the complainant and compromise deed was executed between the parties. Looking to the compromise between the parties, respondent should have withdrawn execution proceedings pending before District Forum, but as he has not withdrawn execution proceedings, petitioner was compelled to file appeal against the order along with application for condonation of delay. Looking to the compromise between the parties and respondent ''s undertaking to withdraw execution proceedings, learned State Commission should have allowed application for condonation of delay.

IN the light of above discussion, we deem it proper to allow this Revision Petition and allow application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before State Commission subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/ - to respondent so that matter may be decided on merits. Consequently, Revision Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 3.6.2013 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 215/2013 - Ajay Rana Vs. Ms. Shagun is set aside and application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner before State Commission is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/ - as cost to respondent on or before the next date before the State Commission and learned State Commission is directed to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

PARTIES are directed to appear before State Commission on 8.7.2014.