Arvind Chhabra vs B.S.Tibrewal

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/opposite party against the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 2308 of 2010 - Arvind Chhabra & Vishwanath Yadav Vs. B.S. Tibrewal by which, appeal was dismissed being time barred.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 26.3.2009 allowing complaint directed OP to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a., awarded Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,00/- for cost of the proceedings. OP/Petitioners filed appeal before learned State Commission after 37 days of period of limitation and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal as barred by limitation for non-filing of application for condonation of delay against which, this revision petition has been filed. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned District Forum passed ex-parte order against the petitioner and in such circumstances, delay of 37 days should have been condoned by learned State Commission and has committed error in dismissing appeal as time barred, hence, revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record reveals that ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner by learned District Forum. Appeal was filed by the petitioner before learned State Commission with delay of 37 days. No application for condonation of delay was filed along with appeal. Petitioner was granted time to file application for condoantion of delay on 8.12.2011, 10.1.2012, 27.2.2012 and 7.3.2012, but no application for condonation of delay was filed by the petitioner and none appeared for the petitioner on 24.4.2012 before learned State Commission. In such circumstances, learned State Commission dismissed appeal as barred by limitation. On account of failure to file application for condonation of delay, there was no option before the learned State Commission except to dismiss the appeal, which was barred by limitation. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional 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 cost.