G. Suseela vs P.L. Chary, M.S.

BEING aggrieved by impugned order dated 10.7.2013, passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short, ''State Commission ''), Petitioners/Complainants have filed the present petition under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ''Act '').

BRIEF facts are that Shri V.S. Prasad -Complainant (since deceased) filed a consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Act against the Respondents/Opposite Parties alleging medical negligence on their part. The complaint was contested by the respondents who filed their respective written statements before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, Hyderabad (for short, ''District Forum '').

ON 30.8.2011, the District Forum dismissed the complaint as there was no representation on behalf of complainant.

AGGRIEVED by the order of District Forum, present petitioners (who are legal heirs of the deceased complainant) filed an appeal before the State Commission. Alongwith it, an application seeking condonation of delay of 430 days was also filed which was accompanied by the affidavit of petitioners '' counsel, namely Shri N. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate. The State Commission was of the considered view that explanation given by the petitioners was not reasonable and believable and also was not sufficient. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed. With the result, the appeal was also rejected.

HENCE , this present petition.

WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also summoned the original record of both the fora below and gone through the same. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that State Commission had failed to consider the just explanation given in the application seeking condonation of delay in representing the appeal. It is further contended that the delay which has occurred in representing the appeal before the State Commission is not attributable to the petitioners and it had only occurred due to inadvertence of the Advocate. In support, petitioners have relied upon following judgments of the Apex Court; i) N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123 and ii) G. Ramegowda, Major and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, 1988) 2 SCC 142.

ALONGWITH present revision, petitioners have filed an application seeking permission to file additional documents.

THE documents which petitioners now want to place before this Commission, pertain to the period ranging from August, 2011 to October, 2011. All these documents were in existence when the impugned order was passed. There is no explanation as to why these documents were not filed before the State Commission. Moreover, no reason whatsoever has been given in the application seeking permission to file these additional documents. Accordingly, application for filing additional documents stand rejected. Admittedly, the complaint filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the District Forum, since on the date of hearing before the District Forum the complainants were not present.

THE State Commission has non -suited the petitioners on the ground that there was delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before it. In the entire application for condonation of delay, it had been nowhere mentioned as to when and how the petitioners, got the knowledge of the impugned order.

THE State Commission in its impugned order has observed; ''''1. The petition is filed seeking condonation of delay of 430 days in representing the revision petition on the premise that the returned bundle was misplaced with the disposed of bundles in the office and they could not be traced it and on 2.12.2012 when the petitioner was shifting the disposed bundles they traced the bundle and in the process delay of 430 days has occasioned.

The respondent has resisted the petition and denied the statement of the petitioner that bundle was mixed with the disposed bundles. The petitioner failed to explain the reasons for non -resubmission from the period 2.12.2012 to 7.3.2013 and in the absence of the same, the petitioner is prayed for, to be rejected.

The point for consideration is whether the delay in filing appeal deserves to be condoned? 4. The petitioner has stated that on account of mixing of bundle with the disposed bundles, the bundle could not be traced till 2.12.2012. The counsel for the respondent has contended that the petitioner has not explained the reasons for delay in resubmitting the revision petition ''''.

It further observed; ''''8. The discretion conferred on this court is a judicial discretion and is exercised to advance justice and even if there is a strong cause for acceptance of the appeal that would not be a ground for condoning the delay. Consumer Protection Act provides for speedy redressal to consumer disputes. The delay cannot be allowed to occur in a routine way and sufficient cause should be made out with specific reasons given supported by material; and that the discretion for entertaining the appeals filed beyond the period allowed will not be exercised in a light and routine manner.

In ''''Abdul Hafeez Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad '''', II(2013) CPJ 285 (NC), the Hon''ble National Commission held: ''''9. Hon''ble Apex Court in I (2012) CLT 338 (SC)= II (2012) SLT 312 =(2012) 3 SCC 563, Post Master General and Ors. V. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. has not condoned delay in filing appeal even by Government department and further observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government department. ''''

This Commission is of considered view that the explanation tendered by the petitioner company is not reasonable and believable. The explanation for condoning the delay in filing the appeal is not sufficient. For the foregoing reasons the petition is liable to be dismissed. ''''

We fully agree with the reasoning given by the State Commission that there was delay of 430 days in filing the appeal before it. Moreover, the conduct of the petitioners is so negligent, that firstly, they did not pursue their complaint before the District Forum in a diligent manner, since their complaint was dismissed for non -appearance. Even thereafter, complainants did not become wiser and filed the appeal before the State Commission in a very careless and casual manner with a delay of 430 days. Moreover, a valuable right has accrued in the favour of the respondents which cannot be taken away due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioners.

UNDER these circumstances, State Commission rightly refused to condone the long delay of 430 days.

ACCORDINGLY , we do not find any illegality or infirmity in impugned order passed by the State Commission. Since, there is no merit in this revision petition, the same stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

ORIGINAL record of both the fora below be sent back forthwith.