GOPNARYAN DAS S/O. LT. SATYA NARAYAN DAS vs MANOJ KUMAR NAYAK & ANR.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 02.09.2009 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the District Forum dated 22.01.2009 was dismissed as barred by limitation. Since there is a delay of more than seven years in filing the revision petition, an application seeking condonation of delay has also been filed on the ground that the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition before the Odisha High Court challenging the order of the State Commission, but the said writ petition though initially admitted, came to be dismissed on 02.05.2017. (2) The application which the petitioner had filed before the State Commission seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, to the extent it is relevant reads as under:-

"1. That the petitioners have filed appeal before this Commission u/s. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act on the event of getting certified copy of the award dated 20.01.2009 in Consumer Dispute Case No. 119/2007 which has been disposed of on 20.01.2009 and award has been passed against present appellant. The copy has been delivered on 07.04.2009.

That the appellant had no deliberate latches and under impression to get free copy of the order but since no free copy was supplied by the C.D.R.F., Bhadrak, certified copy was applied on 12.02.2009 and which has been supplied on 07.04.2009 as such the delay caused."

The affidavit annexed to the application was sworn by one Mr. Kanduri Charan Das, Secretary-cum-Chief Executive of Balasore Mercantile Co-operative Ltd.

(3) It is evident from the perusal of the application filed before the State Commission for condonation of delay that the certified copy of the order passed by the District Forum had been delivered on 07.04.2009. The appeal ought to have been preferred at best within a one month on the date on which the certified copy was received. The appeal however was preferred on 28.07.2009. The application contained absolutely no explanation for the delay between the date on which the prescribed period of limitation expired i.e. 07.05.2009 and the date on which the appeal was actually filed before the State Commission. In the absence of any explanation at all for the said delay, the State Commission was justified in dismissing the appeal and consequently dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation.

Yet another material aspect of the matter is that the order by the District Forum came to be passed in January 2009. More than 8 ? years have already expired since the aforesaid order was passed.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be appropriate for this Commission to interfere with the order passed by the Fora below, after such a delay of 8 1/2 years, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.