M/S. Religare Securities Ltd vs Om Singh Deswal

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. FA/10/129 - M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. Vs. Om Singh Deswal by which, appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum for directing OP to compensate loss of Rs.6,07,539/- with interest and Rs.3,00,000/- as mental compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation charges. OP was proceeded ex-parte by the District Forum and after hearing complainant, learned District Forum allowed the complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissed as barred by limitation. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after restoration of the complaint by District Forum, in absence of petitioner, no fresh notice to the petitioner was given for further proceedings and learned District Forum committed error in proceeding ex-parte and in allowing complaint. It was further submitted that learned State Commission has committed error in dismissing appeal as barred by limitation; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record of District Forum reveals that on 19.3.2009, complaint was dismissed in default of the complainant and complainant filed restoration application before the District Forum. Notices were issued to OP/petitioner for 21.5.2009 and on that date, as OP did not appear, restoration application was allowed and simultaneously, OP was proceeded ex-parte and after recording ex-parte evidence, the order allowing complaint was passed by learned District Forum. Petitioner challenged the order dated 21.5.2009 and final order dated 10.7.2009 before Hon ''ble Delhi High Court and on 9.12.2009 petitioner did not press prayer with regard to quashing the order dated 10.7.2009 and sought liberty to take appropriate remedy under the law and vide order dated 16.12.2009, writ petition was dismissed being infructuous. By the order dated 21.5.2009, complaint was restored by learned District Forum, which order was upheld by the Hon ''ble Delhi High Court; though, as per judgment of the Hon ''ble Apex Court in IV (2011) CPJ 35 (SC) - Rajeev Hitendra Pathak & Ors. Vs. AchyutKashinath Karekar & Anr. , District Forum and State Commission have no power to review its order.

PRAYER for quashing the final order dated 10.7.2009 was withdrawn by petitioner and Hon ''ble High Court allowed that prayer and in pursuance to the order dated 9.12.2009, petitioner filed appeal before the learned State Commission on 10.2.2010 and learned State Commission dismissed the appeal as barred by 30 days.

NO doubt, appeal should have been filed by the petitioner before the learned State Commission within time and appeal has been filed after 30 days with application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act and submitted that after passing of the order by Hon ''ble High Court, on account of winter vacations, Counsel of the petitioner went out of station and by the time his counsel returned back, the case slipped out of petitioner ''s mind, which caused delay in filing appeal. No doubt, it is not a reasonable ground for condonation of delay, but as ex-parte judgment has been pronounced by learned District Forum against the principles of natural justice without notice to the petitioner, learned State Commission should have condoned delay of 30 days in filing appeal and decided appeal on merits. Notices for 21.5.2009 were issued by learned District Forum only regarding restoration of the complaint and in the absence of OP/petitioner when District Forum allowed restoration application and restored complaint, apparently, District Forum should have issued notices for further proceedings to the OP. Apparently, learned District Forum has committed error and should not have proceeded ex-parte simultaneously with restoration of complaint.

IN the light of aforesaid discussion, we deem it proper to condone the delay of 30 days in filing appeal before learned State Commission subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent and remand the matter back to the State Commission for disposal of appeal on merits.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and impugned order dated 28.4.2010 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. FA/10/129 - M/s. Religare Securities Ltd. Vs. Om Singh Deswal is set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent and remand the matter back to the State Commission for deciding appeal on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. Parties are directed to appear before the Learned State Commission, Delhi on 12.8.2013.