MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs VEENA KUMARI

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ''the State Commission'') in MA No.MA/14/269 in Revision Petition No.RP/14/108 - The Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Vs. Ms. Veena Kumari by which, revision petition was dismissed as barred by limitation.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum which was admitted by District forum on 25.3.2014 and notice was issued to OP/petitioner for submitting arguments on 15.5.2014 against which, appeal was filed by OP before State Commission along with application for condonation of delay of 90 days.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as learned State Commission treated appeal as revision petition, there was no delay in filing revision petition before State Commission and learned State Commission committed error in dismissing revision petition as barred by 90 days; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back to the learned State Commission for disposal on merits. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as OP wrongly mentioned about knowledge of order on 9.6.2014, order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

Perusal of record reveals that learned District forum vide order dated 25.3.2014 admitted complaint and notice was issued to OP for submitting arguments. It is very strange to note that matter was fixed for hearing arguments instead of filing written statement and evidence.

Learned State Commission rightly observed that OP was having knowledge of order dated 25.3.2014 on or before 12.5.2014. Perusal of record further reveals that copy of notice issued by District Forum was received by OP on 4.4.2014, meaning thereby, OP was aware about order dated 25.3.2014 on 4.4.2014 and OP has wrongly mentioned in appeal/revision filed before State Commission that he came to know about the order dated 25.3.2014 on 9.6.2014.

Now, the question arises whether there was delay of 90 days in filing revision petition. Admittedly, revision was filed on 23.7.2014 and as per record, OP came to know about order dated 25.3.2014 on 4.4.2014. OP was required to file revision petition in 90 days. Perusal of record further reveals that OP applied for copy of order dated 25.3.2014 on 12.6.2014, which was received by OP on 25.7.2014. In such circumstances, this period of 13 days is to be excluded from the period of limitation provided for filing revision petition. Thus, it becomes clear that OP should have filed revision petition by 16.7.2014, but revision petition has been filed on 23.7.2014, meaning thereby, there was delay of only 7 days in filing revision petition and there was no delay of 90 days in filing revision petition and learned State Commission should have condoned delay in filing revision petition in view of the latest judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court - (1) Civil Appeal Nos. 10120-10121 of 2014 - Jeevanti Devi Vs. Commercial Motors & Anr., (2) Civil Appeal No. (s) 10289 of 2014 - A.T.S. Govindarajane Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (3) Civil Appeal No. 5071 of 2014 - Taipen Traders Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Bhawani Cold Storage & Ors. by which, delay of 135 days, 149 days and 218 days, respectively, in filing revision petition was condoned.

Learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on judgments of Hon''ble Apex Court in Hon''ble Apex Court in (2012) 3 SCC 563 - Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. and C.A. No. 5428 of 2013 - Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra in which it was observed that condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments and offering usual explanation that file was kept pending due to procedural red tape, delay of 427 and 401 days respectively in aforesaid cases was not condoned. Aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as there was delay of only 7 days in filing revision petition before learned State Commission.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and order dated 14.1.2015 passed by the learned State Commission in MA No.MA/14/269 in Revision Petition No.RP/14/108 - The Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority Vs. Ms. Veena Kumari is set aside and delay of 7 days in filing revision petition is condoned and matter is remanded back to the learned State Commission for deciding the matter on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned State Commission on 10.08.2015.